A Comparative Analysis of Evidentiary Rules Governing International Commercial Arbitration and Their Role in the Validity of Arbitral Awards

This article critically analyzes the evidentiary rules governing international commercial arbitration, assessing their pivotal role in upholding award validity. It argues that evidentiary governance functions as a fundamental mechanism for generating and sustaining the legitimacy of arbitral awards in a transnational context. The study posits that while arbitral tribunals possess broad procedural discretion, their autonomy is structurally constrained by due process guarantees, particularly the right to present one’s case and the principle of equality of arms. Drawing on a comparative analysis of leading arbitral seats (England & Wales, France, United States, Singapore, Hong Kong) and recent empirical data from the Reed Smith International Arbitration Report ۲۰۲۵, the research demonstrates a prevailing judicial trend towards minimal intervention. Courts worldwide intervene in evidentiary matters only when serious irregularities result in substantial prejudice, thereby compromising fundamental fairness. The article further examines the harmonizing influence of soft law instruments, such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence, and addresses emerging challenges posed by digitalization. Ultimately, it concludes that evidentiary fairness, rather than technical correctness, forms the bedrock of arbitral legitimacy, ensuring the efficacy and enforceability of awards within the global dispute resolution landscape. The theoretical framework integrates concepts of procedural justice, autonomy control dialectics, and transnational procedural constitutionalism, offering a novel perspective on the nexus between evidentiary conduct and award validity.

کلیدواژه ها:

Digital Evidence ، Arbitration Act ۱۹۹۶ ، Federal Arbitration Act ، French Arbitration Law ، Singapore International Arbitration Act ، Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance ، Reed Smith Report ۲۰۲۵