Normatividad procesal aplicable en el arbitraje internacional

The theory of the autonomy of the will of the parties has received wide recognition in national legal systems. With good faith, legality, and respect of international due process as the only requirements, the agreements and regulations on international commercial arbitration clearly establish that the parties can choose the applicable procedural law. The present regulatory situation in various states can be presented as two possibilities. In the first possibility, the contracting parties select the seat of international arbitration from within a legal system that adopts the criterion of geographical location. In the second possibility, the parties choose the seat of arbitration from within a legal system that adopts the view of the autonomy of the will of the parties. This paper purports to demonstrate the prevalence of contractual intent over the so-called lex arbitri at the transnational level.La teoría de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes ha recibido amplio reconocimiento en los ordenamientos jurídicos nacionales. Con la buena fe, la legalidad y el respeto del due process internacional como únicos requisitos, los convenios y reglamentos en materia de arbitraje comercial internacional establecen claramente que las partes pueden elegir por sí mismas el derecho aplicable al procedimiento. La situación normativa presente en los distintos Estados se puede resumir y clasificar en dos posibilidades. La primera consiste en que las partes contractuales fijan la sede del arbitraje internacional en un ordenamiento jurídico que adopta el criterio de la localización geográfica; la segunda radica en la posibilidad de seleccionar como sede del arbitraje un ordenamiento jurídico que adopta el criterio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes. El objetivo de este documento es demostrar la preponderancia de la voluntad contractual sobre la denominada lex arbitri en el plano transnacional

Agreeing to Disagree: Can We Just Have Words?, CISG Article 11 and the Model Law Writing Requirement

The success of the CISG in defining the terms by which businesspersons enter into international sales contracts could one day warrant a shift in the presumption against arbitration in the attendant dispute resolution

What is the proper scope of the power of an arbitral tribunal to issue an order restraining a party from pursuit of parallel proceedings in a national court?

The proper scope of tribunal-ordered anti-suit injunctions to combat parallel proceedings has been subject to much debate. Some have argued that arbitrators’ use of the injunctions requires restriction, while others argue that existing conditions and limitations are sufficient. This paper provides an outline of the sources from which arbitrators are empowered to order anti-suit injunctions, the development of the injunctions through cases, and the recent European Court of Justice decision in Gazprom. It briefly touches on court-ordered anti-suit injunctions, and the implications of the Brussels I Regulation for tribunal-ordered anti-suit injunctions. It concludes that the scope of anti-suit injunctions does not require further restriction. Reasons for this conclusion include the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law; commercial reasons; the need to prevent conflicting decisions; and the nature of arbitration as arising from private commercial arrangements between parties

ARBITRASE MERUPAKAN UPAYA HUKUM DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA DAGANG INTERNASIOANAL

Tujuan dilakukannya penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui apa saja kelebihan dan kekurangan dalam penyelesaian masalah melalui arbitrase dan bagaimana proses penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase.  Denagn menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, maka dapat disimpulkan, bahwa: 1. Arbitrase adalah cara penyelesaian suatu sengketa perdata di luar peradilan umum yang didasarkan pada perjanjian arbitrase yang dibuat secara tertulis oleh para pihak yang bersengketa. 2. Adanya perjanjian tertulis meniadakan hak para pihak untuk mengajukan penyelesaian sengketa atau beda pendapat yang termuat dalam perjanjiannya ke pengadilan negara. Kata kunci: Arbitrasi, Penyelesaian sengketa, Dagang internasiona

Harmonizing Arbitration: Clarity, Consistency, and Consent in the Application of Ex Aequo Et Bono

This article delves into the intricate dynamics surrounding the application of the ex aequo et bono principle in arbitration, addressing concerns arising from potential procedural challenges and deviations from justice principles amid the escalating popularity of arbitration. The study intricately navigates the legal complexities of this principle, centering on the interpretation of Article 56 of Law 30/1999. Specifically, it scrutinizes whether the article mandates parties' consent for the arbitrator to decide based on ex aequo et bono. Employing a normative legal research approach and utilizing legal hermeneutics with a structuralist focus, the research analyzes the interplay of written agreements, tacit understandings, and standard practices in arbitration. The article underscores the critical role of precise protocols and unequivocal agreements in safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of the arbitration process. It highlights the paramount need for clarity and consistency in legal provisions, advocating for collaborative efforts between legal authorities and arbitration institutions. This collaboration is essential for aligning statutory provisions and arbitration rules, ultimately fortifying a robust and dependable framework for the equitable resolution of conflicts. In conclusion, the article calls for a harmonized approach to address inconsistencies, enhance the legitimacy of arbitration decisions, and foster trust in the arbitration process. By exploring these challenges, the article contributes to the ongoing discourse of optimizing arbitration as a fair and efficient means of resolving international disputes