8. Conclusion

This, as argued previously, has already been done by many prominent arbitration scholars. See, e.g., among many others, Van den Berg (2014), Scherer (2016), Reisman and Richardson (2012), Radicati Di Brozolo (2012) Gharavi (2002), Paulsson (2017).

Voser N, George A (2016) ECtHR: Waiver of Recourse Against International Arbitral Award Not Incompatible with ECHR. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://​kluwerarbitratio​nblog.​com/​2016/​03/​31/​ecthr-waiver-of-recourse-against-international-arbitral-award-not-incompatible-with-echr/​. Accessed 29 May 2020.

Just to repeatedly mention a few—Jaksic (2002, 2007), Benedettelli (2015), Besson (2006), Jarrosson (1989), Briner and Von Schlabrendorff (2001), Petrochilos (2004), Landrove (2006), Matscher (1999), Mourre (2000).

See, however, Jaksic (2002).

See, e.g. Golder v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, ECtHR, 21 February 1975, para. 38; Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, 26083/94, ECtHR [GC], 18 February 1999, para. 59; Sabeh El Leil v. France, App. No. 34869/05, ECtHR [GC], 29 June 2011, para. 47.

See Sect. 5.​6.​2.

Park (2001), p. 595.

See Queen Mary University of London, White & Case (2018) 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration, p. 10. http://​www.​arbitration.​qmul.​ac.​uk/​research/​2018/​. Accessed 21 May 2020.

See, among others, art. 14(4) of the LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014); arts. 23(2) and 40 of the SCC Arbitration Rules (2017); art. 22(4) of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2017).

For example, art. 18 of the UNCITRAL Model Law requires that ‘the parties shall be treated with equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity of presenting his case.’ Similarly, the fulfilment of parties’ due process rights is implied in art. V of the New York Convention that provides that a foreign arbitral award may be refused recognition and enforcement if, inter alia, ‘[t]he party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case’ or ‘[t]he composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place’. See also art. 17(1) of the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

National arbitration laws similarly require that parties’ due process rights shall be respected during arbitration proceedings See, among others, art. 1699 of the BCCP, art. 1510 of the FCCP, sec. 18 of the Danish Arbitration Act, art. 1036(2) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 732 of the Estonian Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 22 of the Finish Arbitration Act, sec. 1042(1) of the ZPO, art. 28(1) of the Lithuanian Law on Commercial Arbitration, arts. 19–23 of the Latvian 2015 Arbitration Law and many others.

See, e.g. Firma Heinz Schiebler KG v. the Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 18805/91, ECmHR, 2 December 1991; Jakob Boss Söhn KG v. the Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 18479/91, ECmHR, 2 December 1991.

Petrochilos (2004), pp. 112–113 in referring to Article 11 of the United Nations (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) which states that a ‘[c]onduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own.’ See also Jaksic (2007), p. 162, Benedettelli (2015), p. 642.

Transado-Transportes Fluviais Do Sado, S.A. v. Portugal, App. No. 35943/02, ECtHR, 16 December 2003.