Network contracts constitute an institutional instrument which can be used by individual entrepreneurs for cost-effectiveness, thus making their companies more competitive on the market, in light of the fact that business networks can enable network operators to achieve business objectives that may not be easily achievable individually, while at the same time preserving a high degree of autonomy and individuality. The limited regulatory frameworks currently governing network contracts, along with the high level of autonomy granted to the parties in defining such agreements, can enable network operators to integrate basic contract contents with clauses that contribute to regulating their relationships in greater detail. Hence, there is no ruling out that they may also choose to include a clause providing that, should any dispute arise - either at a national and international level - an arbitrator may be used as an alternative to ordinary dispute resolution procedures. On the other hand, lawmakers have so far made no provisions regarding the methods for solving such disputes. Arbitration, particularly as an alternative means of solving disputes, allows the parties to choose an arbitrator, i.e. an impartial third party with specific expertise, charged with solving such disputes. Arbitrators therefore serve the same functions as administrative court judges. It is worth remarking that the success of network contracts can also rely on the provision of legal norms of a jurisdictional nature which contribute, together with other instruments such as fiscal discipline and other forms of incentives to businesses, to codifying the forms of collaboration and coordination agreed on and chosen by all the network operators. Due to its specific distinctive features, arbitration can on the other hand be "bent" to more effectively meet the needs of the parties who resort to it, allowing for greater speed in the resolution of any disputes.
Il contratto di rete rappresenta un istituto cui il singolo imprenditore può ricorrere per ridurre i costi e per rendere più competitiva sul mercato la propria azienda, posto che il network tra le imprese consente ai retisti di raggiungere obiettivi imprenditoriali non facilmente raggiungibili uti singuli, pur mantenendo inalterata la propria autonomia e la propria individualità. La scarna disciplina del contratto di rete, connessa all’ampia autonomia riconosciuta alle parti nella definizione dello stesso, apre ai retisti la possibilità di integrare il contenuto base del contratto con clausole che contribuiscano a disciplinare in maniera più dettagliata i propri rapporti. Nulla esclude, quindi, che le stesse possano inserire anche una clausola con la quale sia previsto che, nell’insorgenza di controversie – in ambito nazionale e internazionale – possa ricorrersi, in alternativa alla procedura ordinaria di risoluzione della controversia, all’arbitro. D’altro canto, il legislatore nulla ha disposto in merito alle modalità di risoluzione di tali controversie. L’arbitrato, quale mezzo alternativo di risoluzione delle controversie, in particolare, consente alle parti di scegliere un arbitro, soggetto terzo ed imparziale, con competenza specializzata, preposto alla risoluzione delle controversie, che svolga la medesima funzione riconosciuta ai giudici togati all’amministrazione della giustizia. Va considerato, infatti, che il successo del contratto di rete può passare anche attraverso la previsione di regole giuridiche di carattere giurisdizionale che concorrano, insieme ad altri strumenti quali la disciplina fiscale ed altre forme di incentivo alle imprese, a dare concretezza alle forme di collaborazione e coordinamento prescelte dai retisti. In ragione delle caratteristiche che gli sono proprie, l’arbitrato, d’altro canto, può essere “piegato” a servizio delle necessità dei soggetti che ne fanno ricorso, consentendo maggiore celerità nella risoluzione delle eventuali controversie.
L'arbitrato e i contratti di rete / Marinelli, Susanna. - (2024 Mar).
L'arbitrato e i contratti di rete
MARINELLI, SUSANNA
2024-03-01
Abstract
Network contracts constitute an institutional instrument which can be used by individual entrepreneurs for cost-effectiveness, thus making their companies more competitive on the market, in light of the fact that business networks can enable network operators to achieve business objectives that may not be easily achievable individually, while at the same time preserving a high degree of autonomy and individuality. The limited regulatory frameworks currently governing network contracts, along with the high level of autonomy granted to the parties in defining such agreements, can enable network operators to integrate basic contract contents with clauses that contribute to regulating their relationships in greater detail. Hence, there is no ruling out that they may also choose to include a clause providing that, should any dispute arise - either at a national and international level - an arbitrator may be used as an alternative to ordinary dispute resolution procedures. On the other hand, lawmakers have so far made no provisions regarding the methods for solving such disputes. Arbitration, particularly as an alternative means of solving disputes, allows the parties to choose an arbitrator, i.e. an impartial third party with specific expertise, charged with solving such disputes. Arbitrators therefore serve the same functions as administrative court judges. It is worth remarking that the success of network contracts can also rely on the provision of legal norms of a jurisdictional nature which contribute, together with other instruments such as fiscal discipline and other forms of incentives to businesses, to codifying the forms of collaboration and coordination agreed on and chosen by all the network operators. Due to its specific distinctive features, arbitration can on the other hand be "bent" to more effectively meet the needs of the parties who resort to it, allowing for greater speed in the resolution of any disputes.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.