Resumo O presente artigo vai tratar da situação em que se alega o não cabimento da homologação da sentença arbitral estrangeira com fundamento na ausência de imparcialidade do árbitro. Buscar-se-á primeiro entender o que a doutrina e a jurisprudência consideram como ausência de imparcialidade do árbitro. Em seguida, verificar-se-á se a falta de imparcialidade do árbitro é capaz de resultar na denegação de homologação da sentença arbitral estrangeira. Será discutido qual seria o fundamento para denegação, partindo-se da análise da Convenção de Nova Iorque de 1958. A apresentação do posicionamento da jurisprudência estrangeira e especialmente da jurisprudência brasileira sobre o tema será importante para se chegar a conclusões a respeito da possibilidade ou não da denegação e para tentar identificar os parâmetros utilizados nas decisões denegatórias.

Abstract This article will deal with the situation in which it is alleged that the recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award should be denied on the basis of the arbitrator’s lack of impartiality. The first step will be understanding what scholars and case law consider to be the lack of impartiality of the arbitrator. Next, it will be verified whether the arbitrator’s lack of impartiality leads to the denial of recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. The ground for denial will be discussed, based on the analysis of the New York Convention of 1958. The presentation of the position of foreign and especially Brazilian case law on the subject will be important to reach conclusions regarding the possibility, if that is the case, to deny and to try to identify the parameters used in denial decisions.

Résumé Cet article traitera de la situation dans laquelle il est allégué que la ratification de la sentence arbitrale étrangère n’est pas valable en raison du manque d’impartialité de l’arbitre. Elle cherchera d’abord à comprendre ce que la doctrine et la jurisprudence considèrent comme l’absence d’impartialité de l’arbitre. Ensuite, il sera vérifié si le manque d’impartialité de l’arbitre est susceptible d’entraîner le refus de ratification de la sentence arbitrale étrangère. On discutera de ce qui serait la base du refus, à partir de l’analyse de la Convention de New York de 1958. La présentation de la position de la jurisprudence étrangère et en particulier de la jurisprudence brésilienne sur le sujet sera importante pour tirer des conclusions quant à la possibilité ou pas de refus et d’essayer d’identifier les paramètres utilisés dans les décisions de refus.

International business arbitration is not covered by Namibia's present arbitration law, the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 (the Act). There is no explicit language in the Act that addresses foreign arbitration as the Act, solely by default, covers national or domestic arbitration. When it comes to international arbitration, the Act has many flaws. Modern commercial arbitrations are increasingly being guided by the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (MLICA) of UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) or by state legislation that has been influenced by it. It is undeniable that Namibia must embrace MLICA, including the majority of the 2006 revisions of the MLICA, in order to participate in the global economic village. Furthermore, Namibia has not yet ratified the 1958-adopted New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (CREFAA), which has been hailed as the most effective treaty governing global trade. This article suggests that Namibia should implement both the MLICA and the CREFAA. If this strategy is not adopted, businesses in Namibia will be hesitant to engage in international business transactions due to the lack of legal certainty that the New York Convention and contemporary domestic arbitration legislation bring.

This article provides an overview of the history of international commercial law in Africa with reference to instruments of the three sister organisations of private international law (in a wide sense): UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law), UNIDROIT (the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law) and the HCCH (the Hague Conference on Private International Law). The adoption of UNIDROIT's Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment of 2001 is identified as a possible watershed moment in respect of the future development of international commercial law in Africa. Following the creation of an African Continental Free Trade Area by member countries of the African Union, it is suggested that participating states reconsider joining the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (1980) (CISG) and incorporating the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985/2006), which are in a certain sense the two founding documents of the modern lex mercatoria. Another priority, the author suggests, is that Africa needs a supporting instrument on the private international law of contract. The first draft of the African Principles on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts is then discussed with an emphasis on the role of substantive law instruments, in particular the CISG.

Résumé: L’inégalité des avantages et des désavantages entre les investisseurs et les États dans l’arbitrage des investissements fondé sur des traités a conduit à repenser la négociation d’accords internationaux. Dans ce sens, les États envisagent, par exemple, l’inclusion d’engagements pour les investisseurs, le refus d’avantages et l’examen de l’envergure et du contenu des dispositions. Dans l’affaire Urbaser vs. Argentine, le tribunal a jugé la possibilité que les États agissent en tant que plaignants dans un arbitrage en matière d’investissement. Cela suggère de se demander s’il est viable d’atteindre ce point. Ce commentaire évalue certaines des institutions impliquées dans l’arbitrage, ainsi que l’inclusion d’engagements pour les investisseurs étrangers dans la nouvelle génération de traités sur la protection des investissements étrangers.

Abstract: The inequity of advantages and disadvantages between the foreign investors and the States in treaty-based investment arbitration, has entailed to rethink the negotiation of international agreements. In that sense, States are considering the inclusion of commitments for foreign investors, the denial of benefits and the review of the scope and content of some core provisions. In Urbaser vs. Argentine, the tribunal held the possibility that States act as claimants in investment arbitration disputes. Such statement suggests asking the feasibility to reach that point. This comment assesses some core institutions of arbitration proceedings, as well as the inclusion of commitments for foreign investors in the new generation of investment treaties.

Resumen: La desigualdad de ventajas y desventajas entre inversionistas y Estados en el arbitraje de inversión basado en tratados, ha conllevado a repensar la negociación de acuerdos internacionales. En ese sentido, los Estados están considerando, por ejemplo, la inclusión de compromisos para los inversionistas, la denegación de beneficios y la revisión en el alcance y contenido de las provisiones. En Urbaser vs. Argentina, el tribunal sostuvo la posibilidad de que los Estados actúen como demandantes en arbitrajes de inversión. Eso sugiere preguntarse qué tan viable es llegar a ese punto. Este comentario evalúa algunas de las instituciones angulares al arbitraje, así como la inclusión de compromisos para los inversionistas extranjeros en la nueva generación de tratados de protección a la inversión extranjera.

Résumé: Le Centre International pour le Règlement des Différends Relatifs aux Investissements (CIRDI) est une institution dédiée au règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (RDIE). Depuis les années 1990, le nombre de cas soumis au CIRDI a augmenté. Pourtant, l’indépendance des arbitres au moment de prendre leurs décisions a été mise en cause, car les sentences de ces tribunaux favorisent les pays développés d’où généralement viennent les investisseurs demandeurs étrangers. L’objectif de cette investigation est de déterminer si les décisions des tribunaux arbitraux du CIRDI sont indépendantes de leur composition, quant à la nationalité des arbitres, par le biais d’une étude statistique des sentences.

Abstract: The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is an institution devoted to the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). From the 1990’s the number of cases filed before the ICSID has increased. Nevertheless, the ICSID arbitrators’ independence for making their decisions has been questioned, since their awards are said to benefit the developed countries from where foreign investors/claimants tend to be. In this regard, the purpose of this research is to determine whether the decisions made by the ICSID arbitral tribunals are actually independent from their composition, as for their arbitrators’ nationality, through a statistical study of the awards.

Resumen: El Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (CIADI) es una institución dedicada a la solución de controversias entre inversionistas y Estados (SCIE). A partir de la década de los noventa, el número de casos sometidos al CIADI se ha venido incrementando. Sin embargo, se ha cuestionado la independencia de sus árbitros en la toma de decisiones, afirmando que los laudos emitidos por estos tribunales favorecen a los países desarrollados, de los cuales suelen provenir los inversores extranjeros demandantes. El objeto de este trabajo es determinar, a través de un estudio estadístico de los laudos, si efectivamente los árbitros se han parcializado hacia los inversores demandantes en los laudos del CIADI, para ello se determinará el número de casos en los cuales los tribunales arbitrales favorecen a los inversores y los que favorecen a los Estados demandados. Además, se investigará si las decisiones de los tribunales arbitrales CIADI son independientes de la integración de éstos, en cuanto a la nacionalidad de sus árbitros.

