W(h)ither Institutional Terms of Reference?

V. Sc
{"title":"W(h)ither Institutional Terms of Reference?","authors":"V. Sc","doi":"10.54648/joia2022007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although Terms of Reference (‘ToR’) have been a longstanding and distinctive feature of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration for almost a century, their continuing relevance and necessity warrant scrutiny, considering the radical evolution of international arbitration in recent years. The introduction of sophisticated procedural tools and frameworks, together with most states and courts exhibiting ‘pro-arbitration’ attitudes, lead one to question whether ToR remain a necessary procedural tool. In answering this question, the article first assesses the historical context in which the ToR were introduced to serve as a submission agreement and questions whether ToR continue to serve their historical role. The article thereafter closely scrutinizes the ToR’s current features and functions and considers whether the ToR have outlived their usefulness by analysing whether they are needed to fulfil those functions. The fact that ToR are no longer required as necessary evidence of consent and/ or to assist in the enforceability of an award, together with the advent of new procedural tools and practices, have rendered the ToR all but superfluous in today’s context. The article proposes that the ToR’s mandatory nature be dispensed with in the interest of efficiency, making way for dynamic procedural alternatives.\nInternational Arbitration, Terms of Reference, ICC, Arbitration Procedure","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although Terms of Reference (‘ToR’) have been a longstanding and distinctive feature of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration for almost a century, their continuing relevance and necessity warrant scrutiny, considering the radical evolution of international arbitration in recent years. The introduction of sophisticated procedural tools and frameworks, together with most states and courts exhibiting ‘pro-arbitration’ attitudes, lead one to question whether ToR remain a necessary procedural tool. In answering this question, the article first assesses the historical context in which the ToR were introduced to serve as a submission agreement and questions whether ToR continue to serve their historical role. The article thereafter closely scrutinizes the ToR’s current features and functions and considers whether the ToR have outlived their usefulness by analysing whether they are needed to fulfil those functions. The fact that ToR are no longer required as necessary evidence of consent and/ or to assist in the enforceability of an award, together with the advent of new procedural tools and practices, have rendered the ToR all but superfluous in today’s context. The article proposes that the ToR’s mandatory nature be dispensed with in the interest of efficiency, making way for dynamic procedural alternatives. International Arbitration, Terms of Reference, ICC, Arbitration Procedure
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机构职权范围?
尽管近一个世纪以来,职权范围一直是国际商会仲裁规则的一个长期而独特的特点,但考虑到近年来国际仲裁的根本演变,其持续的相关性和必要性值得仔细审查。复杂的程序工具和框架的引入,加上大多数州和法院表现出“支持仲裁”的态度,导致人们质疑ToR是否仍然是一种必要的程序工具。在回答这个问题时,文章首先评估了ToR被引入作为提交协议的历史背景,并质疑ToR是否继续发挥其历史作用。此后,文章仔细审查了ToR目前的特点和功能,并通过分析是否需要ToR来履行这些功能,来考虑ToR是否已经失效。ToR不再被要求作为同意的必要证据和/或协助裁决的可执行性,再加上新的程序工具和实践的出现,使得ToR在今天的背景下几乎是多余的。文章建议,为了效率的利益,取消ToR的强制性,为动态的程序替代方案让路。国际仲裁,职权范围,国际商会,仲裁程序
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
期刊最新文献
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Providing for Arbitration in Mainland China Administered by Overseas Arbitration Institutions ZF Auto. v. Luxshare: Supreme Court’s Withdrawal of Judicial Assistance for Discovery from Private Arbitration Political Risk and Its Key Role in Mining Disputes Around the World A New Era of Maritime Arbitration: Ex Machina Determinations Arbitrating Investment Disputes in Time of Geopolitical Unrest: Focus on Investment Protection in Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1