{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010769230769230769, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.08411214953271, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Bridge too Far

  ABSTRACT: Recent case law from arbitration laden jurisdictions has reignited the discussion of an arbitrator's ex officio application of the law when the parties have chosen the law applicable to the merits of the dispute, but have not invoked certain legal arguments during the arbitral proceedings. Specifically, this survey analyzes the issue of an arbitrator's ex officio application of the law from the perspective of the maxim iura novit curia and foreign mandatory rules in order to ascertain whether the recourse to these two tenets by way of analogy are appropriate in the context of international commercial arbitration.