Principio de pluralidad de instancias en sede arbitral constitucional y material: Perú y Venezuela

Abstract

He importance of the principle of plurality of double instance in arbitration is addressed, analyzing its implications within the Constitution and substantive law in Peru and Venezuela. Through a comparative approach, the regulatory frameworks and the consequences of the lack of an appeal system for arbitral awards in both countries are examined. The main objective is to identify the need to modify the regulations to allow for the plurality of instances, thereby ensuring better access to justice and respect for due process. The methodology employed includes a thorough review of existing doctrine in Peru and Venezuela, as well as interviews with two constitutional law experts, doctors in law. The data collection instruments include documentary analysis and structured interviews. The findings indicate that, in Peru, Article 139 of the Constitution recognizes the jurisdictional function of arbitration but does not allow for the appeal of awards. In Venezuela, the absence of appeal has generated a debate about the balance between the autonomy of the parties and the guarantee of justice. The article concludes with recommendations to reform the arbitration legislation in both countries, suggesting mechanisms for the review of awards in specific situations awards in specific situations.