Abstract
International commercial arbitration has consolidated as a widespread dispute resolution mechanism for solving trans-border business conflicts around the world. This paper concentrates on central features that historically made arbitration very effective. In particular, it highlights the challenges of not losing sight of the cosmopolitan spirit that must guide parties and arbitrators, in light of recent developments.
This contribution draws upon the oral presentation made by its author at the Thematic Congress on Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Law held in Montevideo, Uruguay, on November 17 and 18 of 2016, organized by the International Academy of Comparative Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Arangio-Ruiz (1994), pp. 87–88.
- 2.
This was even institutionalized, when in Imperial Rome the Emperor granted a determined group of experts the ius respondendi ex auctoritate principis. Among the jurists, historic names such as Papinian, Ulpianus, Modestinus and others can be found. Schulz (1960), p. 13.
- 3.
Even though, according to David, this must be considered a new form of justice administration from the public authorities rather than, properly, arbitration. Something similar can be said of arbitration in Roman Law. At the time, arbitration could be convened via the stipulatio, establishing a sanction (penalty clause) in case the other party failed to comply with what had been decided. Arbitration could also be convened in a “consensual” contract, but in such a case, what had been decided by the arbitrator could be revised by the judge if manifestly unjust or contrary to good faith, see David (1985), p. 13.
- 4.
Várady et al. (2009), pp. 58–60.
- 5.
Várady et al. (2009), p. 65.
- 6.
In light of the clear intention of Congress, the Court understood as its obligation to remove the old hostility towards arbitration (Marine Transit Corporation v. Dreyfus (1932)). Mosk (2005), p. 328.
- 7.
Price Waterhouse Coopers and the Queen Mary University of London conducted a survey in 2013, with the following results: 52% of the businesses surveyed preferred arbitration as a means of resolution of conflicts. This percentage is even higher in sectors such as construction and energy, where 68% and 56% prefer arbitration over other means of dispute resolution. See http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2013/index.html.
- 8.
This much cited quote can be found in Mustill (1989), p. 43.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
“Diary of Humphrey O’Sullivan, 6 January 1831”, in Park (2006), p. 423.
- 12.
Blackaby et al. (2009), p. 27.
- 13.
The tendency to apply transnational law in arbitration is particularly strong in areas in which national laws are developing at different paces, such as frustration, invalidity and interests, see Smit (1998), p. 109.
- 14.
Von Mehren (1992), p. 62.
- 15.
Juenger (1997), p. 202.
- 16.
- 17.
Blessing (1997), p. 48.
- 18.
Cited by Smits (2004), p. 239.
- 19.
Menkel-Meadow et al. (2005), p. 449.
- 20.
Mustill (1987), p. 149.
- 21.
David (1985), p. 12.
- 22.
- 23.
Basedow (2010), pp. 9–10.
- 24.
Audit (1988), pp. 176–177.
- 25.
Berman and Dasser (1998), p. 65.
- 26.
Two categories of usages can be derived from Articles 8 and 9 of the CISG and Article 1(8) of the UNIDROIT Principles, regarding “usages and practices”. The first category comprises the usages deriving from commerce itself, and the second category covers practices known by the parties to the contract and observed by them in their business. The UNIDROIT provision is even more direct in the sense that no knowledge of the usage on the part of the actual parties is required. See a discussion in Vogenauer (2015).
- 27.
Goode (1997), pp. 16–17.
- 28.
ICC Case 3380/1980, cited by Craig et al. (2000), p. 102.
- 29.
As general principles of private international law (Aramco Case, 1958); general principles of law (Libia v. Casco y Liamco, 1977; Aminoil v. Kuwait, 1982; Framatome v. Iran, 1982); generally accepted principles (ICC Award, Case 2.152/1972) general principles of law and justice (ICC Award, Case 3.380/1980); general principles of law that must regulate international transactions (ICC Award, Case 2.291/1975); general principles adopted by the international arbitration case law (ICC Award, Case 3.344/1981); widely accepted general principles that regulate international commercial law (ICC Award, Case 3.267/1979); general principles of law applicable to international economic relations (ICSID Award 1983, Asia v. Republic of Indonesia); general principles of law conforming the lex mercatoria (ICC Award, Case 3.327/1981); and Rules of Law (ICC Award, Case 1.641/1969).
