La naturaleza procesal del arbitraje
Date
2017-07-31
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
El arbitraje es una institución fascinante que tiene una raíz común con el proceso
judicial: el conflicto. Por ello, aunque la realidad de ambos (arbitraje y proceso judicial)
se produce en planos diferentes y respecto de diferentes pretensiones, siempre se
proyectan hacia un fin común: dar pacífica solución a las controversias bajo un mismo
esquema procesal. Esto demuestra que tienen una misma naturaleza jurídica.
Esto es más claro en la actual crisis globalizada de la administración de justicia
estatal. Los Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR’s), son presentados con un sentido
equívoco como formas alternativas de solución de conflictos: una suerte de opción
alterna al sistema judicial que ofrece el ordenamiento jurídico. Esto es profundamente
errado pues el arbitraje no es propiamente un medio alternativo al sistema judicial para
la solución de los conflictos intersubjetivos de una sociedad, sino una forma
antecedente para solucionar tales conflictos y parte del abanico de instrumentos que el
Derecho Procesal ofrece para ese fin antes de llegar al proceso judicial jurisdiccional.
El arbitraje no nació como una alternativa a la facultad jurisdiccional del Estado
Moderno de Derecho, sino como un antecedente al mismo. Es, pues, parte de la historia
inicial del proceso. Es el embrión de proceso judicial jurisdiccional que ha subsistido —
pese a la vigencia del proceso judicial— por muy diversas razones y finalidades, que el
propio proceso judicial alienta y estimula. Habiendo sido su antecedente fáctico, hoy es
una fórmula procesal artesanal remanente de marcados y propios perfiles en un ámbito
específico del Derecho Procesal y su Teoría General.
El arbitraje comparte la misma naturaleza jurídica del proceso judicial. Tienen
una misma finalidad y repiten, en mayor o menor grado, el mismo método y esquema.
Además, ambos se sirven del proceso y su teoría general para lograr su realidad y
4
finalidad. Sus diferencias, basadas en su origen y algunas particularidades, no le restan
un ápice de la esencia de una común naturaleza jurídica.
Palabras clave: Arbitraje, Proceso Arbitral, Árbitro, Proceso Judicial Jurisdiccional,
Naturaleza Jurídica, Arbitramiento, Árbitros, Tribunal Arbitral, Ley General de Arbitraje,
Debido Proceso Legal, Método pacífico de solución de controversias, formas alternativas
de solución de controversias, Derecho Procesal Civil.
Arbitration is a fascinating institution that shares a common root with the judicial process: the conflict. For that reason, even though their reality occurs on different levels, and regarding different pretensions, they are always projected towards a common goal: to give a peaceful solution to disputes under the same procedural scheme. This demonstrates that they have the same legal basis. This is more evident nowadays, due to the current global crisis in the administration of justice offered by the State. In these contexts, the Alternative Dispute of Resolutions (ADRs), are presented with a wrong conception, as alternative forms of conflict resolution: some sort of alternative to the judicial system offered by the state legal system. This is deeply wrong because arbitration is not properly an alternative to the judicial system for the solution of a society's intersubjective conflicts, but rather an ancient form of settlement of such conflicts that is part of the range of instruments that the Procedural Law offers to solve them before arriving at the judicial process. Arbitration was not born as an alternative to the jurisdictional faculty of the modern democratic State, but as an antecedent. It is part of the initial history of the process. It is the embryo of judicial process that has remained —despite the validity of the judicial process— for many reasons and purposes, and it is even encouraged by the very judicial process. Having been the factual antecedent of this, arbitration is seen nowadays as a remanent procedural formula, with an own profile in a specific area of the procedural law and its general theory. Arbitration shares the same juridical nature of the judicial process and they have the same goal and repeat the same method and scheme —to a greater or lesser extent. Moreover, they both use the process, and their general theory, to achieve their reality 6 and goal. Their differences, based on their origin and some particularities, do not detract from the essence of a common legal nature. Keywords: Arbitration, Arbitration Process, Arbitrator, Jurisdictional Judicial Process, Juridical Nature, Arbitration Panel, Arbitration Court, Arbitrators, General Arbitration Law, Due Process of Law, Peaceful Method of Dispute Resolution, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Civil Procedural Law.
Arbitration is a fascinating institution that shares a common root with the judicial process: the conflict. For that reason, even though their reality occurs on different levels, and regarding different pretensions, they are always projected towards a common goal: to give a peaceful solution to disputes under the same procedural scheme. This demonstrates that they have the same legal basis. This is more evident nowadays, due to the current global crisis in the administration of justice offered by the State. In these contexts, the Alternative Dispute of Resolutions (ADRs), are presented with a wrong conception, as alternative forms of conflict resolution: some sort of alternative to the judicial system offered by the state legal system. This is deeply wrong because arbitration is not properly an alternative to the judicial system for the solution of a society's intersubjective conflicts, but rather an ancient form of settlement of such conflicts that is part of the range of instruments that the Procedural Law offers to solve them before arriving at the judicial process. Arbitration was not born as an alternative to the jurisdictional faculty of the modern democratic State, but as an antecedent. It is part of the initial history of the process. It is the embryo of judicial process that has remained —despite the validity of the judicial process— for many reasons and purposes, and it is even encouraged by the very judicial process. Having been the factual antecedent of this, arbitration is seen nowadays as a remanent procedural formula, with an own profile in a specific area of the procedural law and its general theory. Arbitration shares the same juridical nature of the judicial process and they have the same goal and repeat the same method and scheme —to a greater or lesser extent. Moreover, they both use the process, and their general theory, to achieve their reality 6 and goal. Their differences, based on their origin and some particularities, do not detract from the essence of a common legal nature. Keywords: Arbitration, Arbitration Process, Arbitrator, Jurisdictional Judicial Process, Juridical Nature, Arbitration Panel, Arbitration Court, Arbitrators, General Arbitration Law, Due Process of Law, Peaceful Method of Dispute Resolution, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Civil Procedural Law.
Description
Keywords
Arbitraje, Arbitraje--Legislación, Derecho procesal civil
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess