While thousands of cross-border disputes are resolved each year through institutional arbitration, there appears to be little understanding of the role of arbitral institutions. In particular, very little academic scholarship has been produced on the nature of the functions exercised by arbitral institutions in the proceedings they administer. This thesis seeks to rectify this gap by (1) identifying in the literature conventional assumptions as to the functions of arbitral institutions in the institutional arbitration process; (2) critically assessing such conventional assumptions; and (3) offering a novel and more realistic representation of the functions of arbitral institutions. This thesis is principally based on a systematic study of the activities performed by over 40 international arbitration institutions in their administration of cases. This study also examines court decisions on the nature of the functions exercised by such institutions in some leading civil law and common law jurisdictions. The thesis finds that arbitration institutions are conventionally portrayed in the literature in one of two ways: According to a first representation, arbitral institutions are mere administrators with no decision-making power whatsoever. According to another representation, while institutions are occasionally called upon to exercise some measure of decision-making, measures taken by institutions remain immaterial because of their alleged ‗administrative‘/‗non-jurisdictional‘ nature. In both instances, it is conventionally assumed that, contrary to arbitrators, arbitral institutions should not be concerned by due process when they discharge their duties. This thesis argues that these two conventional representations are difficult to reconcile with the diverse reality of institutional arbitration. While some institutions have a very limited involvement in the arbitrations conducted under their auspices, others participate more actively in their resolution. The thesis therefore concludes that arbitral institutions can be more accurately described as ancillary participants in the adjudicative process which decisions, insofar as they may occasionally be outcome-determinative, should call upon the application of some due process standards.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Laws)) -- University of Limpopo, 2022 / This dissertation presents a legal analysis of the effectiveness of arbitration process in unfair dismissal dispute with a particular emphasis on South Africa. The use of arbitration process in resolving unfair dismissal dispute is influenced by its efficiency, accessibility and flexibility. In South Africa, arbitration process is employed by the CCMA that was established to encourage effective labour dispute. A central problem that the CCMA encounter which affects its effectiveness is the high number of unfair dismissal disputes referred for arbitration process. According to the legal research offered in this dissertation, the number of unjust dismissal disputes brought to arbitration process continue to rise every year. As a result, the CCMA is swamped by these referrals, which affects its effectiveness. According to the findings, the arbitration process is now widely used around the world to resolve unfair dismissal disputes. The extent to which the arbitration process is adopted to resolve unfair dismissal dispute varies from country to country and is guided by legislation. As a result, it has been discovered that the CCMA may benefit from the ACAS’s arbitration process strengths from the United Kingdom as well as Namibia’s arbitration process strengths. The United Kingdom results show that ACAS is able to resolve a higher proportion of unfair dismissal dispute through conciliation rather than arbitration, which reduces the number of referrals from the arbitration process. In Namibia, if parties to unfair dismissal dispute want to refer an unfair dismissal dispute for arbitration process it must be done by mutual agreement between the parties except in exceptional circumstances. All this mode of operation between United Kingdom and Namibia when resolving unfair dismissal disputes hinder high referral rate from the arbitration process. This dissertation concludes with recommendations arising from policy making that promotes the effectiveness of the arbitration process and limiting the abuse of the process.

Depuis ces dernières décennies, le droit de l’arbitrage international connaît une autonomie, en marge de la justice étatique, que les législateurs nationaux ne semblaient guère prévoir. Cette autonomie suscite l’intérêt mais aussi une inquiétude renouvelée par un double constat. Le premier réside dans l’absence d’une définition légale de l’arbitrage international, si ce n’est l’existence d’une définition implicite au travers de critères de distinction à l’égard de l’arbitrage interne. Ces critères, relevant d’une technique législative propre à chaque État, traduisent la conception très particulière qu’ils se font de l’institution et influent inévitablement sur la manière dont ils décident de régir l’arbitrage international. Le second relève de la complexification des échanges économiques et commerciaux transfrontaliers et de l’éclatement exponentiel des sources que connaît l’arbitrage international, sous l’impulsion des sources internationales, des réformes nationales et de la pratique qui en est faite. Le développement de ces règles met en évidence un processus qui s’inscrit dans un contexte favorable à la promotion d’une harmonisation informelle, d’un droit matériel de l’arbitrage international. Ces règles restent, aujourd’hui, insuffisantes. La faiblesse du système réside dans leur origine nationale qui conduit à soumettre la question de la réglementation de l’arbitrage à différentes législations particularistes. Même si le monisme – internationalisé – n’est pas incompatible avec les spécificités de l’arbitrage international, la solution dualiste semble plus opportune : la vraie question étant le degré de prise en compte de ces spécificités par les réglementations nationales. Aussi, l’existence d’un dualisme matériel, puis formel de l’arbitrage international, constitue une démarche préalable à la réflexion sur la potentialité d’un ordre juridique transnational considéré comme le socle normatif de l’arbitrage international. / Over the last decades, unforeseen to national legislators, International Arbitration Law acquired more and more autonomy despite the existence of domestic legislation governing international arbitration. This autonomy has sparked much interest but has also caused some concern. The reason for such concern is twofold. The first cause for concern lies in the fact that there exist no legal definition of international arbitration. Indeed, the notion of international arbitration is, as of today, derived from the various criteria which have been set to distinguish international arbitration from domestic arbitration. These criteria, which stem from legislative methods specific to each national jurisdiction, are a reflection of the very unique approach taken by national laws towards arbitration and inevitably influence the manner in which each state decides to legislate on the rules governing international arbitration.The second cause for concern is the result of the increasing complexity of cross-border economic and commercial trade and the continuous diversification of sources of international arbitration through the enactment of numerous international pieces of legislation, national reform and case law. The development of these rules reveals an ongoing process within a context favorable to an informal harmonization of substantive International Arbitration Law. These rules remain insufficient today. The weakness of the system is due to the fact that International Arbitration has been regulated through domestic legislation. This raises the question of regulating arbitration through country-specific legislation. Even if, when internationalized, monism is not incompatible with the specificities of international arbitration, the dualistic approach seems to be more appropriate. The real question here actually lies is the importance afforded by national regulation to such specificities. Moreover, the existence of material dualism followed by formal dualism in international arbitration is a first step in the ongoing legal debate around the appropriateness of Transnational Arbitral Legal Order as the normative pillar of international arbitration.

El objeto del presente informe es brindar al jurado un resumen con las actuaciones más importantes del arbitraje bajo número de expediente 1125-187-16, llevado bajo las reglas del Centro de Arbitraje de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (en adelante, el Centro); así también, como un breve análisis y opinión del graduando sobre la decisión emitida por el Tribunal Arbitral. En el arbitraje materia del presente informe, la parte demandante fue el Consorcio Sensus Jergo (conformado por las empresas Corporación Sensus S.A y el Consorcio Jergo Contratistas y Consultores S.A.C) (en adelante, el Consorcio o el Contratista de forma indistinta) y la parte demandada es el Programa Nacional de Infraestructura Educativa – PRONIED (en adelante, PRONIED o la Entidad de forma indistinta). / Trabajo de suficiencia profesional