- 30.
Goode (1997), p. 29.
- 31.
It is widely known that extra-State normativity in international commercial transactions became the subject of debate following Berthold Goldman’s seminal article published in 1964, see Goldmann (1964), p. 184 et seq. The doctrine of lex mercatoria discussed in that paper—and immediately furthered by the subsequent French doctrine on the matter—was once treated as a “phantom” created by Sorbonne Professors. See Teubner (1997), p. 151. After initial strong hesitations (see, for instance Mustill (1987), p. 150), recognition of the doctrine is now undeniable, both in the arbitral world and in large parts of the scholarly sector of commercial law, even though the expression has been severely criticized as a “wicked misnomer” or a “contradiction in terms”. Lowenfeld (2002), p. 72. To avoid a contradiction in terms, some, for instance, propose referring to the phenomena as principia mercatoria.
- 32.
Gama and Saumier (2011), pp. 62–63. This results in “levelling the playing field” between arbitration and litigation, at least in countries that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law. Pertegás and Marshall (2014), p. 979. It is no longer necessary to include an arbitral clause to assure that the choice of non-State law will be respected.
- 33.
See Official Comment of UNCITRAL to Article 28. See also the report of the WG of UNCITRAL, 18 meeting, March 1985 (A/CN.9/264), pp. 60–63.
- 34.
The author of this article has personal knowledge of this due to his participation in the deliberations on the matter.
- 35.
Dezalay and Garth (1996), p. 75.
- 36.
Dezalay and Garth (1996), chapter 2.
- 37.
Dezalay and Garth (1996), chapter 3.
- 38.
See in http://www.adejesus.com.
- 39.
This was brought to my attention by attendants to this event, held annually in the month of November in Miami.
- 40.
English law and the law of the United States were more frequently chosen, accounting for a quarter of all contracts. Other choices were the laws of Switzerland, France and Germany. ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, 2016, Issue 1, p. 17. Cuniberti conducted an empirical study of more than 4400 international contracts concluded around 12,000 parties based on an analysis of data published with respect to the contractual practices of parties participating in ICC arbitrations (the “ICC Arbitration Data”). His study (from 2007 to 2012) reveals that, when international commercial parties agree to go for a law other than their own, they generally choose the law of one of five jurisdictions: England, Switzerland, United States, France and Germany, see Cuniberti (2014), pp. 3–5. However, as it was pointed out, the selection of non-state law did was not comprised in this research, see Boele-Woeli (2016), p. 97.
- 41.
See in Drahozal (2003), p. 30.
- 42.
2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration, Queen Mary, University of London, School of International Arbitration (SIA) and White & Case, http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/docs/123290.pdf, pp. 11 ff.
- 43.
The survey was conducted within the Fondecyt (National Foundation for Scientific and Technological Development, Chile) Project No. 1110437. Elina Mereminskaya, Bofill Mir & Alvarez Jana Abogados, for ITA, Results of the Survey on the Use of Soft Law Instruments in International Arbitration, 6 June 2014, http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2014/06/06/results-of-the-survey-on-the-use-of-soft-law-instruments-in-international-arbitration.
- 44.
Horvath (2011), pp. 251–271.
- 45.
In-house counsel value the features of the arbitration process that distinguish it from litigation, Queen Mary 2013, http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2013/index.html.
- 46.
Blessing (1997), p. 42.
- 47.
See, for example, Lando (2003), p. 126.
- 48.
International Commercial Arbitration Committee’s Report and Recommendations in Ascertaining the Contents of the Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration International 2010/2, p. 198.
- 49.
Glenn (2001), pp. 58–59.
- 50.
It must be taken under consideration that, commonly, transnational transactions involve particular factors, such as the distance between buyers and sellers, or certain requirements as the licenses to import and export that depend of the authorities, or prohibitions for currency transfers and endless eventualities. David (1969), pp. 11–12.
- 51.
See Juenger (2000), pp. 1139–1140.
- 52.
See recently Micklitz (2016), p. 168 ff.
- 53.
