The International Law Association (ILA) International Commercial Arbitration Committee Reports on Lis Pendens and Res Judicata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the International Law Association’s Seventy-Second Biennial Conference in Toronto in 2006, the ILA International Commercial Arbitration Committee reported on ‘Lis pendens and Arbitration’ and ‘Res judicata and Arbitration’ and the Conference adopted a number of recommendations on these topics. The reports and recommendations are printed in this issue.1 The Committee’s Toronto reports were the culmination of over four years’ work. Members of the Committee had met on a number of occasions to discuss the issues. Some Committee members produced national reports. An interim report on res judicata was presented at the ILA Berlin Conference in 2004. The Committee recommended, both in respect of lis pendens and res judicata, the application by arbitral tribunals of rules and/or an approach suitable for international arbitration, rather than the application of domestic law rules. The Committee’s report on lis pendens considers three scenarios, namely parallel proceedings between an arbitral tribunal and (i) a national court, (ii) another arbitral tribunal, and (iii) a supranational court/tribunal. The main focus of the report is the situation where one party starts litigation and the other party applies for a stay of that litigation and starts arbitration. As a result, it is likely that both a national court and an arbitral tribunal will be asked concurrently to decide whether the arbitral agreement is valid and/or covers the particular dispute. The Committee in its report and recommendations strongly endorses the principle of compétence-compétence, and recommends that arbitral tribunals should generally determine their own jurisdiction, and if they have jurisdiction, then to proceed to hear the merits. (This approach may not be appropriate when the court in question is a court at the place of arbitration if law or practice requires the tribunal to defer to that court.) The Committee noted that in some circumstances, such as related proceedings where there is a common issue but not identical parties, it would be right as a matter of justice and case management for an arbitral tribunal to suspend its proceedings pending the outcome of the other proceedings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.025 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".