Abstract
Why might one argue that the arbitral tribunal should have the “competence” to rule, as of right, upon its own jurisdiction? Is this natural power consistent with the legitimacy of arbitration? Can it unquestionably achieve the greatest level of efficiency for the parties?
Although a considerable body of literature has attempted to answer these questions, this article aims to address (and partially reframe) the core issues relating to arbitral jurisdiction by comparing different legal systems and operative solutions in order to search for new and valuable insights on the topic . There is no doubt, in fact, that the orthodox position traditionally starts from the assumption that access to the courts within parallel proceedings, which (also) questions the allocation of jurisdiction, is problematic also due to the risk of delaying tactics by one party. According to this line of reasoning, when the authority of the arbitrators is challenged, the balance between the legitimacy and the efficiency of the arbitration process could be conditioned by prejudices relating to the (necessary) interference of the courts with the power of the arbitral tribunal to determine its own potestas judicandi (or its lack thereof) on the merits.
In an attempt to move on from the classical framing of this issue and towards a comparative evaluation of the rationales and values underlying domestic legislation on arbitral jurisdiction, considered also with reference to the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law, this article will seek to provide a solution that is rooted in the complementary role of the courts and of arbitral tribunals. The complementarity between arbitral tribunals and the courts will be shown to be key in securing the legitimacy of arbitration and the actual pre-eminence of this source of alternative private justice and, accordingly, also as a way of striking the optimum balance with the efficiency of the arbitration process.
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Who Fears the Big Government? A Coordinated Attemp to Downsize Federal Agencies’ Power in the United States
- Construing Contemporary Cosmopolitan Constitution-Making: A Comparative View
- Agrofuels Controversy in the Midst of the International Crisis
- Revisiting the Role of the EU Judiciary as the Stronghold for the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism
- The Use of Economic Analysis of Law in the Context of Environmental Regulations
- On Arbitral Jurisdiction. How to Deal with the Complementarity between Arbitral Tribunals and the Courts?
- Is the GDPR and Its Right to Data Portability a Major Enabler of Citizen Science?
- The jurisprudential basis to the common law notion of Indigenous title: Some comparisons
Articles in the same Issue
- Who Fears the Big Government? A Coordinated Attemp to Downsize Federal Agencies’ Power in the United States
- Construing Contemporary Cosmopolitan Constitution-Making: A Comparative View
- Agrofuels Controversy in the Midst of the International Crisis
- Revisiting the Role of the EU Judiciary as the Stronghold for the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism
- The Use of Economic Analysis of Law in the Context of Environmental Regulations
- On Arbitral Jurisdiction. How to Deal with the Complementarity between Arbitral Tribunals and the Courts?
- Is the GDPR and Its Right to Data Portability a Major Enabler of Citizen Science?
- The jurisprudential basis to the common law notion of Indigenous title: Some comparisons