1782条款支持仲裁有两个原因

Gustavo Favero Vaughn, Flávio Luiz Yarshell
{"title":"1782条款支持仲裁有两个原因","authors":"Gustavo Favero Vaughn, Flávio Luiz Yarshell","doi":"10.54648/rba2022029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with policy concerns regarding the availability of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 discovery in aid of private international arbitration. It focuses on two main policy concerns, and, to that effect, it aims to answer two questions. First, Does Section 1782 Undermine Arbitrators’ Control Over the Taking of Evidence? Second, Does Section 1782 Undermine International Arbitration’s Efficiency? This article answers negatively to both questions, therefore concluding that Section 1782 is pro-arbitration.\nInternational arbitration; evidence gathering; evidence; discovery; arbitrators’ authority; comparative law; U.S. law; section 1782.","PeriodicalId":422222,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem","volume":"387 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two reasons why Section 1782 is pro-arbitration\",\"authors\":\"Gustavo Favero Vaughn, Flávio Luiz Yarshell\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/rba2022029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article deals with policy concerns regarding the availability of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 discovery in aid of private international arbitration. It focuses on two main policy concerns, and, to that effect, it aims to answer two questions. First, Does Section 1782 Undermine Arbitrators’ Control Over the Taking of Evidence? Second, Does Section 1782 Undermine International Arbitration’s Efficiency? This article answers negatively to both questions, therefore concluding that Section 1782 is pro-arbitration.\\nInternational arbitration; evidence gathering; evidence; discovery; arbitrators’ authority; comparative law; U.S. law; section 1782.\",\"PeriodicalId\":422222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem\",\"volume\":\"387 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/rba2022029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/rba2022029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章讨论了关于28 U.S.C.§1782发现在私人国际仲裁中的可用性的政策问题。它主要关注两个主要的政策问题,因此,它旨在回答两个问题。第1782条是否削弱了仲裁员对取证的控制?第二,1782条款是否损害了国际仲裁的效率?本文否定地回答了这两个问题,因此得出结论,第1782条是支持仲裁的。国际仲裁;证据收集;证据;发现;仲裁员的权威;比较法;美国法律;第1782节。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Two reasons why Section 1782 is pro-arbitration
This article deals with policy concerns regarding the availability of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 discovery in aid of private international arbitration. It focuses on two main policy concerns, and, to that effect, it aims to answer two questions. First, Does Section 1782 Undermine Arbitrators’ Control Over the Taking of Evidence? Second, Does Section 1782 Undermine International Arbitration’s Efficiency? This article answers negatively to both questions, therefore concluding that Section 1782 is pro-arbitration. International arbitration; evidence gathering; evidence; discovery; arbitrators’ authority; comparative law; U.S. law; section 1782.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Breaking Ground or Playing Safe? Evaluating the Proposed Changes in German Arbitration Law Extensão da cláusula compromissória em contratos coligados: análise doutrinária e jurisprudencial Rapport de Synthèse da XVII Conferência Internacional de Arbitragem do Rio de Janeiro – Inovações Processuais e a Busca pela Eficiência A Inteligência Artificial e o seu contributo para o processo de mediação (na forma de negociação assistida por terceiro independente e imparcial). Um robô mediador ou um algoritmo pacificador de conflitos? Relato sobre o 11th ICC Brazilian Arbitration Day – 2023
×
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