La excepción de convenio arbitral en la Ley Peruana de Arbitraje y la Convención de Nueva York

Abstract

La Ley Peruana de Arbitraje y la Convención de Nueva York regulan la excepción de convenio arbitral de forma distinta. Ambas con criterios distintos para remitir a las partes a arbitraje. En este contexto, la Ley Peruana resulta ser más favorable al arbitraje pues establece que el análisis del juez debe ser prima facie. Por lo tanto, en virtud al principio de máxima eficacia, el juez debe resolver la excepción sustentado en la Ley Peruana.

The Peruvian Arbitration Law and the New York Convention regulate the objection as to that court's lack of jurisdiction on the basis of the existence of the arbitration agreement differently from each other. Both have different criteria in order to refer the parties to arbitration. In this sense, the Peruvian Arbitration Law appears to be the most favorable to arbitrate since it establishes that the analysis made by the judge must be prima facie. Therefore, according to the principle of maximum effectiveness, the judge must solve the objection based on the Peruvian Arbitration Law.