Privatizing Dispute Resolution

Loic Cadiet; Burkhard Hess; Marta Requejo Isidro

doi:10.5771/9783748900351

Summary

Der Band dokumentiert die Ergebnisse der dritten IAPL-MPI Post-Doctoral Summer School, die vom 1. bis 4. Juli 2018 in Luxemburg stattfand. Die Summer School bringt herausragende junge Post-Doc-Forscher zusammen, die sich mit dem europäischen, internationalen und vergleichenden Verfahrensrecht sowie anderen relevanten Mechanismen der Streitbeilegung befassen. Ihnen wird die Möglichkeit geboten, aktuelle Forschungsprojekte offen mit jungen Kollegen und erfahrenen Wissenschaftlern zu diskutieren. Der fruchtbare Generationenmix steht im Mittelpunkt des Projekts, das sich auf prozessualer und materieller Ebene v.a. mit nationalem Recht, der Rechtsvergleichung, dem Europa- und Völkerrecht befasst.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2019
Publication date: 18.06.2019
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-5908-8
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-0035-1
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Studies of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law
Volume: 18
Language: English
Pages: 646
Product type: Edited Book

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 14
1. Burkhard Hess
  1. Burkhard Hess
    1. 1.1 Privatization as a Global Trend No access Burkhard Hess
    2. 1.2 To What Extent is Dispute Resolution Affected by the General Trend? No access Burkhard Hess
  2. Burkhard Hess
    1. 2.1 Party Autonomy No access Burkhard Hess
    2. 2.2 Access to Justice No access Burkhard Hess
    3. 2.3 Recalibrating Overburdened Courts No access Burkhard Hess
    4. 2.4 Depoliticization of Disputes No access Burkhard Hess
  3. Burkhard Hess
    1. 3.1 Sports Arbitration No access Burkhard Hess
    2. 3.2 Consumer Protection and CDR No access Burkhard Hess
    3. 3.3 Financial Arbitration No access Burkhard Hess
  4. Burkhard Hess
    1. 4.1 Party Autonomy and the Asymmetry of Powers No access Burkhard Hess
    2. 4.2 Private Justice Outside of Public Control No access Burkhard Hess
    3. 4.3 Mandatory Law in Private Dispute Settlement No access Burkhard Hess
  5. Burkhard Hess
    1. 5.1 Institutional Requirements for Private Dispute Resolution Bodies No access Burkhard Hess
    2. 5.2 Procedural Fairness Standards No access Burkhard Hess
    3. 5.3 The Need of a Residual Control by State Courts No access Burkhard Hess
  6. 6. Concluding Remark: Finding the Balance between Public and Private Dispute Settlement No access Burkhard Hess
1. Elena Alina Onţanu
  1. 1. Introduction No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  2. 2. Access to Justice No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  3. Elena Alina Onţanu
    1. Elena Alina Onţanu
      1. 3.1.1 The EOP and the ESCP No access Elena Alina Onţanu
      2. 3.1.2 The EAPO No access Elena Alina Onţanu
    2. Elena Alina Onţanu
      1. 3.2.1 ADR No access Elena Alina Onţanu
      2. 3.2.2 ODR No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  4. Elena Alina Onţanu
    1. Elena Alina Onţanu
      1. 4.1.1 Interrelating Instruments: the Legal Framework No access Elena Alina Onţanu
      2. 4.1.2 Technology Based Initiatives No access Elena Alina Onţanu
    2. Elena Alina Onţanu
      1. 4.2.1 A Conceptual Approach Towards a Comprehensive Framework No access Elena Alina Onţanu
      2. 4.2.2 Legislative Bridging No access Elena Alina Onţanu
      3. 4.2.3 ICT Bridging No access Elena Alina Onţanu
  5. 5. Concluding Remarks No access Elena Alina Onţanu
2. Alexandre Biard
  1. 1. Introduction No access Alexandre Biard
  2. Alexandre Biard
    1. 2.1 Binding quality standards for CADR providers No access Alexandre Biard
    2. 2.2 National ‘Competent Authorities’ as guardians of CADR quality No access Alexandre Biard
  3. Alexandre Biard
    1. 3.1 Certification No access Alexandre Biard
    2. 3.2 Follow-up monitoring No access Alexandre Biard
    3. 3.3 Competent Authority and its ecosystem No access Alexandre Biard
  4. Alexandre Biard
    1. 4.1 The effectiveness of the quality requirements in question No access Alexandre Biard