An investment is the subject matter in an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS or international arbitration) or litigation case. Therefore, there can be no such dispute if there is no investment to which the dispute relates. The challenge in this regard lies in that there is no uniform definition of an investment in ISDS. Across jurisdictions, legal instruments such as bilateral investment treaties (BITs), treaties with investment provisions (TIPs), investment contracts and legislation provide different definitions of an investment. However, if an investor-state dispute arises, these definitions are not always final, since there are different methods of assessing the existence of an investment, depending on the applicable legal instrument and arbitration rules. For example, arbitration tribunals formed in terms of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) follow a two-step process which starts with a consideration of the definition of an investment in terms of the underlying legal instrument, followed by an assessment of the existence of an investment in terms of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention. Salini Construttori SPA and Italstrade SPA v Kingdom of Morocco is a landmark ICSID ISDS case that proposed four criteria that an investment should meet in terms of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention. On the other hand, ISDS cases based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules or other non-ICSID rules determine the existence of an investment by reference to the relevant legal instrument only. However, the tribunal in Romak SA (Switzerland) v Republic of Uzbekistan held that the Salini criteria are applicable to UNCITRAL arbitration, and by implication, to other non-CSID arbitrations and possibly even litigation. The 2006 Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investments (SADC FIP) defines an investment broadly as any asset, while the 2016 Annex 1 defines an investment as an enterprise incorporated in a SADC Member State and owned by SADC nationals. Furthermore, the 2006 Annex 1 refers investor-state disputes to ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitration, while the 2016 Annex 1 refers such disputes to the courts of host states. This article has two objectives. Firstly, it seeks to determine if, as was held in Romak, the Salini criteria can be applied to the definition of an investment in non-ICSID arbitration and litigation arising from the 2006 or 2016 Annex 1s respectively. Secondly, the article will assess the implications of such an application of the Salini criteria to the protection of foreign investments in the SADC.

O artigo analisa alguns dilemas relacionados à implementação da Convenção-Quadro para o Controle do Tabaco, destacando as dificuldades dos Estados participantes para adotar políticas públicas, com custo-benefício comprovado, que visam à redução da oferta e demanda do tabaco. Especificamente, o artigo examina a recomendação para a adoção de políticas de padronização das embalagens de cigarro, presente nas diretrizes para a implementação dos Artigos 11 e 13 da Convenção. Por meio da análise de casos, identificamos fatores políticos e jurídicos que dificultam a implementação da Convenção, incluindo a inibição regulatória produzida pela abertura de litígios por parte da indústria do tabaco, que utiliza-se das cláusulas de arbitragem investidor-Estado existentes em acordos bilaterais de investimentos. Conclui-se que, apesar dos custos impostos aos Estados e dos atrasos na adoção dessas políticas, no médio ou longo prazo, as decisões proferidas pelos tribunais arbitrais e pelo Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio podem consolidar o entendimento acerca da legalidade e efetividade de políticas que adotam o referido modelo.

The article analyzes some dilemmas related to the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, underscoring the States parties’ difficulties in adopting public policies with proven cost-benefit and aimed at reducing tobacco’s supply and demand. Specifically, the article examines the recommendation to adopt policies for plain cigarette packaging, as provided in the guidelines for implementation of the Convention’s Articles 11 and 13. Based on case analysis, we identified political and legal factors that hinder the Convention’s implementation, including the regulatory chill produced by legal claims filed by the tobacco industry, which uses investor-State arbitration clauses from bilateral investment agreements. The article concludes that despite the costs imposed on States and the delays in the adoption of such policies, in the medium and long term the rulings handed down by the arbitration courts and the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body can consolidate the understanding of the legality and effectiveness of policies that adopt the model.

El artículo analiza algunos dilemas relacionados con la implementación del Convenio Marco para el Control del Tabaco, destacando las dificultades de los Estados participantes para adoptar políticas públicas, con coste-beneficio comprobado, que tienen como objetivo la reducción de la oferta y demanda del tabaco. Específicamente, el artículo examina la recomendación para la adopción de políticas de estandarización de los paquetes de cigarrillos, presente en las directrices para la implementación de los Artículos 11 y 13 del Convenio. Mediante el análisis de casos, identificamos factores políticos y jurídicos que dificultan la implementación del Convenio, incluyendo la inhibición regulatoria, producida por la apertura de litigios por parte de la industria del tabaco, que recurre a cláusulas de arbitraje inversor-Estado, existentes en acuerdos bilaterales de inversión. Se concluye que, a pesar de los costes impuestos a los Estados, y de los atrasos en la adopción de esas políticas, en el medio o largo plazo, las decisiones proferidas por los tribunales arbitrales y por el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio pueden consolidar el entendimiento acerca de la legalidad y efectividad de políticas que adoptan el referido modelo.

O artigo analisa alguns dilemas relacionados à implementação da Convenção-Quadro para o Controle do Tabaco, destacando as dificuldades dos Estados participantes para adotar políticas públicas, com custo-benefício comprovado, que visam à redução da oferta e demanda do tabaco. Especificamente, o artigo examina a recomendação para a adoção de políticas de padronização das embalagens de cigarro, presente nas diretrizes para a implementação dos Artigos 11 e 13 da Convenção. Por meio da análise de casos, identificamos fatores políticos e jurídicos que dificultam a implementação da Convenção, incluindo a inibição regulatória produzida pela abertura de litígios por parte da indústria do tabaco, que utiliza-se das cláusulas de arbitragem investidor-Estado existentes em acordos bilaterais de investimentos. Conclui-se que, apesar dos custos impostos aos Estados e dos atrasos na adoção dessas políticas, no médio ou longo prazo, as decisões proferidas pelos tribunais arbitrais e pelo Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio podem consolidar o entendimento acerca da legalidade e efetividade de políticas que adotam o referido modelo.

