. "Over the last decades, unforeseen to national legislators, International Arbitration Law acquired more and more autonomy despite the existence of domestic legislation governing international arbitration. This autonomy has sparked much interest but has also caused some concern. The reason for such concern is twofold. The first cause for concern lies in the fact that there exist no legal definition of international arbitration. Indeed, the notion of international arbitration is, as of today, derived from the various criteria which have been set to distinguish international arbitration from domestic arbitration. These criteria, which stem from legislative methods specific to each national jurisdiction, are a reflection of the very unique approach taken by national laws towards arbitration and inevitably influence the manner in which each state decides to legislate on the rules governing international arbitration.The second cause for concern is the result of the increasing complexity of cross-border economic and commercial trade and the continuous diversification of sources of international arbitration through the enactment of numerous international pieces of legislation, national reform and case law. The development of these rules reveals an ongoing process within a context favorable to an informal harmonization of substantive International Arbitration Law. These rules remain insufficient today. The weakness of the system is due to the fact that International Arbitration has been regulated through domestic legislation. This raises the question of regulating arbitration through country-specific legislation. Even if, when internationalized, monism is not incompatible with the specificities of international arbitration, the dualistic approach seems to be more appropriate. The real question here actually lies is the importance afforded by national regulation to such specificities. Moreover, the existence of material dualism followed by formal dualism in international arbitration is a first step in the ongoing legal debate around the appropriateness of Transnational Arbitral Legal Order as the normative pillar of international arbitration." . . . . "Domestic and international arbitration, monism or dualism, comparative Law considerations based on a Franco-Italian study" . . . "Ordre juridique transnational" . "Arbitrage commercial international" . "Th\u00E8ses et \u00E9crits acad\u00E9miques" . "Text" . . . "Droit transnational" . . . . "2015" . . "Proc\u00E9dure standardis\u00E9e de l\u2019arbitrage international" . . . "Droit compar\u00E9" . . "Arbitrage (droit international priv\u00E9)" . . "R\u00E9gime transnational de l\u2019arbitrage (international)" . "Depuis ces derni\u00E8res d\u00E9cennies, le droit de l\u2019arbitrage international conna\u00EEt une autonomie, en marge de la justice \u00E9tatique, que les l\u00E9gislateurs nationaux ne semblaient gu\u00E8re pr\u00E9voir. Cette autonomie suscite l\u2019int\u00E9r\u00EAt mais aussi une inqui\u00E9tude renouvel\u00E9e par un double constat. Le premier r\u00E9side dans l\u2019absence d\u2019une d\u00E9finition l\u00E9gale de l\u2019arbitrage international, si ce n\u2019est l\u2019existence d\u2019une d\u00E9finition implicite au travers de crit\u00E8res de distinction \u00E0 l\u2019\u00E9gard de l\u2019arbitrage interne. Ces crit\u00E8res, relevant d\u2019une technique l\u00E9gislative propre \u00E0 chaque \u00C9tat, traduisent la conception tr\u00E8s particuli\u00E8re qu\u2019ils se font de l\u2019institution et influent in\u00E9vitablement sur la mani\u00E8re dont ils d\u00E9cident de r\u00E9gir l\u2019arbitrage international. Le second rel\u00E8ve de la complexification des \u00E9changes \u00E9conomiques et commerciaux transfrontaliers et de l\u2019\u00E9clatement exponentiel des sources que conna\u00EEt l\u2019arbitrage international, sous l\u2019impulsion des sources internationales, des r\u00E9formes nationales et de la pratique qui en est faite. Le d\u00E9veloppement de ces r\u00E8gles met en \u00E9vidence un processus qui s\u2019inscrit dans un contexte favorable \u00E0 la promotion d\u2019une harmonisation informelle, d\u2019un droit mat\u00E9riel de l\u2019arbitrage international. Ces r\u00E8gles restent, aujourd\u2019hui, insuffisantes. La faiblesse du syst\u00E8me r\u00E9side dans leur origine nationale qui conduit \u00E0 soumettre la question de la r\u00E9glementation de l\u2019arbitrage \u00E0 diff\u00E9rentes l\u00E9gislations particularistes. M\u00EAme si le monisme \u2013 internationalis\u00E9 \u2013 n\u2019est pas incompatible avec les sp\u00E9cificit\u00E9s de l\u2019arbitrage international, la solution dualiste semble plus opportune : la vraie question \u00E9tant le degr\u00E9 de prise en compte de ces sp\u00E9cificit\u00E9s par les r\u00E9glementations nationales. Aussi, l\u2019existence d\u2019un dualisme mat\u00E9riel, puis formel de l\u2019arbitrage international, constitue une d\u00E9marche pr\u00E9alable \u00E0 la r\u00E9flexion sur la potentialit\u00E9 d\u2019un ordre juridique transnational consid\u00E9r\u00E9 comme le socle normatif de l\u2019arbitrage international." . . . . "Arbitrage interne et international, monisme ou dualisme, r\u00E9flexion de droit compar\u00E9 \u00E0 partir d'une \u00E9tude franco-italienne" . "Autonomie" . "Arbitrage interne et international, monisme ou dualisme, r\u00E9flexion de droit compar\u00E9 \u00E0 partir d'une \u00E9tude franco-italienne" . .