    2. 4.2 Rationalisation of CADR sectors and the role of Competent Authorities No access Alexandre Biard
  5. Alexandre Biard
    1. 5.1 Enhancing the intervention of Competent Authorities No access Alexandre Biard
    2. 5.2 Conclusions: policy recommendations No access Alexandre Biard
3. Juan Antonio Andino López
  1. 1. Introduction No access Juan Antonio Andino López
  2. 2. Main Characteristics of Collaborative Law and Main Differences with a Mediation Process No access Juan Antonio Andino López
  3. 3. Enactment of Collaborative Law in the US and Implementation of Collaborative Law in Europe No access Juan Antonio Andino López
  4. 4. Main Issues of the Collaborative Process. No access Juan Antonio Andino López
  5. 5. Confidentiality of the Collaborative Process No access Juan Antonio Andino López
  6. 6. Subsequent Judicial Proceedings: the Spanish Experience No access Juan Antonio Andino López
  7. Juan Antonio Andino López
    1. 7.1 Constitutional arguments No access Juan Antonio Andino López
    2. 7.2 Interpretation of Article 283.3 of the Spanish Civil Procedural Law No access Juan Antonio Andino López
    3. 7.3 Court Cases No access Juan Antonio Andino López
    4. 7.4 The attachment will also breach procedural good faith No access Juan Antonio Andino López
1. Alexia Pato
  1. 1. Introduction No access Alexia Pato
  2. Alexia Pato
    1. Alexia Pato
      1. 2.1.1 General Observations and Conditions No access Alexia Pato
      2. 2.1.2 Particularities of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 80 GDPR No access Alexia Pato
    2. Alexia Pato
      1. 2.2.1 France No access Alexia Pato
      2. 2.2.2 Belgium No access Alexia Pato
      3. 2.2.3 Spain No access Alexia Pato
      4. 2.2.4 Germany No access Alexia Pato
    3. 2.3 Dealing with National Adaptation Issues No access Alexia Pato
  3. Alexia Pato
    1. 3.1 Which Legal Instrument Applies? No access Alexia Pato
    2. 3.2 Application of the Brussels Rules on Jurisdiction No access Alexia Pato
    3. 3.3 Potential Application of the GDPR Rules on Jurisdiction: Do They Provide Additional Advantages? No access Alexia Pato
    4. 3.4 International Civil Procedure No access Alexia Pato
  4. 4. Conclusions No access Alexia Pato
2. Yuji Yasunaga
  1. Yuji Yasunaga
    1. 1. Introduction No access Yuji Yasunaga
    2. Yuji Yasunaga
      1. 2.1 Regulations of the Antimonopoly Act No access Yuji Yasunaga
      2. 2.2 Enforcement by the Administrative Authority and its Statistical Information No access Yuji Yasunaga
      3. 2.3 Enforcement through Civil Litigation and its Statistical Information No access Yuji Yasunaga
      4. 2.4 Arguments and Analysis No access Yuji Yasunaga
    3. Yuji Yasunaga
      1. 3.1 Regulations of the Act against Misleading Representations and the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions No access Yuji Yasunaga
      2. 3.2 Enforcement by the Administrative Authorities and its Statistical Information No access Yuji Yasunaga
      3. 3.3 Enforcement through Civil Litigation and its Statistical Information No access Yuji Yasunaga
      4. 3.4 Arguments and Analysis No access Yuji Yasunaga
    4. Yuji Yasunaga
      1. 4.1 Background History – Severe Accident in Fukushima and its Cause No access Yuji Yasunaga
      2. 4.2 Current Regulations of the NPP and their Implementation by the Public Authorities No access Yuji Yasunaga
      3. 4.3 Enforcement through Civil/Administrative Litigation and the Actual Situation No access Yuji Yasunaga
      4. 4.4 Arguments in Judicial Precedents No access Yuji Yasunaga
      5. 4.5 Arguments among Scholars No access Yuji Yasunaga
      6. 4.6 Analysis No access Yuji Yasunaga
    5. 5. Summary and Concluding Remarks No access Yuji Yasunaga
3. Georg Kodek
  1. 1. Introduction No access Georg Kodek
  2. Georg Kodek
    1. 2.1 The decision of the CJEU No access Georg Kodek
    2. 2.2 Reactions No access Georg Kodek
  3. Georg Kodek
    1. 3.1 Application of EU law by arbitral tribunals No access Georg Kodek
    2. 3.2 Arbitral tribunals are not ‘courts’ in the sense of art 267 TFEU No access Georg Kodek
