An account of events, by definition, involves an understanding of the actors
A prova na arbitragem comercial internacional
Resumen
O que pode justificar a publicação de um texto sobre a prova na arbitragem comercial internacional? O que haverá de peculiar nesta instância de realização do Direito que explique a autonomização da matéria da prova tal quando realizada em arbitragem comercial internacional? Não será a teoria geral da prova aplicável à demonstração da realidade num certo tipo de processos – os processos arbitrais – sempre que estes respeitem a litígios comerciais e plurilocalizados?
Estas as questões centrais, em torno das quais gravitará o texto. Acentuaremos aquele que julgamos ser o factor determinante no desenvolvimento de uma praxis que, não provocando uma ruptura entre a teoria geral da prova, desenvolvida para os processos civis julgados em tribunais estaduais, e os vectores centrais da prova, tal como conhecidos na arbitragem comercial internacional: o contexto do exercício da jurisdição.
Palabras clave
prova, arbitragem comercial internacional, teoria geral da prova, praxis internacional, soft law e autonomia privadaCitas
Alchourrón, C. E. e Bulygin, E. (1971). Normative Systems. Springer Verlag.
Akinleye-Martins, O. (2022). Delocalization of international commercial arbitrations and the effect on arbitral awards. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/delocalization-international-commercial-arbitrations
Amaral, G. R. (2018). Burden of Proof and Adverse Inferences in International Arbitration: Proposal for an Inference Chart. Journal of International Arbitration, 35(1), pp. 1-30
Aron, R. (1958). On Evidence and Inference in History. Daedalus, 87(4), pp. 11-39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20026461.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A2cdd0bb07e991df067642c20a5fc0696&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
Atría, F. (2019). Sobre las lagunas. Em E. Bulygin (ed.), El libro de los premisos (pp. 107-122). Marcial Pons.
Born, G. B. (2021). International Arbitration: Law and Practice (Third Edition). Kluwer Law International.
Bulygin, E. (2019) En defensa de el Dorado: Respuesta a Fernando Atría. Em E. Bulygin (ed.), El libro de los premisos (pp. 123-137). Marcial Pons.
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators [CIArb] (2007). Protocol for the Use of Party-Appointed Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration. https://www.ciarb.org/media/6824/partyappointedexpertsinternationalarbitration.pdf
Cruz e Tucci, J. R. (1987). A motivação da sentença no processo civil. Editora Saraiva.
Cywicki, K. e Grose, M. (2017). Pleadings or Memorials: Which Are More Appropriate for Construction Arbitrations? BCDR International Arbitration Review, 4(1), pp. 43-52
Dias, A. e Gomides, G. C. (2023). Meio de prova na ausência de prova: inferência negativa. Em J. L. L. Neto e B. Guandalini (eds.), Provas e Arbitragem. Teoria, Cultura, Dogmática e Prática (pp. 271-286). Thomson Reuters, Revista dos Tribunais.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2011). Prueba sin convicción. Estándares de prueba y debido proceso. Marcial Pons.
Gaillard, E. e Savage, J. (eds.) (1999). Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
Gadamer, H. G. (2009). Dos Mestres e Discípulos. Em H. G. Gadamer, Herança e Futuro da Europa. Edições 70.
Gaillard, E. (2008). Aspects philosophiques du droit de l’arbitrage international. Martinus Nijhoff.
Garnett, R. (2022). Demystifying the Burden of Proof in International Arbitration. Em F. Ferrari e F. J. Rosenfeld (eds.), Handbook of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration: Key Concepts and Issues (Chapter 4, pp. 67-86). Kluwer Law International.
Goldman, B. (1963). Les conflits de lois dans l’arbitrage international de droit privé. Em Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (volume 109). http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789028614628_04.
Gupta, S. e Kunstyr, J. (7 novembro 2022). English court rekindles the debate on the form of interim measures in English-seated arbitrations: order or award? Oxford Business Law Blog. https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oblb/blog-post/2022/11/english-court-rekindles-debate-form-interim-measures-english-seated
Hume, D. (2002). A Treatise of Human Nature. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm.
Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2023). The Myth of Transnational Public Policy in International Arbitration. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 71(1), pp. 98–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad021.
Lalive, P. (1987). Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration. Em P. Sanders (ed), Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, ICCA Congress Series (Volume 3, pp. 258-318). Kluwer Law International. https://www.lalive.law/data/publications/58_-_Transnational_(or_Truly_International)_Public_Policy_and_International_Arbitration__in_Comparative_Arbitration_Practice_and_Public_Policy_in_Arbitration_1986.pdf
Landbrecht, J. (2021). The Autonomy of Arbitration: Autonomy À Géométrie Variable. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 14(1), pp. 39-82. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3855986.
Lessa, J. (2020). Produção autônoma de provas e as tradições jurídicas: diálogo entre as experiências brasileira e anglo-americana [Tese de Doutorado]. Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito.
Mayer, P. (2001). L’arbitre international et la hiérarchie des norms. Revue de l’Arbitrage, 2011(2), pp. 361-384
Mayer, P., Valença Filho, C. e Kharmandayan, L. (2019). Clássicos da Arbitragem: o mito da ordem jurídica de base (ou Grundlegung). Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem, 6(23), p. 253-269. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4927810/mod_resource/content/0/Cl%C3%A1ssicos%20da%20Arbitragem%20-%20O%20Mito%20da%20Ordem%20Jur%C3%ADdica%20de%20Base.pdf
von Mehren, R. B. (1996). Burden of Proof in International Arbitration. Em A. J. van den Berg (ed.), ICCA Congress Series: Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings: The Law Applicable in International Arbitration (Volume 7, pp. 13-130). Kluwer Law International.
Michaels, R. (2008). The True Lex Mercatoria: Law Beyond the State. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 14(2); Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Paper, 220. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1259979.
Mitidiero, D. (2020). O ônus da prova e seus inimigos. Revista de Processo, 45(306), p. 17–47.
Nieva-Fenoll, J. e Pereira, F. S. (2022). Ónus da Prova e Standards de Prova: duas reminiscências do passado. Lusíada. Direito, 27/28, p. 75–107.
Neto, J. L. L. e Guandalini, B. (eds.) (2023). Provas e Arbitragem. Teoria, Cultura, Dogmática e Prática. Thomson Reuters, Revista dos Tribunais.
Paulsson, J. (1983). Delocalization of International Commercial Arbitration: When and Why it Matters. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 32(1), pp. 53-61.
Paulsson, J. (2008). Unlawful Laws and the Authority of International Tribunals: The Lalive Lecture, Genéve, May, 27, 2009. ICSID Review: foreign Investment Law Journal, 23(2). https://academic.oup.com/icsidreview/article-abstract/23/2/215/656200?redirectedFrom=PDF
Piché, M. R. e Jalles, S. de S. (4 abril 2020). The Armesto Schedule: a Step Further to a More Efficient Document Production. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/04/04/the-armesto-schedule-a-step-further-to-a-more-efficient-document-production/
Pinheiro, L. L. (2017). The confluence of transnational rules and national directives as the legal framework of transnational arbitration (updated version). https://www.arbitragem.pt/xms/files/Estudos_da_APA/legal-framework-of-arbitration-luis-lima-pinheiro.pdf
Rabello, A. M. (2004). Non liquet: from Modern Law to Roman Law. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, 10, pp. 1-25.
Sachs, K. (2010). Experts: Neutrals or Advocates, with the assistance of Dr. Nils Schmidt-Ahrendts. https://www.josemigueljudice-arbitration.com/xms/files/02_TEXTOS_ARBITRAGEM/01_Doutrina_ScolarsTexts/evidence/experts__icca_2010_sachs.pdf.
Silva, P. C. (no prelo). Accord des parties sur la procédure ou décision des arbitres?: la piège de Francfort et la petrification d’un processus souhaitablement ductile, no prelo
Silva, P. C. (1992). Anulação e recursos da decisão arbitral. Revista da Ordem dos Advogados, 52(3), pp. 893-1008. https://portal.oa.pt/upl/%7B1aa6c623-9631-4f92-a89c-9c1a16323787%7D.pdf. Republicado in Estudos de Arbitragem (Volume I, pp. 469-574). Almedina.
Silva, P. C. (2009). A nova face da justiça: os meios extrajudiciais de resolução de controvérsias. relatório sobre o conteúdo, programa e métodos de ensino. Coimbra Editora.
Silva, P. C. (2010). O custo da Justiça. Cadernos de Direito Privado, 1, Especial Dezembro de 2010, pp. 57-75
Silva, P. C. (2011). Legalidade das formas de processo e gestão processual ou as duas faces de Janus. Revista de Informação Legislativa, 48(190), pp. 137-149.
Silva, P. C. (2012). Cautela e certeza: breve apontamento acerca do proposto regime de inversão do contencioso na tutela cautelar. Em Debate A Reforma do Processo Civil (pp. 139-149). Sindicato dos Magistrados do Ministério Público.
Silva, P. C. (2022a). A decisão arbitral entre o acto e o negócio. Católica Law Review, 6(2), pp. 113-128. https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/catolicalawreview/article/view/11414
Silva, P. C. (2022b). Arbitration, Jurisdiction and Culture: Apropos the Rules of Prague. Em P. Silva, Estudos de Arbitragem (vol. 1, pp. 459-464). Almedina.
Silva, P. C. (2022c). Constitucionalidade e arbitragem: controlo de constitucionalidade por tribunais arbitrais e controlo de constitucionalidade de decisões arbitrais. Em P. Silva, Estudos de Arbitragem (vol. 1, pp. 87-105). Almedina.
Silva, P. C. (2022d). Online Dispute Resolution and the Virtual Hearings: Six Characters in Search of an Author. Em P. Silva, Estudos de Arbitragem (vol. 1, pp. 107-118). Almedina.
Silva, P. C. (2022e). Responsabilidade por conduta processual. Litigância de má fé e tipos especiais. Almedina.
Silva, P. e Reis, N. (2019). Efeitos lícitos da prova ilícita em processo estadual e arbitral. AAFDL.
Sharpe, J. K. (2006). Drawing Adverse Inferences from the Non-production of Evidence. Arbitration International, 22(4), pp. 549-572. https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/parties_publications/C3765/Respondent%27s%20Rejoinder%20%28redacted%20per%20PO10%29/Pi%C3%A8ces%20juridiques/RL-0110.pdf.
Singarajah, F. (17 janeiro 2020). Cultural differences in international arbitration. Practical law arbitration blog. http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/cultural-differences-in-international-arbitration/.
Stone Sweet, A. (2006). The new Lex Mercatoria and transnational governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), pp. 627–646. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569352.
Taruffo, M. (2014). A motivação da sentença civil (trad., Daniel Mitidiero, Rafael Abreu e Vitor Paula Ramos). Marcial Pons.
Taruffo, M. (25 junho 2018). Inferencias fácticas en las decisiones judiciales. [Vídeo]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMeaQyAkdcI.
Thaman, S. C. (2011). Should Criminal Juries Give Reasons for Their Verdicts?: The Spanish Experience and the Implications of the European Court of Human Rights Decision in Taxquet v. Belgium. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86(2), pp. 613-668. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol86/iss2/8/?utm_source=scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu%2Fcklawreview%2Fvol86%2Fiss2%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
Theofrastous, T. C. (1999). International Commercial Arbitration in Europe: subsidiary and supremacy in light of the de-localization debate. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 31(2), pp. 455-493. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214079184.pdf
Waincymer, J. (2012). Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration. Wolters Kluwer.
Whitman, J. Q. (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. Yale University Press.
Soft Law & Outras fontes de informação
Australian Center for International Commercial Arbitration. ACICA Practice & Procedures Board [ACICA] (2020). Explanatory Note: Memorials or Pleadings? https://acica.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ACICA-Explanatory-Note_-Memorials-or-Pleadings.pdf
ELI-UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: from transnational principles to European rules of civil procedure (2020). https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/200925-eli-unidroit-rules-e.pdf
Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Limited v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, case no. 2016-39, Permanent Court of Arbitration [PCA]. https://italaw.com/cases/documents/7787
International Bar Association [IBA] (2020). IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. https://www.ibanet.org/resources.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID] (2016). Draft procedural order no. 1. https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Draft%20Procedural%20Order%20No%201.pdf
International Chamber of Commerce [ICC] (2021). 2021 Arbitration Rules. https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/2021-arbitration-rules/
International Council for Commercial Arbitration [ICCA] (2015). ICCA Checklist First procedural order. https://cdn.arbitration-icca.org/s3fs-public/document/media_document/07042015_icca_checklist_first_procedural_order_a5_qr_final.pdf
Lei Modelo da UNCITRAL sobre Arbitragem Comercial Internacional (2011). https://dgpj.justica.gov.pt/Portals/31/Edi%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20DGPJ/Lei-modelo_uncitral.pdf?ver=BNXecmWCrRQkw6nwQRHOYQ%3D%3D.
London School of Economics and Political Science [LSE] (23 maio 2012). Unlawful Laws: how far can arbitrators go?: 3rd LSE Arbitration Debate. https://www.lse.ac.uk/lse-player?id=1486
PT Ventures SGPS S.A. v. Vidatel Ltd., Mercury - Serviços de Telecomunicacões S.A. and Geni SA, Case No. 21404/ASM/JPA (C-21757/ASM), International Chamber of Commerce [ICC]. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-pt-ventures-sgps-s-a-v-vitadel-ltd-mercury-servicos-de-telecomunicacoes-sarl-and-geni-sarl-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-the-british-virgin-islands-thursday-13th-august-2020
Rules on Conduct of the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (The Prague Rules) (2018). https://praguerules.com/upload/medialibrary/9dc/9dc31ba7799e26473d92961d926948c9.pdf
Sociétés BKMI et Siemens v Société Dutco, Cour de Cassation (1ère Chambre Civile), 7 de Janeiro de 1992
Taxquet v. Belgium, nº 926/05, European Court of Human Rights, 16 November 2010 https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a77480/pdf
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL] (2016). Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/arb-notes-2016-e.pdf.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i6.22949Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Paula Costa e Silva
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.