Reforming Arbitral Powers in Italy: Jurisdiction, Interim Measures, and the European Legal Order

This article reassesses the reach of the 2022 Cartabia Reform on Italian arbitration. It focuses on three levers: (1) arbitrators’ interim measures when conferred by the parties (Article 818 c.p.c.) and their enforcement through state courts; (2) corporate arbitration; and (3) jurisdictional objections and the codified competence-competence rule (Article 817 c.p.c.). Using comparative sources and recent case law, the article argues that what affects outcomes is not an inherent ‘structural asymmetry’ but coordination frictions – namely: the need for judicial intervention to give effect to non-pecuniary orders; heterogeneous procedural pathways across fora and rules; and contact points with EU law (public-policy review, intra-EU enforcement constraints, and state immunity). The reform does not create a self-contained regime; it yields a court-supported model whose performance turns on how legislators, courts, and arbitral institutions implement the new powers (e.g., by drafting clauses that grant interim powers, streamlining enforcement protocols, and clarifying court – arbitration interfaces). The conclusion sets out targeted proposals to foster a more coherent and predictably enforceable arbitral order.

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of International Arbitration
Published
2025-11-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2025046
Primary Topic
International Arbitration and Investment Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reforming Arbitral Powers in Italy: Jurisdiction, Interim Measures, and the European Legal Order

Journal of International Arbitration
International Arbitration and Investment Law
article

Reforming Arbitral Powers in Italy: Jurisdiction, Interim Measures, and the European Legal Order

article en

Abstract

This article reassesses the reach of the 2022 Cartabia Reform on Italian arbitration. It focuses on three levers: (1) arbitrators’ interim measures when conferred by the parties (Article 818 c.p.c.) and their enforcement through state courts; (2) corporate arbitration; and (3) jurisdictional objections and the codified competence-competence rule (Article 817 c.p.c.). Using comparative sources and recent case law, the article argues that what affects outcomes is not an inherent ‘structural asymmetry’ but coordination frictions – namely: the need for judicial intervention to give effect to non-pecuniary orders; heterogeneous procedural pathways across fora and rules; and contact points with EU law (public-policy review, intra-EU enforcement constraints, and state immunity). The reform does not create a self-contained regime; it yields a court-supported model whose performance turns on how legislators, courts, and arbitral institutions implement the new powers (e.g., by drafting clauses that grant interim powers, streamlining enforcement protocols, and clarifying court – arbitration interfaces). The conclusion sets out targeted proposals to foster a more coherent and predictably enforceable arbitral order.

Journal of International ArbitrationVol. 42(Issue 6)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
International Arbitration and Investment Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.