I include the following considerations attending exclusively to my personal interest. Considering that I am not a lawyer, I may be mesmerized by concepts you may find simply obvious…
Do not take this as the transcription of what was said or the real personal oppinions of those cited, but what I understood.
As an introductory address Prof. Carmine Punzi, chairman at I.S.S.A., refers to the need of a harmonization in the way that evidences are treated in international arbitration. He points that even with the help of UNCITRAL Model Law and IBA Rules of Evidence, the differences between legal cultures make this harmonization a long term goal.
When he refers to differences between legal cultures, he is referring mainly to civil vs. common law, but also to other issues in a country to country basis, citing French law’s position in regard to witnesses as an example.
While this harmonization doesn’t happen, Prof. Punzi points that it has to be arbitrators who have to get to a balance for every case, keeping in sight what the agreements of the parties are and assuring a due process.
Ms. Francesca Mazza, Counsel at ICC International Court makes a brief introduction and reminds the origin of arbitrator, from the latin “arbiter”, “a witness, judge, literally one who goes and see” (ar for ad “to” plus betere “to come”).
Mr. Mauro Ferranti, Secretary General at the Italian Arbitration Assotiation, also makes a brief introduction and Mr. Giorgio Santacroce, president of the Court of Appeal of Rome points that there’s a lack of in depth analysis of evidence in international arbitration. From Mr Santacroce point of view, the lack of analysis and consensus puts the problem in hands of the arbitrators, but this problem ends being transferred to the jurisdiction if the award is challenged.
Continue reading «The Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration: considerations»