    3. 3.3 The importance and sufficiency of ex-post review of arbitral awards No access Georg Kodek
    4. 3.4 The distinction between investment arbitration and commercial arbitration No access Georg Kodek
  4. 4. Other possible limitations of arbitrability on grounds of EU law No access Georg Kodek
  5. 5. Conclusion No access Georg Kodek
4. Astrid Stadler
  1. 1. Introduction No access Astrid Stadler
  2. Astrid Stadler
    1. 2.1 The Need for Third-Party Funding No access Astrid Stadler
    2. 2.2 The Business Model of Special Purpose Vehicles – Assignments of Claims No access Astrid Stadler
    3. Astrid Stadler
      1. 2.3.1 Registration under the Legal Service Act No access Astrid Stadler
      2. 2.3.2 Validity of assignment to SPVs No access Astrid Stadler
      3. 2.3.3 Prohibition of contingency fee arrangements No access Astrid Stadler
      4. 2.3.4 Equality of arms in civil proceedings No access Astrid Stadler
      5. 2.3.5 Excessive success fees No access Astrid Stadler
  3. 3. Do We Need a Legal Framework for Third-Party Funding? No access Astrid Stadler
  4. 4. Conclusion No access Astrid Stadler
5. Rebecca E. Khan
  1. 1. Introduction No access Rebecca E. Khan
  2. 2. Characterizing Third-Party Funding as a Transparency Issue No access Rebecca E. Khan
  3. Rebecca E. Khan
    1. 3.1 Identity of Real Party in Interest No access Rebecca E. Khan
    2. 3.2 Third-Party Funders and Conflicts of Interest No access Rebecca E. Khan
    3. 3.3 Third-Party Funders and Implications on Orders for Arbitration Costs No access Rebecca E. Khan
    4. 3.4 Identification of Parties That Can Access Arbitration Documents No access Rebecca E. Khan
  4. Rebecca E. Khan
    1. 4.1 Provisions on Third-Party Funding in International Investment Agreements No access Rebecca E. Khan
    2. 4.2 Rules and Issuances from International Arbitral Institutions Regarding Third-Party Funding No access Rebecca E. Khan
    3. 4.3 Recently Concluded Cases Where a Third-Party Funder was Reportedly Involved in Filing the Investment Claim No access Rebecca E. Khan
    4. 4.4 Pending Case Where Fact of Third-Party Funding was Publicized Prior to Filing of Investment Claim No access Rebecca E. Khan
  5. 5. Recommendations for Disclosure Requirements No access Rebecca E. Khan
1. Caroline Daniels
  1. 1. Introduction No access Caroline Daniels
  2. Caroline Daniels
    1. 2.1 Consumer Access to Justice as Access to Legal Justice No access Caroline Daniels
    2. 2.2 Access to Justice versus Access to a Tribunal No access Caroline Daniels
  3. 3. CDR in the European Union No access Caroline Daniels
  4. Caroline Daniels
    1. 4.1 Access to Legal Justice in light of article 6 ECHR and article 47 EU Charter No access Caroline Daniels
    2. 4.2 Scenario 1: the Consumer Freely Chooses to Submit a Dispute to CDR, the Outcome of which may or may not be Binding No access Caroline Daniels
    3. 4.3 Scenario 2: the Consumer must Participate in CDR, the Outcome of which is not Binding No access Caroline Daniels
    4. 4.4 Scenario 3: the Consumer must Participate in CDR, the Outcome of which is Binding No access Caroline Daniels
    5. 4.5 The Traders’ Right of Access to Justice No access Caroline Daniels
  5. Caroline Daniels
    1. 5.1 Danger of Second-class Justice No access Caroline Daniels
    2. 5.2 Quality Requirements in EU Instruments No access Caroline Daniels
    3. 5.3 Fair Trial Standards and Proportionality Test as a Means to Supplement CDR Quality Criteria No access Caroline Daniels
  6. 6. Conclusion No access Caroline Daniels
2. Paul Rolland
  1. 1. Introduction No access Paul Rolland
  2. Paul Rolland
    1. 2.1. The Obligation to Implement an Amicable Process under Article 8 of the Convention No access Paul Rolland
    2. 2.2. Participation of Amicable Processes to the Access to Justice No access Paul Rolland
    3. 2.3. Should a Proper Right of Access to an Amicable Process Exist? No access Paul Rolland
    4. 2.4. Positive Obligations beyond Article 8 of the Convention No access Paul Rolland
    5. Paul Rolland
      1. 2.5.1. Prospective Applications of the Right of Access to an Amicable Process No access Paul Rolland
