法律委员会关于第 67 条的建议是否有充分的理由？

Q3 Social Sciences

Arbitration International Pub Date : 2023-11-21 DOI:10.1093/arbint/aiad048

Alexander Gunning

{"title":"法律委员会关于第 67 条的建议是否有充分的理由？","authors":"Alexander Gunning","doi":"10.1093/arbint/aiad048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Law Commission has recommended reforming the approach to be taken where (i) a challenge is made in the English Courts to an arbitration award on grounds of lack of substantive jurisdiction and (ii) the challenging party has participated in the arbitration under protest. It has recommended including in the Act the power to make rules of court limiting both the grounds for such a challenge and the evidence that may be heard. The Law Commission’s proposed reform stems from concern that the present approach could be wasteful and unfair. This article seeks to explore whether the now extensive experience of challenges under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 justifies those apprehensions.","PeriodicalId":37425,"journal":{"name":"Arbitration International","volume":"16 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Has a sufficient case been made for the Law Commission’s proposals in respect of section 67?\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Gunning\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/arbint/aiad048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Law Commission has recommended reforming the approach to be taken where (i) a challenge is made in the English Courts to an arbitration award on grounds of lack of substantive jurisdiction and (ii) the challenging party has participated in the arbitration under protest. It has recommended including in the Act the power to make rules of court limiting both the grounds for such a challenge and the evidence that may be heard. The Law Commission’s proposed reform stems from concern that the present approach could be wasteful and unfair. This article seeks to explore whether the now extensive experience of challenges under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 justifies those apprehensions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arbitration International\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arbitration International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad048\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arbitration International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

法律委员会建议改革在以下情况下应采取的做法：(i)以缺乏实质性管辖权为由在英国法院对仲裁裁决提出异议，以及(ii)提出异议的一方在抗议的情况下参与了仲裁。法律委员会建议在《仲裁法》中纳入制定法院规则的权力，以限制提出异议的理由和可听取的证据。法律委员会之所以提出改革建议，是因为担心目前的做法会造成浪费和不公平。本文试图探讨目前根据 1996 年《仲裁法》第 67 条提出异议的广泛经验是否证明这些担忧是正确的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Has a sufficient case been made for the Law Commission’s proposals in respect of section 67?

The Law Commission has recommended reforming the approach to be taken where (i) a challenge is made in the English Courts to an arbitration award on grounds of lack of substantive jurisdiction and (ii) the challenging party has participated in the arbitration under protest. It has recommended including in the Act the power to make rules of court limiting both the grounds for such a challenge and the evidence that may be heard. The Law Commission’s proposed reform stems from concern that the present approach could be wasteful and unfair. This article seeks to explore whether the now extensive experience of challenges under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 justifies those apprehensions.

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

Arbitration International Social Sciences-Law

CiteScore

0.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Launched in 1985, Arbitration International provides quarterly coverage for national and international developments in the world of arbitration. The journal aims to maintain balance between academic debate and practical contributions to the field, providing both topical material on current developments and analytic scholarship of permanent interest. Arbitrators, counsel, judges, scholars and government officials will find the journal enhances their understanding of a broad range of topics in commercial and investment arbitration. Features include (i) articles covering all major arbitration rules and national jurisdictions written by respected international practitioners and scholars, (ii) cutting edge (case) notes covering recent developments and ongoing debates in the field, (iii) book reviews of the latest publications in the world of arbitration, (iv) Letters to the Editor and (v) agora grouping articles related to a common theme. Arbitration International maintains a balance between controversial subjects for debate and topics geared toward practical use by arbitrators, lawyers, academics, judges, corporate advisors and government officials.