The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration
The Prague Rules are intended to provide efficiency and reduce costs in conducting arbitration proceedings. The Rules are based on the position that the practice and procedure of international arbitration is too heavily influenced by the adversarial system found in common law jurisdictions, an...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7882636 |
| Source: | THEMIS: Revista de Derecho, ISSN 1810-9934, Nº. 77, 2020 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Arbitraje), pags. 367-377 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001451071
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
THEMIS: Revista de Derecho, ISSN 1810-9934, Nº. 77, 2020 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Arbitraje), pags. 367-377
|
| language |
English
|
| topic |
Prague Rules
IBA Rules evidence decision-making civil procedure rules due process Reglas de Praga Reglas de la IBA prueba toma de decisiones normas procesales civiles debido proceso |
| spellingShingle |
Prague Rules
IBA Rules evidence decision-making civil procedure rules due process Reglas de Praga Reglas de la IBA prueba toma de decisiones normas procesales civiles debido proceso Stephens-Chu, Gisèle Teynier, Camille The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration |
| description |
The Prague Rules are intended to provide
efficiency and reduce costs in conducting
arbitration proceedings. The Rules are based on
the position that the practice and procedure of
international arbitration is too heavily influenced
by the adversarial system found in common law
jurisdictions, and that the inquisitorial judicial
practices of civil law jurisdictions are more
conducive to a “streamlined procedure”.
In this paper, the authors first consider whether
this predicate is accurate and fair. Are adversarial
practices the source of inefficiency in international
arbitration, or can the reasons be found elsewhere?
Next, they compare certain features of the Prague
Rules to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence,
and examine how both sets of rules differ in
substance. Moreover, they address the criticisms
that the Prague Rules may pose yet another
case of useless rule-making. In fact, the authors
critically assess the consequences of an active role
of arbitral tribunals in case management and the
appropriateness of a controlled use of documentary
production, witness evidence (particularly in oral
testimony) and appointment of experts.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Stephens-Chu, Gisèle
Teynier, Camille |
| author_facet |
Stephens-Chu, Gisèle
Teynier, Camille |
| author_sort |
Stephens-Chu, Gisèle
|
| title |
The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration
|
| title_short |
The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration
|
| title_full |
The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration
|
| title_fullStr |
The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration
|
| title_sort |
contribution of the prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitration
|
| publishDate |
2020
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7882636
|
| _version_ |
1709754275883646976
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00014510712021-04-29The contribution of the Prague rules to promoting efficiency in international arbitrationStephens-Chu, GisèleTeynier, CamillePrague RulesIBA Rulesevidencedecision-makingcivil procedure rulesdue processReglas de PragaReglas de la IBApruebatoma de decisionesnormas procesales civilesdebido procesoThe Prague Rules are intended to provide efficiency and reduce costs in conducting arbitration proceedings. The Rules are based on the position that the practice and procedure of international arbitration is too heavily influenced by the adversarial system found in common law jurisdictions, and that the inquisitorial judicial practices of civil law jurisdictions are more conducive to a “streamlined procedure”. In this paper, the authors first consider whether this predicate is accurate and fair. Are adversarial practices the source of inefficiency in international arbitration, or can the reasons be found elsewhere? Next, they compare certain features of the Prague Rules to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence, and examine how both sets of rules differ in substance. Moreover, they address the criticisms that the Prague Rules may pose yet another case of useless rule-making. In fact, the authors critically assess the consequences of an active role of arbitral tribunals in case management and the appropriateness of a controlled use of documentary production, witness evidence (particularly in oral testimony) and appointment of experts.Las Reglas de Praga están dedicadas a promover la eficiencia y a reducir los costos que suponen la conducción de los procedimientos arbitrales. Las Reglas se asientan sobre las tesis de que la práctica y el proceso del arbitraje internacional están fuertemente influenciados por el sistema adversarial sobre el que descansan las jurisdicciones del common law, y que las prácticas inquisitoriales de las jurisdicciones del civil law son más oportunas para un “proceso simplificado”. En este artículo, las autoras evalúan primero si esta afirmación es exacta y justa. ¿Las prácticas adversariales son la fuente de la ineficiencia en el arbitraje internacional o podemos encontrar razones en otro lado? A continuación, comparan determinadas disposiciones de las Reglas de Praga con las Reglas de la IBA sobre Práctica de Prueba e indagan cómo se diferencian ambos conjuntos de normas. De otro lado, examinan las críticas que señalan que las Reglas de Praga puedan suponer otro caso de reglamentación estéril. De hecho, se realiza una valoración crítica de las consecuencias del rol activo del tribunal arbitral en el manejo de casos y la pertinencia del uso restringido de la producción de prueba documental, la prueba testifical (especialmente en el testimonio oral) y la designación de peritos.2020text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7882636(Revista) ISSN 1810-9934THEMIS: Revista de Derecho, ISSN 1810-9934, Nº. 77, 2020 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Arbitraje), pags. 367-377engLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|