      2. 2.5.2. Article 6§ 1 as a Basis? No access Paul Rolland
      3. 2.5.3. Amicable Processes as Part of ‘Plural solutions of Dispute Settlement’ No access Paul Rolland
  3. Paul Rolland
    1. 3.1. The Scope of the Right of Access to an Amicable Process No access Paul Rolland
    2. 3.2. The Strength of the Right of Access to an Amicable Process No access Paul Rolland
  4. Paul Rolland
    1. 4.1. Which Model of Amicable Process? No access Paul Rolland
    2. 4.2. Designing a Fair and Mainstream Amicable Justice No access Paul Rolland
  5. 5. Conclusion No access Paul Rolland
3. Barbara Warwas
  1. Introduction No access Barbara Warwas
  2. Barbara Warwas
    1. 1.1 Positioning the Paper within the Project on Good Governance and Privatized Consumer Justice No access Barbara Warwas
    2. 1.2 Definitions No access Barbara Warwas
  3. Barbara Warwas
    1. 2.1 Top-down Legitimacy: Between quality and efficiency No access Barbara Warwas
    2. 2.2 Bottom-up Legitimacy No access Barbara Warwas
  4. 3 Evolution of the Access to Justice Debate in the EU No access Barbara Warwas
  5. Barbara Warwas
    1. 4.1 Private Initiatives in ADR No access Barbara Warwas
    2. 4.2 Theories of Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice No access Barbara Warwas
  6. 5 Conclusions: Arbitration, ADR, and the Value-oriented Access to Justice Model No access Barbara Warwas
1. Dorcas Quek Anderson
  1. 1. Introduction No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
  2. 2. The Emerging Need to Give Effect to the Exercise of Party Autonomy within Cross-Border Mediations No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
  3. Dorcas Quek Anderson
    1. 3.1. The Scope of the Convention No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    2. 3.2. The Necessary Connection with Mediation No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    3. 3.3. Form Requirements No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    4. 3.4. Grounds for Refusing to Grant Relief No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
  4. Dorcas Quek Anderson
    1. 4.1. Party Autonomy in Mediation No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    2. 4.2. Determining When Party Autonomy has been Compromised Within Mediation No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    3. Dorcas Quek Anderson
      1. 4.3.1 The Suitability of the Contractual Framework for MSAs No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
      2. 4.3.2 The Dissonance between MSAs and the Contractual Framework – Is It a Substantial Difficulty? No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    4. 4.4. Party Autonomy According to Mediation Standards? No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    5. Dorcas Quek Anderson
      1. 4.5.1 Disentangling Enforcement of MSAs from the Constraints of Contract Law No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
      2. 4.5.2 The Enlargement of Party Autonomy to Include Due Process No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
      3. 4.5.3 The Elevated Status of Mediation Standards No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
      4. 4.5.4 The Potential for Diversity in the Interpretation of Mediation Standards No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
  5. Dorcas Quek Anderson
    1. 5.1. Art 5(2)(a): When will Granting Relief be Contrary to the Public Policy of the Contracting State? No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
    2. 5.2. Article 5(2)(b): When will a Matter be Considered Incapable of Settlement by Mediation? No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
  6. 6. Conclusion No access Dorcas Quek Anderson
2. Chrisoula M. Michailidou
  1. 1. Introduction No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
  2. Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    1. Chrisoula M. Michailidou
      1. 2.1.1 Court-connected conciliation No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
      2. 2.1.2 Extrajudicial conciliation No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    2. Chrisoula M. Michailidou
