Article 31—Waiver

Clicks: 1
ID: 317823
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #1,375 of 1,518 articles by views in Oxford University Press eBooks

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,518 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract This chapter assesses Article 31 of the ICDR Rules. It is not uncommon for a party to raise objections to the arbitration based on non-compliance with the relevant institutional rules. However, when not raised promptly, such an objection can derail an arbitral proceeding and create potential grounds on which to challenge the award. Article 31 requires that where a party knows of any non-compliance with the ICDR Rules or the parties’ arbitration agreement and still proceeds with the arbitration without promptly objecting in writing, it will be deemed to have waived the right to object. This general principle is also echoed in the ICDR Rules in the specific context of challenges to arbitrators and objections to jurisdiction.
Reference Key
openalex_W7165110211 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Martin F Gusy, James M Hosking, G.I. Walters
Journal Oxford University Press eBooks
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/law/9780197848012.003.0032
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.