This dissertation is an edition of the letters exchanged between Charles Peirce and the Open Court Publishing Company (OCP) 1890 to 1913, roughly the last twenty-three years of Peirce’s life. OCP published more of Peirce’s philosophical writings than any other publisher during his lifetime, and played a critical role in what little recognition and financial income he received during these difficult, yet philosophically rich, years. This correspondence is the basis for much of what is known surrounding Peirce’s publications in The Monist and The Open Court, and is referenced often in Peirce editions dealing with his later work. Peirce’s OCP correspondents included Paul Carus, editor; Edward C. Hegeler, founder and owner; Thomas J. McCormack, assistant editor and translator; Francis C. Russell, Chicago attorney and OCP editorial contractor; and various other OCP editors and staff members. Also included in this edition (Appendix) are enclosures and other material related to the letters, with some exclusions noted in the text. Not included are letters exchanged within the OCP organization that make reference to Peirce. Significant portions of these letters are quoted or referenced in editorial notes, but their entirety is not necessary for a full account of the Peirce–OCP relationship, and for now falls out of the scope of this edition. The objective of this edition is to provide for the first time a complete and accurate text of this oft-cited correspondence, with textual apparatus and contextual annotation. The edition is intended for Peirce readers, but is also a valuable reference for those interested in the history of OCP and, more generally, of Progressive Era American philosophy. / 2024-03-31T00:00:00Z

Étant le mode naturel de règlement des litiges dans le commerce international, l’arbitrage a pour avantage de maintenir le secret des affaires. D’abord, les débats arbitraux sont tenus à huis clos. La contractualisation de l’arbitrage traduit la volonté des parties d’un débat privé. Ensuite, les éléments produits au cours du procès sont couverts par la confidentialité. Enfin, la sentence arbitrale ne doit être publique qu’avec le consentement des parties. La confidentialité s’oppose notamment à un principe fondamental du droit processuel : la publicité des débats. La confidentialité, pourtant enracinée dans l’esprit des acteurs de l’arbitrage, est aujourd’hui remise en cause par des préconisations qui élèvent la voix pour ouvrir les portes des tribunaux arbitraux afin de répondre aux besoins de transparence jaillie de l’ordre public, et pour s’harmoniser avec l’époque de mondialisation et de technologie omniprésente. Compte tenu de la judiciarisation, juridictionnalisation, et la marchandisation auxquelles s’expose l’arbitrage actuel, la pondération entre ces impératifs enchevêtrés est-elle possible ? A la lumière de tous ces défis, nous mènerons l’étude sur la confidentialité d’un arbitrage de nature mixte (juridictionnelle et contractuelle), afin de savoir si cette confidentialité est l’essence même de ce mode si particulier de résolution des litiges / Arbitration is the natural dispute settlement mechanism of the international business as it presents the advantage of binding commercial secrecy. The contractualisation of the Arbitration reflects the parties’ willingness to keep the proceedings private. Firstly, arbitral discussions are heard in closed session. Then, any evidences produced during the trial are covered by the confidentiality. At last, the arbitral award may not be public without the consent of the parties. The confidentiality goes against the open-court principle which is a basic rule of Procedural law. Confidentialy is deeply rooted in the Arbitration community. However, this principle is nowadays questioned. Some are raising their voice to open the doors of the Arbitration Courts to submit those jurisdictions to transparency, globalization and ubiquous technology. Considering that modern Arbitration is going through judicialisation, jurisdictionalisation and commoditisation, the question is now raised of a balance between those new tangled and inter-related imperatives. In the context of all these challenges, we are going to undertake a study on the confidentialy of an Arbitration having a hybrid nature (jurisdictional and contractual) in order to know if that confidentialy is the very essence of that peculiar dispute settlement mechanism