      1. 2.2.1 Voluntary judicial mediation No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
      2. 2.2.2 Voluntary extrajudicial mediation No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
      3. 2.2.3 The Greek Law on Mandatory Mediation No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
      4. 2.2.4 Compatibility of Greek Legislation on Mandatory Mediation with European Jurisprudence No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
  3. Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    1. 3.1. Italy No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    2. 3.2. England No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    3. 3.3. Germany No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    4. 3.4. France No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
  4. 4. International jurisdictional issues regarding mandatory mediation and forum shopping No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
  5. Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    1. 5.1. Enforceability of the mediated settlement agreement No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    2. 5.2. Enforcing transnational mediated settlement agreements in the EU No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
  6. Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    1. 6.1. The Law applicable to the mediation clause or agreement to mediate No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    2. 6.2. The Law applicable to the proceeding No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
    3. 6.3. The Law applicable to the content of the settlement reached No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
  7. 7. Final remarks No access Chrisoula M. Michailidou
3. Wannes Vandenbussche
  1. 1. Introduction No access Wannes Vandenbussche
  2. Wannes Vandenbussche
    1. 2.1. Definition of Apology No access Wannes Vandenbussche
    2. Wannes Vandenbussche
      1. 2.2.1. Law of Evidence No access Wannes Vandenbussche
      2. 2.2.2. Substantive Law No access Wannes Vandenbussche
    3. 2.3. Scope of Coverage No access Wannes Vandenbussche
  3. Wannes Vandenbussche
    1. 3.1. Eliminating Fear of Apologizing No access Wannes Vandenbussche
    2. 3.2. Reaction to Tort Liability Crisis No access Wannes Vandenbussche
  4. Wannes Vandenbussche
    1. 4.1. Legislation Stimulates Apologizing No access Wannes Vandenbussche
    2. 4.2. Apologies Encourage Out-of-court Dispute Resolution No access Wannes Vandenbussche
  5. Wannes Vandenbussche
    1. 5.1. Legal Status of Apologies No access Wannes Vandenbussche
    2. 5.2. Role of Tort Law No access Wannes Vandenbussche
    3. 5.3. Inadmissibility of Evidence No access Wannes Vandenbussche
  6. 6. Considering an Introduction of Apology Legislation No access Wannes Vandenbussche
  7. 7. Conclusion No access Wannes Vandenbussche
1. Margie-Lys Jaime
  1. 1. Introduction No access Margie-Lys Jaime
  2. Margie-Lys Jaime
    1. 2.1. Inconsistency in Arbitral Decisions and the Lack of Predictability No access Margie-Lys Jaime
    2. 2.2. Lack of Transparency, Length and Cost of the Proceedings No access Margie-Lys Jaime
    3. 2.3. Lack of Appropriate Control of Review in Treaty-Based Arbitrations No access Margie-Lys Jaime
    4. 2.4. Lack of Sufficient Guarantee of Impartiality and Independence No access Margie-Lys Jaime
  3. Margie-Lys Jaime
    1. 3.1. The European Union Proposal No access Margie-Lys Jaime
    2. 3.2. Substantive versus Procedural Reform No access Margie-Lys Jaime
  4. Margie-Lys Jaime
    1. 4.1. Annulment versus Appeal: Finality versus Consistency and Correctness? No access Margie-Lys Jaime
    2. 4.2. A Note on Enforcement and Compatibility with the Current System No access Margie-Lys Jaime
  5. 5. The Opt-In Approach for Reforming ISDS Provisions in Existing IIAs No access Margie-Lys Jaime
  6. 6. Conclusion: Shifting from Ad hoc ISDS Process to Standing Bodies No access Margie-Lys Jaime
2. Marta Cichomska
  1. 1. Introduction No access Marta Cichomska