The article analyzes some dilemmas related to the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, underscoring the States parties’ difficulties in adopting public policies with proven cost-benefit and aimed at reducing tobacco’s supply and demand. Specifically, the article examines the recommendation to adopt policies for plain cigarette packaging, as provided in the guidelines for implementation of the Convention’s Articles 11 and 13. Based on case analysis, we identified political and legal factors that hinder the Convention’s implementation, including the regulatory chill produced by legal claims filed by the tobacco industry, which uses investor-State arbitration clauses from bilateral investment agreements. The article concludes that despite the costs imposed on States and the delays in the adoption of such policies, in the medium and long term the rulings handed down by the arbitration courts and the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body can consolidate the understanding of the legality and effectiveness of policies that adopt the model.

El artículo analiza algunos dilemas relacionados con la implementación del Convenio Marco para el Control del Tabaco, destacando las dificultades de los Estados participantes para adoptar políticas públicas, con coste-beneficio comprobado, que tienen como objetivo la reducción de la oferta y demanda del tabaco. Específicamente, el artículo examina la recomendación para la adopción de políticas de estandarización de los paquetes de cigarrillos, presente en las directrices para la implementación de los Artículos 11 y 13 del Convenio. Mediante el análisis de casos, identificamos factores políticos y jurídicos que dificultan la implementación del Convenio, incluyendo la inhibición regulatoria, producida por la apertura de litigios por parte de la industria del tabaco, que recurre a cláusulas de arbitraje inversor-Estado, existentes en acuerdos bilaterales de inversión. Se concluye que, a pesar de los costes impuestos a los Estados, y de los atrasos en la adopción de esas políticas, en el medio o largo plazo, las decisiones proferidas por los tribunales arbitrales y por el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio pueden consolidar el entendimiento acerca de la legalidad y efectividad de políticas que adoptan el referido modelo.

A determinação da nacionalidade do investidor é um dos elementos mais importantes para a verificação da jurisdição dos tribunais arbitrais nas arbitragens de proteção de investimentos. Nas arbitragens baseadas em BIT (bilateral investment treaties) o investidor que inicia a arbitragem tem de demonstrar que está protegido pelo BIT que pretende invocar, pelo que terá de possuir a nacionalidade do Estado parte nesse mesmo BIT, que não seja o Estado onde o investimento foi realizado. A jurisprudência tem considerado irrelevante o facto de o investidor poder ter outras nacionalidades, para além da nacionalidade do Estado parte no BIT, desvalorizando igualmente o facto de essa nacionalidade não ser a nacionalidade dominante do investidor. Tudo se complica no caso de o investidor possuir igualmente a nacionalidade do Estado onde o investimento foi realizado. Nesse caso o investidor não poderá iniciar uma arbitragem com base no ICSID tendo em conta que a Convenção de Washington veda essa possibilidade. Já no caso de arbitragens ad hoc tudo dependerá da interpretação do BIT em concreto, o que tem levado a uma flutuação jurisprudencial, seja porque os BIT são diferentes, seja porque tem havido diferentes abordagens jurisprudenciais quanto à relevância da nacionalidade dominante.

The assessment of the investor’s nationality is of utmost relevance to determine the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration. In treaty-based arbitration the investor must give evidence that is protected by the BIT, which means that he must have the nationality of the State party to the BIT that is not the host State. The case law considers irrelevant the fact that the investor possesses another nationality besides the nationality of the State party to the BIT and considers also irrelevant the fact that the invoked nationality is not the dominant one. Things get more serious if the investor has also the nationality of the host State (double nationality). In this scenario the investor cannot launch an ICSID arbitration against the host State because the Washington Convention forbids it. The possibility of an ad hoc arbitration is subject to the interpretation of the applicable BIT which has led to an unstable case law both because the BITs are not all equal and because different tribunals have analyzed the dominant nationality doctrine in different ways.