The Constitutional Court of Germany rendered a landmark decision in this sense on the year 1971, followed by others, such as one of the Italian Court in 1987. In addition, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in at least one occasion, based its decision on the European Convention on Human Rights, for instance, when it held that the scope of the exception of public policy of the duty of recognizing civil rulings of other member states must be interpreted pursuant to said convention (Krombach v Bamberski, Case C-7/98, (2000) ECR I-1935), see Reimann (2006), pp. 1392–1393.
- 54.
This terminology, coined by Kegel, is well explained by Symeonides. Material justice limits the objective of Private International Law to simply choosing the State that will provide the applicable law without considering to the content and the substantive quality of the arrived solution. Substantive justice looks for the better substantive solution to a multi-State case, see Symeonides (2001), pp. 125–128.
- 55.
Lalive (1984), p. 28.
- 56.
See, for instance, Fernández Arroyo (2016), pp. 271–272.
- 57.
- 58.
Vicente (2016), p. 74.
- 59.
Schweizerisches Bundesgericht (Switzerland), December 16, http://www.unilex.info.
- 60.
Bortolotti (2014), p. 8.
- 61.
Berger (2014), pp. 80–84.
- 62.
Berger (2014), pp. 89–90.
- 63.
Berger (2014), pp. 80–90.
- 64.
Brunner (2008), pp. 30–32.
- 65.
Goode (1992), p. 1.
- 66.
Paulsson (2013), p. 232.
- 67.
Brunner (2008), pp. 30–32. In this regard, Ralf Michaels, inter alia, notes that, “like ius commune and common law”, the Unidroit Principles “serve as a global background law” for which “we find, more and more, that judges and legislators justify their decisions against a global consensus (whether imagined or real) that they find, amongst others, in the UNIDROIT Principles.” They “are becoming, more and more, a sort of general benchmark against which legal arguments take place.” Michaels (2014), pp. 643–668, after note 63.
- 68.
Derains (1995), p. 6.
- 69.
Wolff (1958), p. 15.
- 70.
In the Americas, the corrective formula has been accepted for many years through Article 9 of the 1979 OAS Inter-American Convention on General Rules of Private International Law, ratified by several countries in the region. This Convention admits equitable solutions to achieve justice in particular cases, notwithstanding the provisions of national laws potentially applicable to the transaction. The spirit of this formula is replicated in Article 10 of the Mexico Convention. The solution is received in Private International Law Rules of Mexico, Venezuela and Paraguay, see Moreno Rodríguez (2016), pp. 1171–1173.
- 71.
- 72.
Ad Hoc Arbitration in Costa Rica, 30.4.2001, accessible at www.unilex.info. In turn, the arbitral Tribunal references other ICC Awards in this regard—Awards 8908/1996 and 8873/1997; Bulletin of the International Arbitration Court, vol. 10/2-Fall-1999, p. 78 ff.
- 73.
Ad Hoc Arbitral Award of 10.12.1997, accessible at www.unilex.info. Mayer even talks about the application of the UNIDROIT Principles in all situations, not as lex contractus, but specifically, when the content of a determined norm of the lex contractus is not clearly established, or is manifestly inadequate. Mayer (2002), pp. 75–76.
- 74.
Blessing (1997), p. 42.
- 75.
Born (2014), p. 2666.
- 76.
Craig et al. (2000), pp. 638–639. They cite the ICC Case 4131/1982, in which an unanimous tribunal, presided by Professor Sanders, stated: “The decisions of (ICC) tribunals progressively create caselaw which should be taken into account, because it draws conclusions from economic reality and conforms to the needs of international commerce, to which rules specific to international arbitration, themselves successively elaborated, should respond” (p. 639).
- 77.
Stipanowich (2015).
- 78.
In the case CMI International, Inc. v. Iran of 1983 the arbitrators did not respect the selection of the law of Idaho after considering that the task of the arbitrators, as therein argued, was the search of justice and equity, which led them to ignore said selection. See Silberman and Ferrari (2010), p. 34, footnote.
- 79.
