Zwicky, "The Long Walk"

Abstract

This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online.https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research.https://www.erudit.org/en/ Document generated on 07/11/2020 5:15 a.m.

Delocalized Arbitration: The Weakening Role of the Seat of Arbitration

“…The origin of delocalized theory can be generally divided into two stages [53]. The first stage is in around 1960s, detaching the arbitral proceedings from the law of seat is put forward to particularly applied in some special cases, one of those parties is a state [54]. When it came to 80s, with the previous practice foundation, some scholars, who are represented by Jan Paulsson, carried forward the delocalized theory, and advocated all the international commercial arbitrations can detach from the legal system of a specific state [61].…”

“…This not only requires the procedure rules of arbitration do not be regulated by the local peculiarities of the law of the seat, but also indicates the function of local courts of the seat is just supporting arbitration, and their supervisory role in arbitration proceedings is excluded [78]. On the other side, the delocalization of award means once the decision of arbitration is given, it has had globally legal bind to the parties [79]. In another word, even if this award is set aside in the seat of arbitration, they can still be recognized and enforced in other countries [80].…”