Resumen Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar la justicia laboral burocrática los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, ya que esta se debe adaptar a los mandatos del artículo 1 de la constitución, en donde se reconoce los derechos humanos de todas las personas en México, incluyendo la de los trabajadores burocráticos, por lo que surgió la siguiente interrogante: ¿el Tribunal Federal de Conciliación y Arbitraje en México respeta el derecho humano de acceso a la justicia de los trabajadores burocráticos?, derecho reconocido en la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y en la legislación nacional. Así, a través del método de análisis-jurídico, se analizó la justicia laboral burocrática en el tribunal más importante del país en esta materia. De igual forma, se estudió tanto la legislación, como los instrumentos internacionales y la jurisprudencia sobre el tema.

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to analyze bureaucratic labor justice in the United Mexican States, since it must be adapted to the mandates of Article 1 of the Constitution, which recognizes the human rights of all persons in Mexico, including bureaucratic workers, so the following question arose: does the Federal Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in Mexico respect the human right of access to justice of bureaucratic workers?, right recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights and in national legislation. Thus, through the method of legal analysis, the bureaucratic labor justice was analyzed in the most important court in the country in this matter, likewise, the legislation, international instruments and jurisprudence on the subject were studied.

Resumen: La Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Contratos de Compraventa Internacional de Mercaderías de 1980 (CIM), es un instrumento jurídico útil y práctico, pero a sus 37 años de existencia plantea limitaciones y nuevos retos. En el contexto de sus limitaciones y retos este escrito presenta una serie de reflexiones, en torno a su estudio, aplicación e interpretación judicial y arbitral, con la consideración de algunos puntos fuertes y débiles, con un acercamiento a la experiencia de México que permitan considerar su revisión. Se plantea la pregunta de si ¿realmente es necesaria una revisión sustancial de la CIM a la luz de un entorno complejo de relaciones jurídico-comerciales regionales o internacionales? El enfoque de este escrito es teórico, de lo global a lo local, con una metodología, documental-analítica.

Abstract: The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 1980 (CISG) It is a useful and practical legal instrument, but at 37 years of existence it poses limitations and new challenges. In the context of its limitations and challenges, this article presents a series of reflections on its study, application and judicial and arbitral interpretation, with the consideration of some strengths and weaknesses, with an approach to experience of Mexico that allow to consider its revision. The question arises as to whether a substantial revision of the CIM is really necessary in the light of a complex environment of regional or international legal-commercial relations? The focus of this writing is theoretical, from the global to the local, with a methodology, documental-analytical.

RESUMEN La implementación de los métodos alternos en específico el arbitraje comercial en la solución de conflictos internacionales derivados de compromisos comerciales, es una realidad. Se ha convertido en una práctica común de las lex mercatoria la introducción de cláusulas arbitrales en todo contrato, elevándose estas a ser consideradas una cláusula de estilo de todo contrato internacional, rebasando la práctica comercial e introduciéndose en todo tipo de contrato con reconocimiento y validez legal en todo el orbe, respaldada por la lex fori y por el ius mercatorum. Entendiéndose esta como un contrato independiente del contrato principal, sustentado su reconocimiento por la Convención de New York del 58. Es por ello que se le considera un valor intangible de los MASC, en específico del arbitraje, permitiendo que las partes puedan resolver sus conflictos en un ámbito privado, como principal ganancia, valor intrínseco y rasgo distintivo de esta cláusula de estilo.

ABSTRACT The implementation of alternative in specific commercial arbitration in resolving international disputes arising from commercial, methods is a reality. It has become a common practice of lex mercatoria the introduction of arbitration clauses in any contract, rising these to be considered a clause of style any international agreement, outstripping the commercial practice and shoves in all types of contract with legal validity and recognition around the world, backed by the lex fori and the ius mercatorum. It is being understood as a separate contract from the main contract, supporting its recognition by the New York Convention ‘58 is why it is considered an intangible value of the MASC specifically in arbitration, allowing parties to resolve their conflicts in a private sector, as the main gain intrinsic value and distinctive feature of this style clause.

Abstract Investor-state arbitration is the most common dispute resolution mean in International Investment Law. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, created in 1965 by the World Bank is known to be the principal institution of investor-state arbitration. To date, 161 countries are signatories to the Convention establishing ICSID. While investor state arbitration is still the main dispute resolution mean in international investment, its perception is shifting and its legitimacy is being challenged. Since 2005, there is a debate around the lawfulness and the equity of international arbitration. It will be interesting in this article to identify what arguments are being raised against this mean of dispute resolution. Latin America has been at the forefront of the wave of challenges around investor-state arbitration via ICSID. Here, the Calvo doctrine has a huge impact on the continent’s perception and approach in International Law and International Relations. Therefore, investor-state arbitration is influenced by the Calvo doctrine. The second articulation of this article will focus on the Calvo doctrine and its effect in investor-state arbitration.

