Search

In this paper, the author analyzes the restrictions imposed on party autonomy to set the arbitration procedure, derived from Constitutional Law inter alia. He does so, through a comparative exercise that deals with the case of amigable composición as an example of ADR whose contractual nature favors party autonomy. In order to demonstrate that the constituent and the Colombian legislator could have further favor party autonomy in arbitration, the author analyses the similarities between these two mechanisms. Thus, through an investigation on the roots, regulation and jurisprudential evolution of amigable composición in Colombia and in comparative law, he identifies why there are so many differences in the practice of these proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transition to oral processes is, without doubt, a Herculean task whose achievement, in fact, is a joint responsibility of the legislature, jurisprudence, doctrine and the national academia, who must work together in order to develop, with solvency, a real oral process. It is a challenge that demands the involvement of all legal actors who are called, in part, to rethink the system, and based on their conclusions, to put it into practice. That's why this paper addresses just one of the main topics to be considered regarding orality: the evidence rules under the oral system. Thus, it seeks to elucidate a structural question or problem: What specific reforms are needed for the rules of evidence in order to achieve the oral process? Identifying the problems that current rules of evidence have and proposing some solutions to that problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]