Favor arbitrandum et favor validitatis (Favor Arbitrandum and Favor Validitatis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: « Le mouvement d’internationalisation de l’arbitrage se presente comme une internationalisation de la faveur arbitrale. La reforme de 1986 a ainsi consacre la clause compromissoire, dont le statut faisait jusqu’alors debat. La faveur arbitrale s’inscrit neanmoins dans un mouvement de balancier. L’auteur envisage trois declinaisons de cette faveur arbitrale qui ont ete consacrees par l’usage : le traitement de l’arbitrage in favorem arbitrandum, in favorem validitatis et in favorem validitatis sentenciae. L’approche in favorem arbitrandum prend la forme d’une presomption d’arbitrabilite des differends, qu’il est devenu difficile de renverser sans faire valoir une derogation emanant du legislateur. L’interpretation in favorem validitatis de l’accord d’arbitrage a pour sa part connu une derive en prenant la forme, inappropriee, d’une presomption de competence juridictionnelle du tribunal arbitral. La faveur arbitrale in favorem validitatis sentenciae prend en dernier lieu la forme d’une presomption de validite des sentences arbitrales, les motifs d’annulation des sentences arbitrales etant interpretes de facon restrictive, contribuant a maintenir une saine tension entre le respect des valeurs fondamentales de l’Etat et les objectifs d’autonomie et d’efficacite de l’arbitrage. »English Abstract: The internationalization movement in arbitration law has been an internationalization of the principle favouring arbitration. The 1986 reform therefore established the status of the arbitration clause, which until then had been subject to debate. The principle favouring arbitration has nevertheless been a product of the swing of a pendulum. The author considers three variations on this favouring of arbitration that have become accepted in practice: the in favorem arbitrandum, in favorem validitatis, and in favorem validitatis sentenciae approaches. The in favorem arbitrandum approach consists of a presumption in favour of the arbitrability of disputes, which has become difficult to rebut without alleging the existence of a legislative exemption. The interpretation of the arbitration agreement in favorem validitatis has, for its part, undergone a shift and inappropriately taken the form of a presumption in favour of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Lastly, the in favorem validitatis sentenciae approach consists of a presumption in favour of the validity of arbitral awards, with the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards receiving a restrictive interpretation, which helps maintain a healthy tension between a respect for the fundamental values of the state and the objectives of autonomy and efficiency in arbitration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.004 |
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".