Scholarlink

<p>This paper investigates the normative dimensions of linguistic due process in arbitration through a critical examination of Jordanian Arbitration Law No. 30 of 2001 against transnational procedural standards. Employing doctrinal, comparative, and socio-legal methodologies, the study conceptualizes linguistic due process as a non-derogable element of arbitral justice rather than merely a procedural accommodation. The research reveals a jurisprudential tension between linguistic sovereignty and transnational adjudicative accessibility in Jordanian arbitration, where Arabic’s default procedural status creates structural barriers for international parties despite statutory flexibility provisions. Analysis of landmark cases demonstrates how translation inadequacies and linguistic asymmetries compromise the epistemological integrity of arbitral proceedings, potentially invalidating awards under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. The findings indicate that current Jordanian provisions insufficiently safeguard against language-based procedural inequities, necessitating reform through explicit criteria for language selection and mandatory qualified interpretation services. This research contributes to arbitration jurisprudence by reconceptualizing language not merely as communicative medium but as constitutive of procedural justice itself, essential for maintaining arbitration’s legitimacy as a neutral transnational dispute resolution mechanism.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Beyond Words: Ensuring Due Process in Multilingual Arbitrations

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月16日

查看全文
  • Tariq Alhasan,
  • Andrew Burr

摘要

This paper investigates the normative dimensions of linguistic due process in arbitration through a critical examination of Jordanian Arbitration Law No. 30 of 2001 against transnational procedural standards. Employing doctrinal, comparative, and socio-legal methodologies, the study conceptualizes linguistic due process as a non-derogable element of arbitral justice rather than merely a procedural accommodation. The research reveals a jurisprudential tension between linguistic sovereignty and transnational adjudicative accessibility in Jordanian arbitration, where Arabic’s default procedural status creates structural barriers for international parties despite statutory flexibility provisions. Analysis of landmark cases demonstrates how translation inadequacies and linguistic asymmetries compromise the epistemological integrity of arbitral proceedings, potentially invalidating awards under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. The findings indicate that current Jordanian provisions insufficiently safeguard against language-based procedural inequities, necessitating reform through explicit criteria for language selection and mandatory qualified interpretation services. This research contributes to arbitration jurisprudence by reconceptualizing language not merely as communicative medium but as constitutive of procedural justice itself, essential for maintaining arbitration’s legitimacy as a neutral transnational dispute resolution mechanism.