“Publicity” and “Confidentiality in Arbitral Judiciary: Approaches to Understanding and Application
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj249908.2021-7.95-108Keywords:
arbitration courts, international arbitration, principles of arbitration proceedings, confidentiality, publicity, transparencyAbstract
The growing interest in alternative forms of dispute resolution has prompted attention to the peculiarities of the application of the principles of publicity and confidentiality in the arbitration. It is determined that the observance of the principle of publicity
of the legal proceeding is the basis for ensuring justice. However, approaches to the application of this principle in arbitration differ both from the point of view of researchers and within the framework of legal regulation at the national and international levels. Some believe that the application of the principle of publicity will destroy the features of arbitration as such. However, the presented article demonstrates other approaches. The position was supported that the principle of confidentiality should be distinguished from the concepts of “privacy” or “closed trial”. In this context, publicity is often compared to concepts such as “openness”, “clarity” and “transparency” of the proceedings. Of concern is some regulatory restriction on the application of the principle of publicity, which affects the level of awareness of the activities of arbitration courts among the public and lawyers who intend to use alternative forms of dispute resolution. It is hoped that such further research will help solve similar problems.
References
International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration. London: School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, 2018.
Axel Springer AG v. Germany. 39954/08 (The European Court of Human Rights, February 7, 2012).
B v. the United Kingdom and P v United Kingdom. 36337/97 and 35974/97 (The European Court of Human Rights, April 24, 2001).
Born, Gary B. International Arbitration: Law and Practice. Kluwer Law International B. V., 2021.
“Convention, 1950.” Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and its Protocols. European Court of Human Rights, 2021.
Corporate choices in International Arbitration Industry perspectives. International Arbitration survey, 2013, 32.
“Cyvilnyi procesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy.” [Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine]. 2004.
Diennet v. France. 25/1994/472/553 (The European Court of Human Rights, August 31, 1995).
Duisenova, A.E. “Princypy arbitrazhnogo (treteiskogo) razbiratelstva [Principles of Arbitration (arbitrage) Proceedings].” online.zakon.kz. 2010.Accessed December 26, 2021. https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=31644605#pos=7;-124.
Fernandez-Armesto, Juan. “The time has come A Plea for Abandoning Secrecy in Arbitration.” The Paris Journal of International Arbitration (2012): 583–588.
Fricke, Michael R. “HBO for ADR: Using Television’s Silicon Valley to Teach Arbitration.” Journal of Legal Studies Education (2019): 359–380.
“Gospodarskyi procesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy.” [Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine]. 1992.
Hurter v. Switzerland. 53146/99 (The European Court of Human Rights, February 21, 2002).
ICAC of Ukraine. Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Kyiv: UCCI, 2020.
ICC Court. ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics: 2020. ICC, 2020.
“Kodeks administratyvnogo sudochynstva Ukrainy.” [Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings of Ukraine]. 2005.
Korshun, A.О. “Zmist pryncypu glasnosti i vidkrytosti diyalnosti organiv sudovoi vlady: zahalnopravovyi aspekt [The Content of the Principle of Publicity and Openness of the Activity of Judicial Authorities: General Aspects].” Scientific Bulletin of the Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs (2018): 54–60.
LCIA. Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration. London: London CIA, 2020.
Lorenzetti v. Italy. 32075/09 (The European Court of Human Rights, April 10, 2012).
Malhous v. Czech Republic. 33071/96 (The European Court of Human Rights, December 13, 2000).
Martinie v. France. 58675/00 (The European Court of Human Rights, April 2006).
Meza-Salas, Marlon. “Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration: Truth or Fiction?” Kluwer Arbitration Blog. September 23, 2018. Accessed December 26, 2021. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/09/23/confidentiality-in-international-commercial-arbitration-truth-or-fiction/.
Mistelis, Loukas A. “Efficiency. What Else? Efficiency as the Emerging Defining Value of International Arbitration: between Systems theories and party autonomy.” The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration. (2020): 349–376.
Osaloni, Oluwatosin Sunday. Evolution of Commercial Arbitration Law in Nigeria and Practices. 2020.
Osinger v. Austria. 54645/00 (The European Court of Human Rights, 2005).
Park, William. “Arbitration and Fine Dining: Two Faces of Efficiency.” Boston University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper (2017): 1–25.
“Reglament postiino dijuchogo treteiskogo sudu pry Asociacii ukrainskyh bankiv.” [Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Arbitration Court at the Association of Ukrainian Banks]. 2018.
Shepel T. P., and others. Nove pravosuddia. Analitychnyi zvit arbitrazhnyh sudiv Ukrainy. [New Justice. Analytical Report Arbitration Courts in Ukraine]. Kyiv: USAID. 2018.
Szalay, Gábor. “Arbitration and Transparency. Relations between a Private Environment and a Fundamental Requirement.” Slovenska arbitražna praksa (2017): 17–34.
Turlova, Yu. A. “Pryncyp glasnosti u onovlenomu procesualnomu zakonodavstvi Ukrainy. [The Principle of Transparency in the Updated Procedural Legislation of Ukraine].” Actual Problems of Native Jurisprudence (2018): 195–198.
Tymchenko, G. “Pryncyp glasnosti i vidkrytosti sudovogo rozhliadu: teorija, istorija ta perspektyvy rozvytku. [Principle of Publicity and a Proceeding Openness: Theory, History and Perspectives of Development].” State and Law (2010): 279–286.
UMAC of Ukraine. Rules of the Ukrainian Maritime Arbitration Commission. Kyiv: UCCI, 2020.
UNCITRAL. Kommentarii UNCITRAL po organizacii arbitrazhnogo razbiratelstva. [UNCITRAL’s Comments on the Organization of Arbitration Proceedings]. New-York: UN, 2016.
“Zakon Respubliki Kyrgyzstan o treteiskih sudah v Kyrgyzskoi Respublike.” [The Law On Arbitration Courts of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan]. 2002.
“Zakon Ukrainy Pro mizhnarodnyi komerciinyi arbitrazh.” [The Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”]. 1994.
“Zakon Ukrainy Pro sudoustriy i status suddiv.” [The Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”]. 2016.
“Zakon Ukrainy Pro treteiski sudy.” [The Law of Ukraine “On Arbitration Courts”]. 2004.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Anna Yanovytska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).
Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:
distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially
...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.
The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
