Arbitral legal order for international commercial arbitration: illusion or reality?

During the last fifty years, international commercial arbitration has become the most appropriate dispute resolution method to resolve disputes, which may arise within the framework of existing contractual relationships between international trade operators. For the consolidation of arbitration as we know it today, multiple efforts at theoretical and practical levels have been made in order to give a value and a specific meaning to the notion of international commercial arbitration, and in this way differentiate it from the that we know today as national arbitration. The characteristics of international commercial arbitration, compared to national arbitration, suggest that today we can speak of a legal order of international commercial arbitration, completely separated from the state legal order that governs the legal system of a State. Although this notion has defenders and detractors, it constitutes the basis for the confluence of modern notions of private international law that cannot be unknown in this world that has been heading towards the path of globalization.

I) Books:

Talero-Rueda, Santiago. ARBITRAJE COMERCIAL INTERNACIONAL. Instituciones básicas y derecho aplicable. Editorial Legis, Bogotá. 2008.
Silva-Romero, Eduardo. EL CONTRATO DE ARBITRAJE. (Recueil d´articles). Editorial Legis, Bogotá.
Gaillard, Emmanuel. ASPECTS PHILOSOPHIQUES DU DROIT DE L´ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL. Editorial MartinusNijhoffPublishers. Leiden/Boston. 2007.
Born, Gary. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION. Editorial Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Aspen Publishers. New York City, 2011.
Mantilla-Serrano, Fernando. ARBITRAJE INTERNACIONAL. Tensiones actuales. Editorial Legis, Bogotá. 2008.
Oppetit, Bruno. Teoría del Arbitraje. Editorial Legis, Bogotá. 2006.

II) Articles:

Paulsson, Jan. ARBITRATION IN THREE DIMENSIONS inhttp://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/WPS2010-02_Paulsson.pdf.
John H. Matheson, Convergence, Culture and Contract Law in China, 15 MINN. J. INT’L. L., 329, 381 (2006).

III) Jurisprudence:

République Française. Cour de Cassation, Première Chambre Civile, Société PabalkTicaretSirketi c. Société Norsolor 9 octobre 1984 ;
République Française. Cour de Cassation, Première Chambre Civile Société PolishOcean Line c. Société Jolasry. 10 mars 1993
République Française. Cour de Cassation Première Chambre Civile. Hilmarton c. Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation (OTV). Arrêt du 23 mars 1994.
United States of America, Chromalloy Aeroservices Inc. V. The Arab Republic of Egypt, 939 F. Supp. 907. (DDC 1996).
République Française, Cour de Cassation, Première Chambre Civile. État d´Israël c. National IranianOilCompany. Arrêt du Premier février 2005.