A comparison between the standard of proof applicable in arbitration and formal adjudication

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2020-08-04 DOI:10.1177/1365712720943333
Jesus Ezurmendia, Maria de los Angeles Gonzalez
{"title":"A comparison between the standard of proof applicable in arbitration and formal adjudication","authors":"Jesus Ezurmendia, Maria de los Angeles Gonzalez","doi":"10.1177/1365712720943333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to describe the application of the standard of proof in arbitration and to question whether the standard to be applied should be the same as or lower than in ordinary civil justice as a result of the contractual origin of the dispute. The determination of the applicable standard takes into consideration the equality of arms and other guarantees of due process, along with the fact of the absence of the standard rule in the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator shall establish these aspects at the beginning of the process, considering also the rules of burden of proof.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"3 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712720943333","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712720943333","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article aims to describe the application of the standard of proof in arbitration and to question whether the standard to be applied should be the same as or lower than in ordinary civil justice as a result of the contractual origin of the dispute. The determination of the applicable standard takes into consideration the equality of arms and other guarantees of due process, along with the fact of the absence of the standard rule in the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator shall establish these aspects at the beginning of the process, considering also the rules of burden of proof.
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
仲裁与正式裁决中适用的证明标准之比较
本文旨在描述仲裁中举证标准的适用,并对由于争议的合同起源,适用的标准是否应与普通民事司法相同或低于普通民事司法的标准提出质疑。在确定适用的标准时,考虑到平等权利和其他正当程序的保证,以及1996年《仲裁法》中没有标准规则这一事实。仲裁员应在程序开始时确定这些方面,同时考虑举证责任规则。
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
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
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