##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##
Academic Journal of Legal Studies and Research
Vol. 8 No. 5 (2023): September-October
Original Articles

PRESERVING DUE PROCESS: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION"

Download
  • Dr. Ahmed Khalid Al-Mansoori
Dr. Ahmed Khalid Al-Mansoori
Associate Professor, College of Law, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Al Ain, United Arab Emirates (UAE),

Published 2023-09-21

Keywords

  • arbitration, due process,
  • document production,
  • international commercial arbitration,
  • arbitral tribunal

How to Cite

Al-Mansoori, A. K. (2023). PRESERVING DUE PROCESS: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION" . Academic Journal of Legal Studies and Research, 8(5), 1–10. Retrieved from http://topjournals.org/index.php/AJLSR/article/view/641

Copyright (c) 2023 Academic Journal of Legal Studies and Research

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Arbitration, a preferred alternative to court proceedings, hinges on the autonomy and flexibility granted to disputing parties. This autonomy is reflected in the arbitration agreement where parties can stipulate the governing law and the seat of arbitration. In the absence of specific clauses, the law of the arbitration's seat typically governs the proceedings. In international commercial arbitration, the primary source of resolution lies in the documentary evidence submitted by the parties. They have the prerogative to present oral or documentary evidence to support their claims or request the production of relevant documents from the other party. This right is integral to due process of law, and many international institutional arbitration rules empower the arbitral tribunal to order the production or disclosure of documents, either at the tribunal's discretion or upon party request. The extent of document disclosure in arbitration hinges on various factors, including party agreement, applicable arbitration rules, and the document's relevance to the case's outcome. Parties may employ discovery or disclosure procedures to request documents from one another. This power of arbitral tribunals to order document production is fundamental to preserving due process of law. This paper delves into the provisions granting arbitral tribunals the authority to order document production, ensuring due process of law in arbitration. It references international, institutional, and select national arbitration rules related to document production

Download

References

  1. Roseann Oliver and Frederic T. Knape (Sept. 1999). Illinois Arbitrations: Pre-Hearing Discovery and the Right to Full and Fair Hearing, 13 CBA Record 32. ii Peter Ashford (2006). Documentary Discovery and International Commercial Arbitration, 17 American Review of International Arbitration, p. 89.
  2. Jones Day ET EL (August 2000). The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, Northeast Edition, page 5. iv Dominique D’Allaire and Rolf Trittmann (2011). Disclosure requests in International commercial Arbitration: Finding a Balance not only between Legal Traditions but also between the parties’ Rights, American Review of International Arbitration, 22 Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 119.. vIbid 2. viGary B. Born (2009). International Commercial Arbitration, Volume II, Kluwer Law International, the Netherlands, pp. 1875- 1880. vii Allan Redfernand Martin Hunter with Nigel Blackaby and Constantine Partasides (2004). Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 4th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, p. 356. viiiChittharanjan F. Amerasinghe (2005). Evidence in International Litigation 354 “quoted in” Laurent Vercauteren (2012), Note and Comment: The taking of documentary Evidence in International Arbitration, American Review of International Arbitration 23 Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 341. ixArticle 10 of UDHR, 1948. x Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966.
  3. Giacomo Rojas Elgueta (Spring, 2011).16 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 165. Ibid 6, page 1898. xiiiIbid 6, page 1892. xiv Gary B. Born (2016). International Arbitration: Law and Practice, 2nd Ed., Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, page 187. Ibid 4. 300 F. sup. 179(S.D.N.Y 1969). 125 F.R.D. 398, 400 (S.D.N.Y 1989). xviii125 F.R.D. 398 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
  4. Article 18 of UNCITRAL Model Law with 2006 Amendments.
  5. Article 19(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. xxi Article 26 of UNCITRAL Model Law, 1985. xxii Article 17 of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 2013. xxiii Article 27 (3) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
  6. .Article 22 (4) of ICC Arbitration Rules. xxv Article 22 of ICC Arbitration Rules. xxvi Appendix IV of ICC Arbitration Rules. xxviiArticle 9 (3)(e).
  7. Article 3 (3) of IBA Rules, 2010. xxix Article 3 (10) of IBA Rules.
  8. Article 3 of IBA Rules. xxxi Article 37. xxxii Article 50. xxxiiiArticle 20 (1) xxxivArticle 20.4.
  9. Article 34 (2)(a). xxxvi Rule 21.1. xxxvii Rule 23.5. xxxviii Article 28 of VIAC Arbitration Rules, 2013. xxxix Article 29 of VIAC Rules. xl Rule 16. xli Rule 24 (1) (g) (SIAC) Rules, 2013. xliiArticle 14 (4). xliii Article 22 (1) (v) of London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).
  10. Rule 32 (a). xlv Rule 22 (b) of AAA Rules. xlviArticle 35. xlviiArticle 41 & 44 of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitration Rules, 2015. xlviiiArticle 43. xlix Article 15. l Art. 24.3. li Article 37 (2). lii Article 50 (4). liii Article19 (2). liv Article 26 (3). lv Section 26 (1) of DIS Rules, 1998. lvi Section 27 DIS Rules, 1998. lvii Article 18. lviiiArticle 26 (1) (b). lixIbid 6, page 1878. lxIbid 7, p. 355.
  11. John H Beisner, Jessica D. Miller & Jordan M. Schwartz ((June 7, 2013).Can E-Discovery Voilate Due Process? Part I, Law Technology News, available at http//www.skadden.com/insights/ca-e-discovery-violate-due-process-part-I. lxiiIbid 7. lxiiiIbid 6, page.1892.
  12. Robert Pietrowski (2006). Evidence in International Arbitration, 23 Arb. Int’l. 373, 392. Article 9 (5).
  13. Rule 23.5 of ACICA Rules 2016. lxviiIbid 6, page 1923. lxviii§42 of the Arbitration Act 1996. lxixIbid 2.
  14. Article 27. Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 7 (1947, as amended in 1951). lxxii Article 27. lxxiiiEntered into force 7 Oct. 1972.
  15. Gary B. Born, page 2753. Article 190 (2)(d) of Swiss Law on Private International Law. lxxviArticle V (1) (b). lxxvii Article V (2) (b) lxxviiiIbid 6. lxxix Edward Brunet (November 1992). Arbitration and Constitutional Rights, 71 North Carolina Law Review, 81.
  16. For example, Article 27 of UNCITRAL Model Law; Article 184 (2) of the Swiss Law on Private International Law; Section 43of English Arbitration Act, 1996; Article 1696 (2) of Belgian Judicial Code; Article 1041 (2) of Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure.