This article analyzes one of the most relevant topics in Arbitration, which is procedural and evidentiary freedom and its direct relationship with Soft Law (Best Practices). It is a particularly significant issue in Peru, since the vast majority of local ‘arbitration experts’ resort to the Civil Procedure Code, which significantly undermines the practice of arbitration.
This article analyzes the evolution of investment arbitration in the mining sector in Latin America, with a special emphasis on the tensions between regulatory sovereignty, environmental protection, and investor expectations. The aim of the research is to identify the interpretative criteria adopted by arbitral tribunals and examine their evolution, in order to determine whether there is a trend toward greater acceptance of changes in arbitral reasoning. The central issue is to determine whether the contemporary arbitral system provides a coherent framework for resolving disputes arising from mining investments, in scenarios where political, regulatory, social, and environmental risks are present. To do this, the analysis is placed within the theoretical framework of investment law, examining substantive protection standards such as fair and equitable treatment (FET), full protection and security (FPS), and indirect expropriation. Just like the exceptions provided in the IIAs and the no longer so progressive incorporation of the right to regulate.The main hypothesis holds that investment arbitration has not eliminated the structural tensions of the system, but it has evolved toward a model that recognizes the legitimacy of state regulation, particularly in environmental matters, conditioning international liability on the way such regulation is implemented. Using a qualitative methodology based on doctrinal and case law analysis of emblematic cases in the mining sector, the study concludes that arbitral tribunals have adopted a more contextual approach, incorporating factors such as social conflict, investor conduct, and the reasonableness of regulatory measures. However, it has also been determined that significant levels of uncertainty persist due to the lack of clarity or predictability of the mining regime in some States and variety of aplicable treaties.
This paper examines the evolution of arbitration within the context of the technological transformation driven by artificial intelligence (AI), advancing the concept of International Commercial Arbitration 5.0 as a new developmental stage of the arbitral system. Adopting a doctrinal and evolutionary approach, the paper analyses the transition from the traditional normative framework grounded in the lex mercatoria, subsequently articulated through arbitral soft law, towards an increasingly technologized arbitral ecosystem in which an emerging lex algorithmica—understood as an algorithmically mediated normative layer—begins to take shape. On this basis, the study proposes a model of multilevel governance of international arbitration structured around three interrelated normative layers—lex mercatoria, arbitral soft law, and lex algorithmica— thereby formulating the Theory of the Three Normative Layers of International Commercial Arbitration 5.0. Building upon the Principles for the Use of AI developed by various arbitral institutions (soft law), as well as the European regulatory frameworks on AI (hard law), it puts forward a proposal for the technological reconfiguration of AI in Arbitration 5.0. The paper concludes that AI does not replace the arbitrator, but rather transforms them into an “augmented arbitrator,” and raises the question of whether Arbitration 5.0 truly represents its final stage or merely the threshold of Arbitration 6.0—and of what is yet to come.
The article examines international practice regarding the reasoning of arbitral awards. First, it sets out the purpose of reasoning. Then, it reviews legislation and case law in various countries concerning arbitral practice. It also presents the treatment in major arbitration centers. Finally, it discusses the requirement of reasoning, identifying the justifications for it, the expected standard in practice, and the minimum elements that arbitral awards must contain. The conclusion is that reasoning is an indispensable requirement for the quality, effectiveness, and legitimacy of arbitration.
This article examines the influence of the Peruvian Arbitration Act (Legislative Decree 1071) on Paraguay’s new Arbitration Law (Law 7561), enacted in December 2025. Adopting a comparative law approach, it identifies the provisions of the Paraguayan legislation that, while primarily structured upon the UNCITRAL Model Law, incorporate principles and legal institutions previously developed by the Peruvian legislator. The study focuses on arbitral autonomy and the limitation of judicial intervention, the extension of arbitration agreements to non-signatories, the regime governing interim measures, the powers of arbitral tribunals following the issuance of the award, and the rules governing judicial review and the effects of annulment. It argues that the influence of the Peruvian Arbitration Act extends beyond the adoption of isolated legal solutions and reaches the very conception of arbitration embodied in the Paraguayan reform. The article concludes that the Peruvian Arbitration Act has become a regional legislative reference, contributing to the harmonization and consolidation of a modern, efficient, and arbitration-friendly legal framework throughout Latin America.
