The Peruvian Arbitration Law was inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Both rules empower arbitration tribunals to issue anti-process or anti-suit injunctions. These measures classified as precautionary measures aim to protect the jurisdictional monopoly granted by the parties to the arbitral tribunal to address the risk of two parallel proceedings and two contradictory decisions being issued. However, despite appearing to be a useful remedy in arbitral material, it has certain questions that diminish its application.In this article, the authors analyze such measures to address the questioning that limit its application to verify their efficiency and validity. It also assesses its requirements under international arbitration practice to corroborate whether they conform to the Peruvian regulatory framework.

The Peruvian Arbitration Law was inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Both rules empower arbitration tribunals to issue anti-process or anti-suit injunctions. These measures classified as precautionary measures aim to protect the jurisdictional monopoly granted by the parties to the arbitral tribunal to address the risk of two parallel proceedings and two contradictory decisions being issued. However, despite appearing to be a useful remedy in arbitral material, it has certain questions that diminish its application.In this article, the authors analyze such measures to address the questioning that limit its application to verify their efficiency and validity. It also assesses its requirements under international arbitration practice to corroborate whether they conform to the Peruvian regulatory framework.

The Peruvian Arbitration Law was inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Both rules empower arbitration tribunals to issue anti-process or anti-suit injunctions. These measures classified as precautionary measures aim to protect the jurisdictional monopoly granted by the parties to the arbitral tribunal to address the risk of two parallel proceedings and two contradictory decisions being issued. However, despite appearing to be a useful remedy in arbitral material, it has certain questions that diminish its application.In this article, the authors analyze such measures to address the questioning that limit its application to verify their efficiency and validity. It also assesses its requirements under international arbitration practice to corroborate whether they conform to the Peruvian regulatory framework.