Iura Novit Curia versus Iura Novit Arbiter in International Arbitration

Ingrid A. Muller ()
Additional contact information
Ingrid A. Muller: Attorney-at-Law, LL.B., LL.M. in International Arbitration, LL.M. in Public International Law, '20 LL.M. Columbia Law School, ’20 Honoree, Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law, United States of America; '21 LL.M. in European Law, Université Paris 1 PanthéonSorbonne, France.

International Investment Law Journal, 2022, vol. 2, issue 2, 137-142

Abstract: The paper analyzes the distinction between the two presumptions mentioned in the title. At first glance, it seems that the application of both the Iura Novit Curia and the Iura Novit Arbiter principles in international arbitration is redundant. After all, what are the Arbitrator and the Arbitral Tribunal if not a private judge and, respectively, a private Court? However, the distinction between the two concepts becomes extremely important in certain stages of the arbitration, especially when it comes to purely procedural matters. As such, there is a difference between the arbitral process that takes place in front of the Arbitral Tribunal and incidental or additional procedures that take place in front of State Courts (even after the arbitral award has been rendered, e.g. an annulment procedure or at the stage of recognition or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award). In conclusion, the use of both expressions in parallel is justified. Iura Novit Curia corresponding strictly to the role of Domestic Courts in an arbitration, at all stages (both incidental and additional matters during the arbitral process and in follow up procedures) and addressing the knowledge of the Courts’ lex fori (e.g. public order/public policy issues), unless explicitly excluded by applicable provisions. While Iura Novit Arbiter pertaining to the role of the Arbitral Tribunal per se – although, in this case, the expression is more a misnomer, the presumption being limited by the choices of the parties as an assertion of party autonomy, a main characteristic of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution method.

Keywords: international arbitration; the role of domestic courts in arbitration; Iura Novit Curia; Iura Novit Arbiter; party autonomy. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: K15 K33 K39 K49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.investmentlaw.adjuris.ro/articole/An2v2 ... uller%20Art.%201.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sja:journ1:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:137-142

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in International Investment Law Journal from Societatea de Stiinte Juridice si Administrative (Society of Juridical and Administrative Sciences) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catalin-Silviu Sararu ().