Amparo and arbitration: new problems and normative criticism

Abstract

In recent years, the Constitutional Court has allowed amparos against arbitration to proceed in situations beyond those contemplated in the Maria Julia precedent. This article explains the current state of admissibility of amparos against arbitration and examines the Constitutional Court’s case law in light of the principles of arbitration law, incorporated into the Peruvian legal system through statutes of legal force, as well as its impact on the reasoning the Constitutional Court should follow when deciding on the admissibility of amparos against arbitration.
This article argues, in deciding these cases, the Constitutional Court has failed to consider the legal rules governing judicial control of arbitration and has not been able to explain why it departed from the principles of arbitration law that regulate judicial control. Finally, the article addresses the Twelfth Complementary Provision of the Arbitration Act, in order to show the conflict between that rule and the Constitutional Court’s decisions.