In Memoriam. Сборник воспоминаний, статей, иных материалов

S.L.: I don’t remember exactly what negotiations we had with the Chinese colleagues at that time. Maybe it was important that we made such an agreement with American Arbitration Association, yes, but we published many information about that agreement with Americans and it was influential for other countries at that time. I was an arbitrator in China, in Beijing, and it was interesting, it was a dispute between a Greek company and a Chinese company and the Greek company appointed me as arbitrator in that case. And I did not know that Greek company, never met them before, and during coffee break, I asked the lawyers from the Greek company, why they decided to choose me as arbitrator in that case, to which I had no relationship, and so on. And the answer was very interesting. They told me, I’m on the list of arbitrators in Chinese arbitration court, and a Greek lawyer told me “You know why? We looked through the list of arbitrators, and you were the only one from the country where the religion is good for us.” All of a sudden, of course, yeah, that was the reason why they used me. Not because I am an expert, no, that was of second importance. The first importance was orthodox religion, that was the most important for them.

M.B.: From your perspective, what were the most important elements of the optional clause agreement? What were the most important elements and what role has it played for international trade?

S.L.: There is a possibility to choose arbitrators in that case, to have arbitration in a certain place. That is an important element of each arbitration agreement. And so, the difficulty, when we consider that clause, the possibility was that if there was a contract between Soviet and American parties, what our company propose with regard to arbitration: “Let’s go to Moscow. Let’s have arbitration in Moscow.” And what American party says: “No, let’s have arbitration in New York, according to the rules of American Arbitration Association.” “Okay,” they say, “Let’s go to London.” “Oh, no, no, no, London and American law and practice are almost the same,” say our companies. “Let’s go to Bulgaria. Oh, you don’t like Bulgaria, let’s go to Hungarian Arbitration.” “Oh, no, let’s go to Vienna Arbitration,” and so on. What to do? It was a very difficult situation. And now there is a clause which is recommended by the Russian Chamber of Commerce on the one side, and the American Arbitration Association in the other side, and approved by the Swedish Arbitration Institute. So it is a good clause. So it is very good for you, for the parties. Put that into the contract. And it is very good, it is not something that the clause is very important by itself, it is just the possibility for the parties to resolve dispute, which is so obvious and very difficult to overcome. “Why,” Soviet company says, “Why we should go to New York?”. And the Americans say: “Why we should go to Moscow? No.” And how to overcome it. And it is a good instrument. So that was the most important reason why that clause was important. But otherwise it is done very well, and it is acceptable for both parties.

S.L.: I remember another arbitrator with whom we had arbitration for, I believe, 3 days. He came to our place of arbitration, said “Hello, hello, good morning, good morning,” and closed his eyes. And during the lunch time, he opened his eyes and we had lunch together. Then we resumed arbitration, he closed his eyes till the evening. And in the evening, he said “Thank you, thank you, thank you.” I cannot immediately recall his name. It was long ago. <…>

M.B.: We were talking about Gunnar Lagergren, Mr. Gunnar Lagergren. Can you recall any memories of him? Would you be willing to share them with us?