Ferrari states that the international arbitration cannot be more international than the national rules applicable to a given issue in a specific case allow the arbitration to be. Ferrari (2016), p. 848. Many responses can be given to defend a different view, but one of them is that when the parties select an arbitral jurisdiction that in its laws contemplates a corrective formula, this authorizes the arbitrators to reach solutions of justice.
- 80.
Fernández Arroyo (2013), pp. 233–234.
- 81.
Bortolotti (2014), p. 7.
- 82.
When the law was not selected, it appears that Article 28(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985 only admits the application of non-State law when the parties chose it, not in the absence of choice. This was considered in 1987 by Lord Michael Mustill as a major blow to lex mercatorists. Mustill (1987), p. 181. However, subsequent case law indicates the contrary, and leading arbitral authorities, such as, inter alia, Emmanuel Gaillard, propose an extensive interpretation of Article 28(2). Gaillard (2010), p. 124. An express solution in this sense (regarding arbitration specifically) can be found, for instance, in Article 187(1) of the Swiss Private International Law and in the new Article 1511 of the Procedural Code of France. Contrary to a widespread orthodox conception, it is more predictable to apply transnational rules than classic “conflictualism”. Parties that have not taken the precaution of choosing the law that would govern their contract should not be surprised by the application of a rule generally accepted in comparative law. Gaillard (2010), p. 126. Based on a Von Mehren report, the 1989 Resolution of Santiago de Compostela of the Institute of International Law left aside a 1957 position, and now states, in its Article 6, that in the absence of choice, arbitrators can, if they deem it appropriate, apply general principles, that is, principles of non-State origin.
- 83.
For instance, if the UNIDROIT Principles are going to be applied as an implied will of the parties, as far as possible, arbitral tribunals should seek confirmation from the parties at the start of the arbitration (e.g. when the terms of reference or equivalent instruments are drafted) that this was their real intention and, if it results that the issue is disputed, arbitral tribunals should give the parties a full opportunity to plead, possibly in view of a preliminary decision on the law applicable to the merits. Benedettelli (2016), p. 680.
References
Arangio-Ruiz V (1994) Historia del Derecho Romano, Traducción de la Segunda Edición Italiana. Editorial Reus, Madrid
Audit B (1988) The Vienna Sales Convention and the Lex Mercatoria. In: Carbonneau TE (ed) Lex Mercatoria and arbitration, a discussion of the new law merchant, Rev edn. Juris Publishing, Kluwer International Law
Basedow J (2010) El derecho privado estatal y la economía: el derecho comercial como una amalgama de legislación pública y privada, In: ¿Cómo se Codifica hoy el Derecho Comercial Internacional?, CEDEP y La Ley Paraguaya
Benedettelli M (2016) Applying the UNIDROIT Principles in international arbitration: an exercise in conflicts. J Int Arbitr 33:653–686
Berger KP (2014) To what extent should arbitrators respect domestic case law? The German experience regarding the law on standard terms. In: Bortolotti F, Mayer F (ed) The application of substantive law by international arbitrators. Dossier XI of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Paris
Berman HJ, Dasser FJ (1998) The “new” law merchant and the “old”: sources, content, and legitimacy”. In: Carbonneau TE (ed) Lex Mercatoria and arbitration, a discussion of the new law merchant, Rev edn. Juris Publishing, Kluwer International Law
Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration. Oxford University Press
Blessing M (1997) Choice of substantive law in international arbitration. J Int Arbitr 14:39–66
Boele-Woeli K (2016) ¿Traen consigo algún cambio los Principios de La Haya sobre la elección de la ley aplicable a los contratos comerciales internacionales? In: Fernández Arroyo DP, Moreno Rodríguez JA (eds) Contratos Internacionales, ASADIP-Organización de los Estados Americanos. Departamento de Derecho Internacional de la Secretaría de Asuntos Jurídicos, Washington
Born G (2014) International commercial arbitration, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International
Bortolotti F (2014) The application of substantive law by international arbitrators, international chamber of commerce (ICC). DOSSIERS ICC Institute of World Business Law, Paris
Brunner C (2008) Force Majeure and Hardship under general contract principles: exemption for non-performance in international arbitration. Kluwer Law International
