{"id":38974,"date":"2026-02-16T14:48:39","date_gmt":"2026-02-16T13:48:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/?page_id=38974"},"modified":"2026-03-17T09:58:45","modified_gmt":"2026-03-17T08:58:45","slug":"droit-procedural-reglement-differends-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/centenaire\/droit-procedural-reglement-differends-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Axe de travail &#8220;Droit proc\u00e9dural et r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"wpb-content-wrapper\"><p>[vc_row css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1773407914298{margin-bottom: 20px !important;}&#8221;][vc_column css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1773406860295{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;}&#8221;][vc_btn title=&#8221;ESPA\u00d1OL&#8221; style=&#8221;custom&#8221; custom_background=&#8221;#004054&#8243; custom_text=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; shape=&#8221;square&#8221; align=&#8221;right&#8221; css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1773738031694{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;border-top-width: 0px !important;border-bottom-width: 0px !important;padding-top: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;background-color: #FFFFFF !important;}&#8221; link=&#8221;url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unidroit.org%2Fcentenary%2Flinea-de-trabajo-sobre-derecho-procesal-y-resolucion-de-controversias-sp%2F&#8221;][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=&#8221;PROCEDURAL LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION WORKSTREAM&#8221; font_container=&#8221;tag:h1|text_align:left&#8221; use_theme_fonts=&#8221;yes&#8221; css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1766058989198{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;}&#8221;][vc_single_image image=&#8221;31291&#8243; img_size=&#8221;full&#8221; alignment=&#8221;center&#8221; css=&#8221;&#8221;][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1490017614850{margin-bottom: 30px !important;}&#8221;][vc_column_text css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1771331972970{padding-top: 35px !important;padding-right: 35px !important;padding-bottom: 35px !important;padding-left: 35px !important;background-color: #f2f2f2 !important;}&#8221;]UNIDROIT is working towards a soft harmonisation of civil procedural rules, by developing rules and principles that promote fairness, efficiency, and legal certainty in transnational disputes, while also providing guidance for domestic procedural law reforms.<\/p>\n<p>The<a href=\"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/instruments\/civil-procedure\/ali-unidroit-principles\/\"> ALI\/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure<\/a>, adopted in 2004 by UNIDROIT and the American Law Institute (ALI) was the first instrument developed by the Institute in this area, which established common procedural standards applicable to transnational litigation. This was followed by the more detailed and regionality focused <a href=\"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/instruments\/civil-procedure\/eli-unidroit-rules\/\">ELI-UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure<\/a>, adopted in 2020 jointly with the European Law Institute (ELI). UNIDROIT\u2019s current Work Programme features the project on<a href=\"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/work-in-progress\/enforcement-best-practices\/\"> Best Practices of Effective Enforcement<\/a>, which is currently approaching finalisation.<\/p>\n<p>The Procedural Law and Dispute Resolution Workstream (PLDR WS) focuses the assessing of the implementation of, and engagement with, existing instruments and ongoing projects, while also examing dispute resolution mechanisms embedded in other related UNIDROIT instruments. In parallel, the Workstream takes a forward-looking approach by \u00a0identifying potential gaps and new areas in which UNIDROIT could further advance its contribution to the harmonisation of procedural law and dispute resolution.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_tta_accordion][vc_tta_section title=&#8221;tests&#8221; tab_id=&#8221;1747232733827-1d105fad-be4e&#8221;][vc_column_text css=&#8221;&#8221;]<\/p>\n<a class='pum-trigger  popmake-37386  ' data-do-default=''>The Committee is chaired by Hon. Diane Wood, Director of the American Law Institute and Professor at the University of Chicago Law School.<\/a>\n<p>The members are:<\/p>\n<a class='pum-trigger  popmake-19725  ' data-do-default=''>Mar\u00eda Cecilia Fresnedo Herrera (Professor, University of the Republic, School of Law Montevideo),<\/a>\n<a class='pum-trigger  popmake-37495  ' data-do-default=''>Alexis Mourre (Founding Partner, Mourre, Chessa, Le Lay Arbitration),<\/a>\n<a class='pum-trigger  popmake-15833  ' data-do-default=''>Teresa Rodr\u00edguez de las Heras Ballell (Professor, University Carlos III, Madrid, and President of the European Law Institute),<\/a>\n<a class='pum-trigger  popmake-37499  ' data-do-default=''>John Sorabji (Professor, University College London),<\/a>\n<a class='pum-trigger  popmake-37503  ' data-do-default=''>Etsuko Sugiyama (Graduate School of Law Hitotsubashi University)<\/a>\n<p>Rolf St\u00fcrner (Emeritus Professor, University of Freiburg and former co-reporter of the ALI\/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure).[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=&#8221;&#8221;][\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=&#8221;MEETINGS&#8221; tab_id=&#8221;1747232733835-aecfb1cc-fbc3&#8243;][vc_column_text css=&#8221;&#8221;]<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>First Meeting (online, 24 July 2025)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The first meeting introduced the objectives of the PLDR Workstream and discussed UNIDROIT\u2019s Inception Report which provided a preliminary review of the Institute\u2019s work in procedural law and dispute resolution. The Committee exchanged initial views on the proposed scope and structure of the future White Paper.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Second Meeting (online, 22\u201323 October 2025)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The second meeting was held in parallel sessions, and focused on the structure, methodology, and task allocation for the White Paper. The Committee discussed key cross-cutting issues and advanced planning for the drafting process.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Third Meeting (online, 18 December 2025)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The third meeting was devoted to the discussion of preliminary draft contributions submitted by Committee members, including ALI- Unidroit Principles on Transnational Civil Procedure; ELI- Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure; Best Practices for Effective Enforcement (Ongoing); Internal Coherence among Unidroit Instruments; Technology and Procedural Innovation; Litigation Financing and Access to Justice; and other related areas. The Committee provided feedback and discussed next steps for further drafting and consolidation.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fourth Meeting (online, 28 January and 6 February 2026)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The fourth meeting was held in parallel sessions and focused on reviewing progress and coordinating the drafting of the White Paper. The Committee discussed the status of key sections, including regional harmonisation of procedural law, technology and procedural innovation, and the coherence of UNIDROIT instruments, and considered how to streamline, consolidate, and structure the draft in view of its finalisation.<\/p>\n<p>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][\/vc_tta_accordion][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[vc_row css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1773407914298{margin-bottom: 20px !important;}&#8221;][vc_column css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1773406860295{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;}&#8221;][vc_btn title=&#8221;ESPA\u00d1OL&#8221; style=&#8221;custom&#8221; custom_background=&#8221;#004054&#8243; custom_text=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; shape=&#8221;square&#8221; align=&#8221;right&#8221; css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1773738031694{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;border-top-width: 0px !important;border-bottom-width: 0px !important;padding-top: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;background-color: #FFFFFF !important;}&#8221; link=&#8221;url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unidroit.org%2Fcentenary%2Flinea-de-trabajo-sobre-derecho-procesal-y-resolucion-de-controversias-sp%2F&#8221;][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=&#8221;PROCEDURAL LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION WORKSTREAM&#8221; font_container=&#8221;tag:h1|text_align:left&#8221; use_theme_fonts=&#8221;yes&#8221; css=&#8221;.vc_custom_1766058989198{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;}&#8221;][vc_single_image image=&#8221;31291&#8243;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/centenaire\/droit-procedural-reglement-differends-2\/\">&hellip;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":0,"parent":33505,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-38974","page","type-page","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","odd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/38974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38974"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/38974\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39280,"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/38974\/revisions\/39280"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.unidroit.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}