Search

With the adoption of the national status of domestic and international arbitration, Colombia took a big step in arbitration, the contributions of the Law 1563 of 2012 are novel for arbitration, especially regarding precautionary measures of different types, i.e., nominated and nameless. However, it is necessary to refer to the application, recital and practice of these measures can be taken in two periods: before and after being notified by the defendant in an arbitration process. However, the 1563 Act of 2012 presents a gap in the adoption of precautionary measures called early, so the Hotbed of Litigation in this paper makes a proposal based on international arbitration, to be regulated in Colombia this figure and so ensure that the arbitration process will safeguard effectively the rights recognized by substantive law, as envisaged in the General Code of Procedure and the Constitution of Colombia. This research figures such as the arbiters of urgency, the pre-arbitration and judicial support the theory of the referees as an open catalog of possibilities will be presented in front of experts in the field to take the best option refers to domestic arbitration is appropriate to the implementation of precautionary measures and anticipatory unnamed in the arbitration process in Colombia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article claims that the 2018 Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law produced by the International Law Commission constitute a conceptual regression of customary international law to the theoretical approach originated in the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, bringing back to the present the theoretical and practical inconsistencies of the past. Although the Commission has the fundamental purpose of codifying and developing international law, this particular work becomes the most anachronistic expression of the theory of customary international law. It goes back to the source's orthodox perspective, which by 2020 turns a century of existence. This research proves that the Conclusions, far from being a new approach, constitute a theoretical regression, which, thanks to the efforts of the Commission, seem to be in force again. In this vein, it is here sustained that there is no univocal theory on the identification of customary international law despite the Commission's pains. On the contrary, there are a series of theoretical perspectives proposing different possible approaches to the source, so that none of them can be considered dogma. With this purpose, the paper initially contextualizes and analyses the consolidation process of the orthodox perspective to customary international law, to later describe a set of alternative theoretical perspectives. Lastly, it presents some structural and specific critiques to the Commission's Conclusions led by the special rapporteur, Sir. Michael Wood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]