Witness evidence can be decisive in international arbitration. Tribunals regularly rely on company representatives, employees, experts and other witnesses to determine what happened and, in many cases, to determine how much loss was suffered. But what happens when a witness deliberately lies? The consequences can extend well beyond the loss of credibility. Depending on the […]
Transnational Issue Estoppel in International Arbitration: Can It Prevent Re-Litigation at the Enforcement Stage?
International arbitration is valued for delivering final, binding, and enforceable awards, but that finality is threatened when losing parties seek to re-litigate the same objections across multiple jurisdictions. A party may challenge an award at the seat and fail. It may then attempt to resist enforcement elsewhere by recasting the same arguments. This is where […]
Can Misconduct in Arbitration Invalidate an Award?
International arbitration is often chosen because it offers parties a final and enforceable decision.[1] In most cases, that finality is one of its greatest advantages. However, an arbitral award is not immune from challenge.[2] Where serious misconduct has affected the proceedings, a party may be able to challenge the arbitral award before the courts of […]
Arbitration in Próspera: An Arbitration Utopia?
Arbitration is usually a creature of contract. Parties arbitrate because they have agreed to do so. Próspera ZEDE departs from that model by embedding arbitration into its legal architecture, making it the default mechanism for a significant category of disputes even when the parties’ contract is silent. It also creates two distinct tracks: a private, […]
Avoiding Pathological Arbitration Clauses: Do’s and Don’ts for In-House Counsel
Carefully crafted dispute resolution clauses are vital for facilitating transactions, yet they are often overlooked or hastily drafted during contract negotiations.[1] These defective clauses, referred to as “pathological clauses” by Frédéric Eisemann in 1974, can severely undermine parties’ intentions to resolve disputes through arbitration, potentially trapping them in challenging processes or even rendering agreements unenforceable.[2] […]