| Abstract [eng] |
This master’s work reveals the issue of whether or not the existence or non-existence of review of an arbitral award is legitimate. This work identifies on the one hand, the correlation in the parties’ interest to agree to submit their dispute to arbitration and on the other hand the way in which the legal system strives to control this alternative dispute resolution. The thesis tackles the issue of the court intervention in arbitration and strives to depict the legitimate extent of review in order no to diminish the role of arbitration. The first chapter of the thesis presents the grounds of review in arbitration and their legal legitimacy. It also tackles the question regarding whether or not the aforementioned bases are too extensive. From the research made it is clear that these grounds are legitimate and thus the role of arbitration is not underminedand the interest of the state to control arbitration to a certain level is assured. These factors lead to legal and legitimate arbitral award. The next chapter displays the necessity and legitimacy of review in arbitration. The arguments of both the opponents and advocates to arbitration are put forth in this chapter wherein it is made clear that the latter position prevails. In the third chapter reference is made to the fact that review is not absolute. This thesis confirms that in certain cases review in arbitration is no longer available. Finally the chapter provides an overview of how the review of arbitration is tackled under different regulations in different states. This is done in order to identify the pros and cons of the review in different jurisdictions so as to eventually come up with an optimal model of review. |
