Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editorial

Editorial In this issue, Professor Doug Jones and Robert Turnbull examine, and indeed question, the efficiency of the current practice of witness statements. As they explain, witness statements have become a ‘vehicle for the making of legal submissions’ commending, and at times speculating, on every matter which is implicated in a dispute, including third parties’ conduct. Professor Jones and Turnbull argue that, in this form, witness statements are wasting time and driving up costs, and propose a reformed witness statement procedure whereby witness statements should give the tribunal nothing more and nothing less of a factual account of what a witness heard, saw or thought at the time of the events the subject of the arbitration. It is a thought-provoking and considered proposal and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to publish their article at the Journal. But the article, I think, raises a broader question, namely the efficiency of the whole arbitral process currently. While originally the process of arbitration was guided by few general principles, mainly party autonomy and due process, today the arbitral process is dense and heavily regulated by a wide number of instruments, including national laws, institutional rules, guidelines, codified best practices and, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png "Arbitration: The Journal of International Arbitration, Meditation, and Dispute Management" Kluwer Law International

Editorial

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/editorial-ecgKjkQREz

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
ISSN
0003-7877
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In this issue, Professor Doug Jones and Robert Turnbull examine, and indeed question, the efficiency of the current practice of witness statements. As they explain, witness statements have become a ‘vehicle for the making of legal submissions’ commending, and at times speculating, on every matter which is implicated in a dispute, including third parties’ conduct. Professor Jones and Turnbull argue that, in this form, witness statements are wasting time and driving up costs, and propose a reformed witness statement procedure whereby witness statements should give the tribunal nothing more and nothing less of a factual account of what a witness heard, saw or thought at the time of the events the subject of the arbitration. It is a thought-provoking and considered proposal and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to publish their article at the Journal. But the article, I think, raises a broader question, namely the efficiency of the whole arbitral process currently. While originally the process of arbitration was guided by few general principles, mainly party autonomy and due process, today the arbitral process is dense and heavily regulated by a wide number of instruments, including national laws, institutional rules, guidelines, codified best practices and,

Journal

"Arbitration: The Journal of International Arbitration, Meditation, and Dispute Management" – Kluwer Law International

Published: Aug 1, 2022

There are no references for this article.