Les Perspectives Françaises Sur Le Contrôle De La Sentence Internationale Ou Étrangère (French Perspectives on the Control of International or Foreign Sentencing)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Dans cet article l’auteur se penche sur le controle de la sentence « internationale », afin de souligner les particularites du droit francais de l’arbitrage, qui s’appuient notamment sur une conception de l’arbitrage international en tant qu’ordre juridique autonome (arret Putrabali). Dans la premiere partie, l’auteur decrit les balises que la sentence internationale doit respecter (la motivation, le respect de la mission de l’arbitre, etc.). Dans la deuxieme, il souligne l’etendue souhaitable du controle judiciaire de la sentence. L’activisme judiciaire (limite aux situations ou il est reellement necessaire) serait alors le bienvenu. La revision de la sentence en cas de fraude et les regles materielles sur l’extension de la convention d’arbitrage n’en seraient que quelques exemples. La retenue judiciaire serait egalement tres importante, indication parfois oubliee, comme par exemple dans le cas du devoir de revelation de l’arbitre en matiere d’impartialite et independance.L’auteur conclut en indiquant de nouveaux points qui meriteraient d’attirer l’attention de la jurisprudence francaise, notamment l’admissibilite du recours contre les decisions des institutions d’arbitrage, et leur role potentiel dans les recours contre les sentences.English Abstract: In this article, the author focuses on the judicial review of “international” arbitral awards. He emphasizes the peculiarities of French law, which are essentially grounded on the conception of an autonomous arbitral legal order (Putrabali). The first part of the article deals with the mandatory requirements of arbitral awards (reasons, scope of arbitral jurisdiction, etc.), while the second describes the desirable limits of judicial review. Judicial activism, where really necessary, is encouraged. Notable examples include the revision of an award tainted by fraud, and the rules concerning the extension of the arbitration agreement. Judicial self-restraint is also of paramount importance. However, this self-restraint has been neglected in cases dealing with the arbitrators’ duty to disclose relevant circumstances, in matters related to their impartiality and independence.The author concludes by identifying some important points that French courts should tackle in the future, that is, the admissibility of challenges against decisions rendered by arbitral institutions, and their role in the proceedings concerning challenges against arbitral awards.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".