"Annulment of the arbitration decision due to non-compliance with the principle of confrontation."

Abstract

The research addresses a significant judicial ruling from the French Court of Cassation, which annulled an arbitration decision due to a violation of the principle of confrontation, a fundamental tenet of arbitration law. The study emphasizes the growing skepticism among arbitration professionals, particularly in international arbitration, about the increasing annulments of arbitration awards by national courts. This trend has become a tool for parties dissatisfied with arbitration outcomes to delay or circumvent enforcement, thus undermining arbitration's role as a cost-effective and time-saving alternative to national courts for commercial disputes. However, the research also highlights the supervisory role that national courts can play in ensuring arbitrators adhere to fundamental arbitration principles, including respecting the principle of confrontation. It ultimately suggests that a balance must be struck between the available legal avenues for dispute resolution at the international level. This balance should protect the integrity and efficiency of arbitration while allowing necessary judicial oversight to prevent abuses of arbitration processes. The study concludes with a call for arbitrators to proactively apply legal principles in a manner that allows parties to discuss and confront these principles before a ruling is made, thus upholding the core values of arbitration as an equitable and transparent dispute resolution mechanism.