Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 10 - Judicial Control of Arbitral Awards in Argentina

  • from Part IV - Judicial Control of Arbitral Awards
  • Edited by Larry A. DiMatteo, University of Florida, Marta Infantino, Nathalie M-P Potin
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Judicial Control of Arbitral Awards
    Published online:
    08 October 2020
    Print publication:
    29 October 2020, pp 151-174

  • Summary

    In the past four years, Argentina embarked on a significant modernisation of its arbitration law, including the aspect of judicial control over arbitration. This is important to practising lawyers, courts and scholars, given that the legislative reform has provided better defined parameters to assess courts’ intervention in arbitration. Indeed, court’s intervention may manifest itself as a valid implementation of court’s powers of control over arbitration or, in its negative aspect, as definite undue interference with arbitration. The latter would now be undoubtedly in violation of the current applicable law on arbitration, which presently sets forth the principle of minimal court intervention in support of arbitration or to control that due process is respected and there is no violation of public policy.