Craig L, Park W, Paulson J (2000) International chamber of commerce arbitration, 3rd edn. Oceana Publications
Cuniberti G (2014) The international market for contracts: the most attractive contract laws. University of Luxembourg Law Working Paper Series Paper Number 2014-02
David R (1969) The international unification of private law. Int Encycl Comp Law, Ch. 5
David R (1985) Arbitration in International Trade. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer/Netherlands
Derains (1995) The ICC arbitral process. Part. VIII. Choice of the law applicable to the contract and international arbitration. ICC Int Court Arbitr Bull 6(1)
Dezalay Y, Garth BG (1996) Dealing in virtue, international commercial arbitration and the construction of a trasnational legal order. The University of Chicago Press
Drahozal CR (2003) Of Rabbits and Rhinoceri: a survey of empirical research on international commercial arbitration. J Int Arbitr 20:23–34
Fernández Arroyo DP (2013) Los precedentes y la formación de una jurisprudencia arbitral, In: Gaillard E, Fernández Arroyo DP (eds) Cuestiones Claves del Arbitraje Internacional, CEDEP y Universidad del Rosario, Asunción y Bogotá
Fernández Arroyo DP (2016) The growing significance of sets of principles to govern trans-boundary private relationships. In: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) (ed) Eppur si muove: The age of uniform law, essays in honour of Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday, vol 1. pp 251–272
Ferrari F (2016) How international should international arbitration be? A pea in favour of a realistic answer. In: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) (ed) Eppur si muove: The age of uniform law, essays in honour of Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday, vol 1. pp 847–855
Gaillard E (2010) Teoría Jurídica del Arbitraje Internacional, Ed. La Ley Paraguaya/CEDEP/Thomson Reuters, Asunción
Gama Jr. L, Saumier G (2011) Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts, El Derecho internacional Privado en los procesos de integración regional, Jornadas de la ASADIP 2011, ASADIP y Editorial Jurídica Continental, San José
Glenn HP (2001) An international private law of contract. In: Borchers P, Zekoll J (eds) International conflict of laws for the third millenium, essays in honor of Friedrich K. Juenger. Transnational Publishers Inc, New York
Goldmann B (1964) Frontières du droit et lex mercatoria. Archives de philosophie du droit 9:177
Goode R (1992) The adaptation of english law to international commercial arbitration. Arbitr Int 8:1–16
Goode R (1997) Usage and its reception in transnational commercial law. ICLQ 46:1
Hascher T (1995) European Convention on international commercial arbitration (European Convention, 1961) – commentary. In: van den Berg AJ (ed) Yearbook of commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, pp 1030–1031
Horvath GJ (2011) Part I: international commercial arbitration, Chapter 13: the judicialization of international arbitration: does the increasing introduction of litigation-style practices, regulations, norms and structures into international arbitration risk a denial of justice in international business disputes? In: Kröll SM, Mistelis LA et al (eds) International arbitration and international commercial law: synergy, convergence and evolution. Kluwer Law International, pp 251–271
Juenger FK (1997) Contract choice of law in the Americas. Am J Comp Law 45:195
Juenger FK (2000) The Lex Mercatoria and private international law. Louisiana Law Rev 60:1133
Lalive P (1984) On the neutrality of the arbitrator and of the place of arbitration. In: Reymond C, Bucher E (eds) Swiss essays on international arbitration. Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, Zurich
Lando O (2003) Principles of European contract law and UNIDROIT Principles: moving from harmonisation to unification. Unif Law Rev, 123–133
Lowenfeld AF (2002) Lex Mercatoria: an arbitrator’s view. ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Special Supplement
Mayer P (2002) The role of the UNIDROIT Principles in ICC arbitration practice – Special Supplement 2002. ICC Int Court Arbitr Bull, 75–76
Menkel-Meadow CJ, Porter Love L, Kupfer Schneider A, Sternlight JR (2005) Dispute resolution, beyond de Adversarial model. Aspen Publishers, Nueva York
Michaels R (2014) The UNIDROIT Principles as global background law. Unif Law Rev 19:643–668
Micklitz HW (2016) The threefold Phenomena of constitutionalisation in private law. In: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) (ed) Eppur si muove: The age of Uniform Law, Essays in honour of Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday, vol 1. pp 168–186
Moreno Rodríguez JA (2016) The new Paraguayan Law on international contracts: back to the past? In: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) (ed) Eppur si muove: The age of Uniform Law, Essays in honour of Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday, vol 2. pp 1146–1178
Mosk RM (2005) Comments on enforceability of awards. In: van den Berg AJ (ed) New horizons in international commercial arbitration and beyond. ICCA Congress series N° 12
Mustill MJ (1987) The New Lex Mercatoria: the first twenty-five years. In: Bos M, Brownlie I (eds) Liber Amicorum for Lord Wilberforce. Clarendon Press, pp 149–183
Mustill MJ (1989) Arbitration: history and background. J Int Arbitr 6:43
Oppetit B (2006) Teoría del Arbitraje, translated by: Eduardo Silva Romero, Fabricio Mantilla Espinoza y José Joaquín Caicedo Demoulin, Bogotá, Legis Editores
Park W (2006) Arbitration of international business disputes: studies in law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Park WW (2016) Fidelity to contract commitments in commercial arbitration: contract language and change circumstances. In: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) (ed) Eppur si muove: The age of Uniform Law, Essays in honour of Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday, vol 1. pp 880–895
Paulsson J (2013) The idea of arbitration. Oxford University Press
Pertegás M, Marshall BA (2014) Harmonization through the draft hague principles on choice of law in international contracts. Brooklyn J Int Law 39:975–1003
Reimann M (2006) Comparative law and private international law. In: The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press
Sánchez Cordero J (2016) Les processus d´acculturation juridique. Réflexions mexicaines, Eppur si muove: The age of Uniform Law, Essays in honour of Michael Joachim Bonell to celebrate his 70th birthday. International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT)
Schulz F (1960) Derecho Romano Clásico, Traducción de la Edición Inglesa de 1951. Editorial Bosch, Barcelona
Silberman L, Ferrari F (2010) Getting to the law applicable to the merits in international arbitration and the consequences of getting it wrong, Law and Economics Research Paper Series. New York University School of Law
Smit H (1998) Proper choice of law and the Lex Mercatoria Arbitralis. In: Carbonneau TE (ed) Lex Mercatoria and arbitration, a discussion of the new law merchant, Rev edn. Juris Publishing, Kluwer International Law
Smits JM (2004) The Europeanisation of National Legal Systems. In: van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, Oxford/Portland
Stipanowich TJ (2015) A Recent Survey of Experienced U.S. Arbitrators Highlights Areas for Further International Study and Discussion, Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2015/02/06/a-recent-survey-of-experienced-u-s-arbitrators-highlights-areas-for-further-international-study-and-discussion/
Symeonides SC (2001) Material justice and conflicts justice in choice of law. In: Borchers P, Zekoll J (eds) International conflict of laws for the third millenium, essays in honor of Friedrich K. Juenger. Transnational Publishers Inc, New York
Teubner G (1997) Breaking frames: the global interplay of legal and social systems. Am J Comp Law 45:149–169
Várady T, Barceló JJ, von Mehren AT (2009) International commercial arbitration, a transnational perspective, 4th edn. Thomson Reuters
Vicente DM (2016) La autonomía privada y sus distintos significados a la luz del derecho comparado. In: Diego Fernández Arroyo-José Antonio Moreno Rodríguez, Contratos Internacionales, ASADIP-Organización de los Estados Americanos. Departamento de Derecho Internacional de la Secretaría de Asuntos Jurídicos, Washington
Vogenauer S (ed) (2015) Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC), 2nd edn. Oxford University Press
Von Mehren AT (1992) International commercial arbitration and conflict of laws. Am Rev Arbitr 3:57
Wolff M (1958) Derecho Internacional Privado, Traducción española de la segunda edición inglesa por Antonio Marín López, Barcelona, Editorial Bosch
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer international Pubishing Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Moreno Rodríguez, J.A. (2018). Effectiveness of International Commercial Arbitration as a Dispute Settlement Mechanism. In: Etcheverry Estrázulas, N., Fernández Arroyo, D. (eds) Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Law - La mise en oeuvre et l’effectivité du droit. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93758-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93758-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93757-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93758-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)