国际商事法庭和欧盟法律:缓和紧张局势

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
P. Ortolani, Bastiaan Van Zelst
{"title":"国际商事法庭和欧盟法律:缓和紧张局势","authors":"P. Ortolani, Bastiaan Van Zelst","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idac030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n International commercial courts (ICCts) are hybrid dispute resolution fora, whose features often differ from the ones of ‘ordinary’ courts. Thus, the legal nature of ICCts is not always clear. The authors submit that it is doubtful whether an ICCt should be qualified as a self-standing adjudicative body, or as a chamber of a larger court. This, in turn, may undermine the applicability of the European Union cross-border litigation regime, and affect enforceability. Using the Netherlands Commercial Court as a case study, this article proposes two alternative avenues for reform, aimed at enhancing legal certainty and ensuring international enforceability.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"89 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International commercial courts and EU law: easing the tension\",\"authors\":\"P. Ortolani, Bastiaan Van Zelst\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnlids/idac030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n International commercial courts (ICCts) are hybrid dispute resolution fora, whose features often differ from the ones of ‘ordinary’ courts. Thus, the legal nature of ICCts is not always clear. The authors submit that it is doubtful whether an ICCt should be qualified as a self-standing adjudicative body, or as a chamber of a larger court. This, in turn, may undermine the applicability of the European Union cross-border litigation regime, and affect enforceability. Using the Netherlands Commercial Court as a case study, this article proposes two alternative avenues for reform, aimed at enhancing legal certainty and ensuring international enforceability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Dispute Settlement\",\"volume\":\"89 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Dispute Settlement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idac030\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idac030","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

国际商事法庭(ICCts)是混合型争议解决机构,其特点往往不同于“普通”法院。因此,信通技术的法律性质并不总是明确的。发件人认为,值得怀疑的是,国际刑事法院是否有资格作为一个独立的审判机构,或作为一个较大法院的分庭。反过来,这可能会削弱欧盟跨境诉讼制度的适用性,并影响可执行性。本文以荷兰商事法庭为例,提出了两种可供选择的改革途径,旨在提高法律确定性和确保国际可执行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
International commercial courts and EU law: easing the tension
International commercial courts (ICCts) are hybrid dispute resolution fora, whose features often differ from the ones of ‘ordinary’ courts. Thus, the legal nature of ICCts is not always clear. The authors submit that it is doubtful whether an ICCt should be qualified as a self-standing adjudicative body, or as a chamber of a larger court. This, in turn, may undermine the applicability of the European Union cross-border litigation regime, and affect enforceability. Using the Netherlands Commercial Court as a case study, this article proposes two alternative avenues for reform, aimed at enhancing legal certainty and ensuring international enforceability.
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
24
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信