Party Autonomy in the Procedure of Appointing Arbitrators

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F17%3A73585937" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/17:73585937 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Party Autonomy in the Procedure of Appointing Arbitrators

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The traditional aspect of international arbitration where three arbitrators are appointed has been subject to criticism in the past as well as today. The appointment of a sole arbitrator purportedly allows for shorter arbitration proceedings while appointing three arbitrators tends to prolong international arbitration. The limitations of party autonomy have been moving beyond the old horizons as within current global relations the parties tend to avoid making a decision on the appointment of arbitrators themselves and thus arbitration bodies or tribunals have to act instead of them. The objective of this study is thus to provide an analysis of the issue from a broader viewpoint and to present the differences of opinion together with interesting conclusions across the expert community

Název v anglickém jazyce

Party Autonomy in the Procedure of Appointing Arbitrators

Popis výsledku anglicky

The traditional aspect of international arbitration where three arbitrators are appointed has been subject to criticism in the past as well as today. The appointment of a sole arbitrator purportedly allows for shorter arbitration proceedings while appointing three arbitrators tends to prolong international arbitration. The limitations of party autonomy have been moving beyond the old horizons as within current global relations the parties tend to avoid making a decision on the appointment of arbitrators themselves and thus arbitration bodies or tribunals have to act instead of them. The objective of this study is thus to provide an analysis of the issue from a broader viewpoint and to present the differences of opinion together with interesting conclusions across the expert community

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International and Comparative Law Review

ISSN

1213-8770

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2017

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

17

Strana od-do

93-109

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—