CHILE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Julio Pellegrini, Fernando Zuñiga and Bernardo Aylwin, Pellegrini y Rencoret
Conclusion Chile’s evolution as a seat of international arbitra - tion reflects not only a robust legislative framework anchored in the UNCITRAL Model Law, but also a judi - ciary deeply committed to the foundational principles of international arbitral practice. Over two decades of consistent jurisprudence under the International Arbitration Act have cemented the Court’s reputation for applying a restrained and principled approach to annulment proceedings – anchored in minimal inter - vention and respect for arbitral autonomy. The uniform rejection of all annulment petitions to date, including those arising from complex, foreign-party disputes with no substantial connection to Chile, evidences both the maturity of the Chilean arbitral regime and its growing credibility as a regional forum of choice. The Court has not only preserved the integrity of arbi - tral awards by limiting review to narrow and exhaus - tively defined procedural grounds, but it has also articulated a nuanced framework for addressing pub - lic policy challenges – insisting on a manifest, funda - mental and demonstrable breach of core legal values. As foreign parties increasingly select Chile as a neutral seat, including in cases involving sovereign counter - parties such as Ecuador, Chilean courts have dem - onstrated institutional reliability and legal sophistica - tion. This trajectory signals Chile’s emerging role as a preferred arbitral venue in Latin America, not merely by legislative design, but through sustained judicial commitment to the principles of minimal intervention party autonomy, and deference to awards.
analysis for that of the arbitral tribunal, nor to conduct a de novo review of the underlying dispute. This makes it essential to delineate the substantive content of Chilean international public policy. To date, the Court has refrained from articulating a compre - hensive or exhaustive list of principles that would fall within this category. Instead, its case law has identi - fied certain illustrative examples of fundamental prin - ciples potentially capable of engaging this standard: the prohibition of abuse of rights, the protection of the essential political, social, and economic interests of the Chilean state, and respect for international obli - gations undertaken by the Republic (see Cases No 1.971-2012, No 11.466-2015 and Worley International Services ). Notably, however, no award has yet been annulled on these grounds, underscoring the excep - tional character of the standard. It remains an open question whether the Court will, in future cases, expand or clarify the catalogue of principles comprising the substantive limb of Chil - ean international public policy, and whether doc - trines such as the abuse of rights – whose contours remain contested within Chilean jurisprudence – will be consistently deemed sufficiently fundamental for these purposes. In any event, the application of this ground must remain governed by three interrelated constraints: its exceptional nature; the requirement of restrictive interpretation; and the principle of manifest and readily ascertainable violation (see Worley Inter- national Services ). As the Court explained in one recent decision reject - ing an annulment request premised on a purported violation of international public policy: “It is not admissible for this Court of Appeals to under - take a fresh determination of the facts or the applica - ble law decided by the arbitral tribunal in resolving this highly exceptional action. […] The annulment action is not designed to function as a second instance of review in the technical sense. This is not an appellate proceeding, nor does it resemble a cassation remedy or any other recourse aimed at revisiting the factual or legal correctness of the award” ( Worley International Services ).
137 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook