Virtual eshittiruvlarning amaliy masalalari va virtual eshittiruvlarda arbitraj qarorlarini ijroga qaratish
Keywords:
virtual hearings, international commercial arbitration, enforcement of arbitral awards, due process, New York Convention, procedural fairness, lex arbitri, TIAC.Abstract
The enforcement of arbitral awards rendered after virtual hearings is a critical concern in international commercial arbitration. This study investigates the specific procedural aspects of virtual hearings that threaten the enforceability of awards under Article V of the New York Convention. A conceptual legal analysis was conducted, deconstructing the virtual hearing process into sequential stages—consent, pre-hearing testing, hearing conduct, and record-keeping. This framework was used to identify due process vulnerabilities at each stage. The procedural rules of the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (TIAC) were analyzed as a case study of integrated risk mitigation. The analysis identifies three primary risk points, like lack of express consent, technical failures and unequal access, threatening a party’s ability to present its case and inadequate records to rebut allegations of procedural unfairness. The TIAC Rules (2021) provide a model for addressing these risks through explicit provisions for digital evidence, experimental procedures, and data confidentiality. The findings indicate that the enforceability of virtual awards is contingent on proactive and systematic procedural safeguards. Harmonizing advanced institutional rules with national arbitration laws is essential to mitigate enforcement risks and solidify the legitimacy of digital arbitration.
References
Born, G. B. (2020). International commercial arbitration (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Cheung, K., Kot, D., & Mirabdullaeva, D. (2021, December 31). Technology and 2021 rules of arbitration of the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (TIAC) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Uzbekistan. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. (Available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com).
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). (2021). ICC Rules of Arbitration. (Available at: https://iccwbo.org).
London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). (2020). LCIA Arbitration Rules. (Available at: https://www.lcia.org).
Ministère tunisien de l'Equipement v. Société Bec Frères and Société Grands Travaux d'Afrique, February 24, 1994.
Queen Mary University of London, School of Law. (2020). 2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world. (Available at: https://arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2021-international-arbitration-survey/ ).
Sachs, K., & Lörcher, T. (2021). In K. Sachs (Ed.), Commentary on the German Arbitration Law (10th Book of the German Code of Civil Procedure). C.H. Beck.
Scherer, M. (2021). Remote hearings in international arbitration: An analytical framework. Journal of International Arbitration, 38(4), 1-24.
Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (TIAC). (2021). Rules of Arbitration. (Available at: https://tiac.uz).
UNCITRAL. (1985). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. United Nations.
United Nations. (1958). United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
