Resumo:
This thesis, employing an exploratory methodology, aims to analyze the extent of the binding effect of judicial precedents on arbitral tribunals, grounded in the necessity of adopting a decision-making methodology that uses judicial precedents as parameters to ensure systemic coherence. The hypothesis proposed is that arbitrators must adhere to judicial precedents due to the systemic organization of legal systems, which are characterized by a commitment to the past, mandating the observance of precedents on specific matters. To investigate this hypothesis, this thesis is divided into four chapters, each focusing on precedents from different perspectives. The first chapter addresses the conceptual framework of judicial precedents. The second chapter examines the characteristics of jurisdiction and arbitration. The third chapter analyzes the main arguments opposing the proposed hypothesis. Finally, the fourth chapter confirms the hypothesis, defining the thesis and its conditions of application. It builds on the foundations established in the previous chapters to outline guidelines for understanding the method of decision-making based on precedents and the mandatory observance of judicial precedents.
