¿Eficaz y eficiente?: Principales problemas de la ejecución judiciales de laudos arbitrales en la jurisprudencia de las Salas Comerciales de Lima en los 2020 y 2021
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2023-10-27
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Resumen
Todos, quizá algunos más que otros, conocemos que tanto la jurisdicción
ordinaria y la “jurisdicción arbitral” tienen partidarios y detractores. Los partidarios
del arbitraje flamean la bandera de la eficiencia y eficacia; por otro lado, los
partidarios de la jurisdicción ordinaria, la garantista. No obstante, es innegable
que en algunos casos el arbitraje necesita del brazo “ius imperium” para hacer
efectivas sus decisiones, por lo que de alguna manera estas dos jurisdicciones
terminan encontrándose.
Por eso, a través del presente trabajo, aunque con un perfil notablemente
descriptivo, se trató de identificar los principales problemas que presenta la
ejecución judicial de laudos arbitrales (que contienen órdenes de condena),
específicamente aquellos que se detectaron en la jurisprudencia de las Salas
Comerciales de Lima durante los años 2020 y 2021.
Sin embargo, la gran conclusión, contrariamente a lo que pondría pensarse, es
que los problemas no son atribuibles exclusivamente a la jurisdicción ordinaria,
sino que estos también se originan en los mismos laudos. Ante ello, es necesario
preguntarse dónde radica la solución a estos problemas: en la interpretación o
en la norma, si estuviera en esta última, a su vez es importante preguntar si está
en la norma actual o si corresponde un cambio normativo.
Finalmente, se busca, a través del presente artículo, dar luces también a los
mismos abogados litigantes sobre esta actual problemática a fin de que se pueda
plantear mejores estrategias de litigación.
Everyone, maybe some more tan others, is aware that both the judicial jurisdiction and the arbitration have supporters and detractors. Arbitration supporters wave the banner of efficiency and effectiveness; on the other hand, the supports of the judicial jurisdiction, the guarantor. However, it is undeniable that in some cases arbitration needs the arm of “ius imperium” to make its decisions effective, so somehow these two jurisdictions end up meeting. For this reason, through the present paper, although with a remarkably descriptive profile, an attempt was made to identify the main problems presented by the judicial execution of arbitral awards that containing conviction orders, specifically those that were detected in the jurisprudence of the commercial second-degree judges of Lima during the years 2020 and 2021. However, the great conclusión, contrary to what one might think, is that the problems are not exclusively attributable to the judicial jurisdiction, but these are also come from the arbitration awards themselves. Thus, it is necessary to ask where the solution to these problems lies: interpretion or legislation. If it is a legislation thing, could it be solved from the current legislation or is it needed no make a change? Finally, it is sought to shed light on this current problem for the litigation lawyers themselves, so that better litigation strategies can be proposed.
Everyone, maybe some more tan others, is aware that both the judicial jurisdiction and the arbitration have supporters and detractors. Arbitration supporters wave the banner of efficiency and effectiveness; on the other hand, the supports of the judicial jurisdiction, the guarantor. However, it is undeniable that in some cases arbitration needs the arm of “ius imperium” to make its decisions effective, so somehow these two jurisdictions end up meeting. For this reason, through the present paper, although with a remarkably descriptive profile, an attempt was made to identify the main problems presented by the judicial execution of arbitral awards that containing conviction orders, specifically those that were detected in the jurisprudence of the commercial second-degree judges of Lima during the years 2020 and 2021. However, the great conclusión, contrary to what one might think, is that the problems are not exclusively attributable to the judicial jurisdiction, but these are also come from the arbitration awards themselves. Thus, it is necessary to ask where the solution to these problems lies: interpretion or legislation. If it is a legislation thing, could it be solved from the current legislation or is it needed no make a change? Finally, it is sought to shed light on this current problem for the litigation lawyers themselves, so that better litigation strategies can be proposed.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Arbitraje y laudo--Legislación--Perú, Derecho procesal--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Juzgados--Jurisprudencia--Perú
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este artículo se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess