PIL.OT / DEVELOPMENT
PIL.OTv0.62.2
V. D. Tuktamyshev investigates whether parallel proceedings can arise in arbitration, how they should be distinguished from related proceedings and which legal means may mitigate their adverse effects. The article treats the relationship between state-court scrutiny of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and proceedings before different arbitral tribunals as separate questions.
Drawing on historical and formal-legal methods, the analysis concludes that parallel proceedings cannot arise between a state court and an arbitral tribunal. It nevertheless identifies the possibility of parallel proceedings between different arbitral tribunals and proposes coordination mechanisms for that situation; it also treats prior state-court determination of the tribunal’s jurisdiction as conflicting with the competence-competence principle.
How parallel or related proceedings in arbitration should be characterised, how prior state-court review of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction relates to the competence-competence principle, and how parallel proceedings between different arbitral tribunals should be coordinated.
The article links the conceptual identification of parallel proceedings in arbitration to the relationship between state-court jurisdictional review and arbitral tribunals, while addressing the need for coordination between different tribunals. It therefore considers the competence-competence principle alongside procedural mechanisms aimed at reducing the adverse effects of parallel proceedings.
Electronic supplement to Russian Juridical Journal · 2026
DOI 10.34076/22196838_2026_4_90