Abstract

ABSTRACT: This article continues the analysis of the relationship between the proceedings for setting aside and enforcement of international awards made in the country in which enforcement is being sought. It has already been shown in the previous article (in the 2004 volume of this journal at page 96) that the solution retained in the Uncitral Model Law is flawed in this respect, since it admits raising grounds for objecting the awards efficacy in enforcement proceedings even if the time limit for raising the identical grounds in setting-aside proceedings has elapsed. This time limit is therefore rendered totally moot. The Brazilian Arbitration Act of 1996 has reproduced this legislative flaw in an even more ambiguous way in its article 33. Although the practical implications of this original lapse have been rather limited, the reform of the general law on execution of 2005 by Act nº 11.232 has seriously aggravated the inconsistencies and their consequences. This article shows the consequences of this development and provides for a suggestion de lege lata that would eliminate these problems once and for all.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.