Resumen El arbitraje inversionista-Estado es el medio más común de resolución de disputas en la Ley de Inversiones Internacionales. El Centro Internacional para la Solución de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones, creado en 1965 por el Banco Mundial, se establece en institución principal de arbitraje entre inversionistas y el Estado. Hasta hoy en día, 161 países son miembros signatarios de la Convención que establece ICSID. Aunque el arbitraje del estado inversionista sigue siendo el principal medio de resolución de disputas en inversión internacional, tal percepción está cambiando y su legitimidad está siendo puesta en cuestión desde 2005, lo cual da lugar para que se tenga un debate sobre la legalidad y la equidad del arbitraje internacional. En este artículo será interesante identificar qué argumentos están surgiendo contra este medio de resolución de disputas, ya que América Latina encabeza en un primer plano el desafío a como se lleva a cabo el arbitraje inversionista-estado a través de ICSID. En ese sentido, la doctrina Calvo tiene mucho peso en la percepción y el enfoque de todo el continente en relación a leyes internacionales y relaciones internacionales. Por consiguiente, la doctrina Calvo influye en el proceso del arbitraje entre el inversionista y el estado. La segunda postura de este artículo se centrará en la doctrina Calvo y los efectos de esta en el arbitraje inversionista-estado.

El presente trabajo analiza las soluciones que contiene el Convenio de Naciones Unidas sobre el contrato internacional de mercancías total o parcialmente marítimo, conocido, comúnmente, como las Reglas de Rotterdam sobre una de las cuestiones más emblemáticas en estos momentos en el transporte marítimo internacional. Nos referimos a los problemas que plantea la eficacia de los acuerdos de arbitraje en el ámbito del Derecho marítimo debido fundamentalmente a las especiales características que rodean a este sector del comercio internacional. Para ello, es necesario señalar la existencia de una pluralidad de fuentes normativas susceptibles de regular la cuestión en la actualidad. Asimismo, resulta imprescindible analizar la regulación contenida al respecto en los instrumentos normativos existentes de carácter internacional haciendo hincapié, además, en la disparidad de soluciones que ofrecen los diferentes sistemas estatales a nivel de Derecho comparado.

This paper analyzes the solutions containing in United Nations Convention on international contract totally or partially maritime goods, commonly known as the Rotterdam Rules on one of the most emblematic issues right nowin international maritime transport.We refertothe problems of the effectiveness of arbitration agreements in the field of maritime law basically because of the special features thatsurround this area of international trade. It is therefore necessary to point out the existence of a plurality of normative sources susceptible to address the issues today. It is also essential to analyze the regulation contained regard to existing international normative instruments emphasizing also the disparity of solutions offered by different state systems at the level of comparative law.

La Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Utilización de las Comunicaciones Electrónicas en los Contratos Internacionales es el primer tratado suscrito con el objetivo de facilitar el uso transfronterizo de las comunicaciones electrónicas en las relaciones comerciales. Este artículo describe los objetivos de la política detrás de la preparación de dicho instrumento, su ámbito de aplicación y sus principales disposiciones sustantivas. Se hace referencia específica a la interacción de esa convención con otros tratados ya adoptados por Colombia y otros Estados, como la Convención sobre el Reconocimiento y Ejecución de las Sentencias Arbitrales Extranjeras (la "Convención de Nueva York") y la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre Contratos de Compraventa Internacional de Mercaderías (CISG). Por último, el artículo analiza los patrones en la adopción de la Convención en la última década y concluye que Colombia debería considerar la posibilidad de ratificar la Convención, que ha firmado en 2007, para fortalecer su economía digital mediante la modernización de la legislación vigente sobre el comercio electrónico.

The United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts is the first treaty aiming at facilitating cross-border use of electronic communications in commercial relations. The article describes the policy goals behind the preparation of that Convention, its scope of application and its main substantive provisions. It makes specific reference to the interaction of that Convention with other treaties already adopted by Colombia and by numerous other States, such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention") and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Finally, the article analyzes the patterns in the adoption of the Convention in the last decade and concludes that Colombia should consider ratifying the Convention, which it has signed in 2007, to support its digital economy by modernizing the existing legislation on electronic commerce.