Party Autonomy

In deze bijdrage wordt de vraag verkend in welke mate ruimte moet bestaan voor een gefragmenteerd burgerschap. Naar huidig recht is nationaliteit nog altijd in sterke mate een eendimensionaal begrip, historisch het gevolg van de notie dat de burger zich deel moet voelen van één nationale gemeenschap en daarnaar moet handelen om aanspraak te kunnen maken op de rechten die verbonden zijn met zijn nationaliteit. Bepleit wordt dat dit eendimensionale en monolithische begrip van nationaliteit  in wordt geruild voor een gefragmenteerd burgerschap. Dit bestaat er in dat – binnen de grenzen die de staat stelt – individuen kunnen kiezen voor de segmenten van burgerschap die het meest aansluiten bij hun eigen preferenties. Dit functioneel en temporeel burgerschap past bij de toegenomen rol van partijautonomie in het internationaal privaatrecht en bij de mogelijkheid van een individuele keuze voor andere dan statelijke normenstelsels.

Procedural flexibility and party autonomy are likely the most distinguishing features of arbitration that allow for arguably more efficient, cost-effective and individualised dispute resolution process than traditional recourse to national courts. However, this freedom in some cases might come at a cost of essential guarantees of a fair trial that would normally apply to court proceedings by virtue of Article 6 ECHR. Arbitral tribunals and national courts are expected to safeguard those guarantees and are vested with certain powers in order to do so, however, the extent of involvement of national courts in arbitration remains a controversial issue. Hence, this paper examines the guarantees of Art. 6(1) ECHR, its scope and application in every stage of the arbitral process together with the role of arbitral tribunals and national courts.

In 2019, the EU Member States started applying the Matrimonial Property Regulation, which concerns the property regimes of international marriages. This regulation is aimed at helping couples manage their property and divide it in case of divorce or the death of one spouse. One of the main features of this regulation is its openness to the parties' choice. The

The historically endorsed principle of caveat emptor is argued to have been substantially eroded by the implied terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and judicial attitudes toward freedom of contract and party autonomy. This paper explores the approach of modern law in respect of legal certainty and the extent to which the codification of the law of sale fulfils the expectations of buyers and sellers. Furthermore, the deviation from a laissez faire attitude in favour of one of judicial and legislative intervention is examined in light of the requirements imposed by the key implied conditions of satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose. The article also considers the impact of the determination of the status of terms, concluding that the law in this area is unduly complex and technical. This extraneous intricacy supports a much needed and welcomed consolidation of this area of law recently introduced by the enactment of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the context of consumer sales.

Although ubiquitous and determinative with respect to the merits of most proceedings, arbitrator discretion concerning the gathering and presentation of evidence in international arbitration remains invisible as an inherent power in need of constraints. The orthodox due process protection available to parties who have not been treated fairly or otherwise have been precluded "from presenting their case," is conceptually incapable of tempering the workings of arbitrator discretion in this field. This dysfunction appears to be rooted in the unique nature of arbitrator discretion concerning evidentiary matters. Analysis establishes that this form of arbitrator discretion is unlike most recognized inherent powers, and equally dissimilar to "classical constraints on party-autonomy."
If arbitrator discretion is to enjoy equipoise with party-autonomy, more is necessary. Arbitral cultural sensitivity to the right that parties have as to how to present a case must be developed. Structural approaches, such as the use of the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration and the use of strategic procedural junctures such as the Initial Scheduling Order or terms of reference phases may contribute to the tempering of arbitrator discretion with respect to evidentiary practice. The status quo invites change. It is now, as always, up to practitioners, academics, arbitrators, and the consumers of arbitral services to summon the intellectual courage to cause change to happen.

La autonomía de la voluntad conflictual en materia contractual es la potestad legal que tienen las partes para ele-gir la Ley que gobierne su relación jurídica internacional. Los legisladores, además de permitir dicha posibilidad, deben en-contrar un equilibrio entre reconocer ampliamente la autono-mía de los contratantes, y establecer unos límites que protejan el orden público. Colombia actualmente no regula de manera directa la autonomía conflictual, pero una propuesta de refor-ma al Código Civil plantea su inclusión. Este artículo pretende identificar cuáles deben ser los límites óptimos que deben im-poner los legisladores a la autonomía de la voluntad conflic-tual, y determinar si éstos son contemplados en la reforma.