  2. 2. Features of the International Investment Regime Encouraging Parallel Claims No access Marta Cichomska
  3. Marta Cichomska
    1. 3.1. General Remarks No access Marta Cichomska
    2. Marta Cichomska
      1. 3.2.1. Pursuing Treaty-Based Claims in Domestic Courts No access Marta Cichomska
      2. 3.2.2. Pursuing Domestic Claims Before Investment Tribunals No access Marta Cichomska
      3. 3.2.3. Pursuing Contract Claims – a Few Remarks on Their Convoluted Nature No access Marta Cichomska
    3. 3.3. Pursuing the Same Claims Sensu Largo Before Domestic Courts and Investment Tribunals No access Marta Cichomska
  4. 4. Consequences of the Jurisdictional Competition Between Domestic Courts and Investment Tribunals No access Marta Cichomska
  5. Marta Cichomska
    1. 5.1. Cooling-Off Periods No access Marta Cichomska
    2. 5.2. Exhaustion of Local Remedies No access Marta Cichomska
    3. 5.3. Reasonable Attempt in Domestic Court No access Marta Cichomska
    4. 5.4. Fork in the Road No access Marta Cichomska
    5. 5.5 .Waiver No access Marta Cichomska
    6. 5.6. Traditional Litispendence Tools (Lis Pendens and Res Judicata) No access Marta Cichomska
    7. 5.7. Consolidation No access Marta Cichomska
  6. Marta Cichomska
    1. 6.1. More Flexible Application of the Traditional Litispendence Tools No access Marta Cichomska
    2. 6.2. Doctrine of Abuse of Rights No access Marta Cichomska
    3. 6.3. Stay of Proceedings No access Marta Cichomska
    4. 6.4. Drawing Inspiration from Forum Non Conveniens No access Marta Cichomska
    5. 6.5. Eliminating ISDS From IIAs Between Developed States No access Marta Cichomska
  7. Marta Cichomska
    1. 7.1. Avoiding Parallel Claims: Tips For Treaty Drafters No access Marta Cichomska
    2. 7.2. Managing Parallel Claims: Tips For Treaty Users No access Marta Cichomska
  8. 8. Conclusions No access Marta Cichomska
3. Fenghua Li
  1. 1. Introduction No access Fenghua Li
  2. Fenghua Li
    1. 2.1. Remedies No access Fenghua Li
    2. 2.2. Systemic Values No access Fenghua Li
  3. Fenghua Li
    1. 3.1. Most-Favoured-Nation No access Fenghua Li
    2. 3.2. Fair and Equitable Treatment No access Fenghua Li
    3. 3.3. Umbrella Clause No access Fenghua Li
    4. 3.4. Expropriation No access Fenghua Li
  4. 4. Conclusion No access Fenghua Li
4. Janet Walker
  1. 1 Introduction No access Janet Walker
  2. 2 The new Specialized Courts No access Janet Walker
  3. 3 Serving the unmet Needs of Commercial Parties No access Janet Walker
  4. 4 Assessing the Limits of Privatizing Dispute Resolution No access Janet Walker
1. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
  1. 1. Introduction No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
  2. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
    1. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      1. 2.1.1. The general debate No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      2. 2.1.2. Expanding arbitrability (the legal perspective) No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
    2. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      1. 2.2.1. International arbitration nowadays No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      2. 2.2.2. Business’ demands to arbitration No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
  3. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
    1. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      1. 3.1.1. The undeniable existence of concerns regarding arbitration No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      2. 3.1.2. How to react to concerns? No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
    2. 3.2. Why legitimacy concerns cannot be exclusive to IIA? No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
    3. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      1. 3.3.1. Transparency No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      2. 3.3.2. Accountability No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
      3. 3.3.3. Consistency No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
  4. 4. Final remark: the future of arbitration No access Diego P. Fernández Arroyo