DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Critical Look at the Prague Rules: Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration

  • Received : 2019.07.29
  • Accepted : 2019.08.30
  • Published : 2019.09.11

Abstract

Due to the increasingly popular dissatisfaction regarding the inefficiency of arbitral proceedings, the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration, also known as the Prague Rules, was launched in December 2018, with the purpose of increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings by encouraging arbitral tribunals to take a more proactive role in conducting their procedures. In this article, the provisions of the Prague Rules are examined, in light of those of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, in order to determine the efficacy of the Prague Rules on enhancing the efficiency in arbitral proceedings. The author concludes that more specific and detailed provisions, with respect to what the Rules means by such a "proactive arbitral tribunal," should have been explicitly included in light of the Rules' repeated emphasis on such. Also, the prospective outlook on the Prague Rules is not entirely clear as the text does not appear to fill in the gaps in other widely utilized arbitration rules or to supplement them in a satisfying way. However, given that only a short amount of time has passed since the launch late last year, only time will reveal how effective the Prague Rules will be in increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings, in accordance with its intended effect.

References

  1. Anke Sessler, Max Stein, "The Prague Rules: Problem Detected, But Imperfectly Solved," Alternatives to High Cost Litgiation, Vol. 37, pp. 67-69 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/alt.21786
  2. Claudia T. Salomon, Sandra Friedrich, "Obtaining and Submitting Evidence in International Arbitration in the United States," American Review of International Arbitration, Vol. 24, pp. 549-590 (2013).
  3. Clemence Prevot, "The Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration: A Compromise Between Common Law and Civil Law," Dispute Resolution Journal, Vol. 71, pp. 73-94 (2016).
  4. Klaus Peter Berger, J. Ole Jensen, "The Arbitrator's Mandate to Facilitate Settlement," Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 887-917 (2017).
  5. L. Tyrone Holt, "Whither Arbitration? What can be Done to Improve Arbitration and Keep Out Litigation's Ill Effects," DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 455-480 (2009).
  6. Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga, "Good Faith, Bad Faith, But Not Losing Faith: A Commentary on the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration," Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, pp. 387-431 (2012).
  7. Federal Rules of Evidence (2017).
  8. International Bar Association (IBA) Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2010).
  9. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules (2017).
  10. International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) International Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures (2014).
  11. London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Arbitration Rules (2014).
  12. Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (The Prague Rules) (2018).