The Prague Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International compromise (hereinafter “the Prague Rules”), according to the Preamble, are intended to provide a framework and/or guidance for arbitral tribunals and parties on how to increase the efficiency of arbitration by encouraging a more active role for Arbitral Tribunals in managing proceedings. The Prague Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (hereinafter “the Prague Rules”), according to the Preamble, are intended to provide a framework and/or guidance for arbitral tribunals and parties on how to increase efficiency of arbitration by encouraging a more active role for Arbitral Tribunals in managing proceedings. Despite above-stated official purpose of the Rules, it is also argued that the Prague Rules operate under the shadow of an apparent war between common law and civil law armies for dominance over the international arbitration landscape. According to the proponents of that concept, the Prague Rules are a manifestation in favour of the civil law tradition and of an inquisitorial approach in international arbitration, as well as an attack on the inefficiencies of the adversarial approach which has been embodied under common law-dominated International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration.
One of the main indications for the promotion of civil law tradition under the Prague Rules is the assistance of Arbitral Tribunal to parties in amicable settlement which is regulated within Article 9 of the Rules. Under that article, the Prague Rules mandate the tribunal to facilitate the amicable settlement of disputes between the parties and provide a number of options for achieving this aim. While it may be generally inconceivable for a “common law” arbitrator to initiate facilitation of settlement, a “civil law” arbitrator will most likely be comfortable with encouraging parties’ discussions to settle the case. For instance, arbitrators from “Germanic” jurisdictions such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria tend to adopt a different, proactive approach to the facilitation of settlements in arbitration and that proactive role of the arbitrator as “dispute-resolver”, rather than a mere “dispute-decider”, is deeply rooted in the traditional role of domestic judges in those jurisdictions. Conversely, this view of the role of courts and arbitrators differs from that of the common law (especially within US jurisdiction), where it is seen as a premature expression of the tribunal's legal opinion and hence a possible ground for challenge. Although amicable settlement with the assistance of Arbitral Tribunal has been formulated under the Prague Rules as a method in favor of procedural efficiency and proactive role of arbitrators, this memorandum will evaluate the potential practical problems which may arise from the regulation of this method under these Rules.
The Prague
Rules
on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in
International
compromise (hereinafter “the Prague
Rules”)
, according to the Preamble,
are intended
to provide a framework and/or guidance for
arbitral
tribunals
and
parties
on how to increase the efficiency of
arbitration
by encouraging a more active
role
for
Arbitral
Tribunals
in managing proceedings. The Prague
Rules
on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in
International
Arbitration
(hereinafter “the Prague
Rules”)
, according to the Preamble,
are intended
to provide a framework and/or guidance for
arbitral
tribunals
and
parties
on how to increase efficiency of
arbitration
by encouraging a more active
role
for
Arbitral
Tribunals
in managing proceedings. Despite above-stated official purpose of the
Rules
, it is
also
argued that the Prague
Rules
operate under the shadow of an apparent war between
common
law
and
civil
law
armies for dominance over the
international
arbitration
landscape. According to the proponents of that concept, the Prague
Rules
are a manifestation in
favour
of the
civil
law
tradition and of an inquisitorial approach in
international
arbitration
,
as well
as an attack on the inefficiencies of the adversarial approach which has
been embodied
under
common
law-dominated
International
Bar Association
Rules
on the Taking of Evidence in
International
Arbitration.
One of the main indications for the promotion of
civil
law
tradition under the Prague
Rules
is the assistance of
Arbitral
Tribunal
to
parties
in amicable
settlement
which
is regulated
within Article 9 of the
Rules
. Under that article, the Prague
Rules
mandate the
tribunal
to facilitate the amicable
settlement
of disputes between the
parties
and provide a number of options for achieving this aim. While it may be
generally
inconceivable for a
“common
law”
arbitrator
to initiate facilitation of
settlement
, a
“civil
law”
arbitrator
will most likely be
comfortable with encouraging
parties’
discussions to settle the case.
For instance
,
arbitrators
from “Germanic” jurisdictions such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria tend to adopt a
different
, proactive approach to the facilitation of
settlements
in
arbitration
and that proactive
role
of the
arbitrator
as “dispute-resolver”,
rather
than a mere “dispute-decider”, is
deeply
rooted in the traditional
role
of domestic judges in those jurisdictions.
Conversely
, this view of the
role
of courts and
arbitrators
differs from that of the
common
law
(
especially
within US jurisdiction), where it is
seen
as a premature expression of the tribunal's legal opinion and
hence
a possible ground for challenge. Although amicable
settlement
with the assistance of
Arbitral
Tribunal
has
been formulated
under the Prague
Rules
as a method in favor of procedural efficiency and proactive
role
of
arbitrators
, this memorandum will evaluate the potential practical problems which may arise from the regulation of this method under these
Rules
.