I. Introduction

1. Over the last seven years, arbitration-both domestic and international-has made enormous advances in Brazil. During this period, the number of cases involving Brazilian parties and Brazilian arbitrators has grown sharply, as has the number of arbitrations seated in Brazil. Decisions have been made on several of arbitration's hot topics and case law increasingly supportive of arbitration has been emerging.1

2. It is therefore not surprising that in recent years Brazil has risen to a high position in the ranking of most frequent nationalities amongst parties to ICC arbitration. In 2006 and 2009, Brazil was the fourth most frequent nationality amongst parties to ICC arbitrations,2 having risen from the 26th place in 1994. In 2010, it was in fifth place and in 2011 in seventh place. Since 2009, Brazilian parties have been the most numerous of all Latin American and Caribbean nationalities in ICC arbitration, accounting for between 25% and 36% of all parties from the region. The situation was very different in the last century.3 Up until 1950, no more than 10 ICC cases had involved Brazilian parties. This figure rose to 44 between 1950 and 1992. Between 1995 and 1999, there were 50 new cases involving Brazilian parties-a figure now far exceeded in a single year.

3. Brazil's prominence in ICC arbitration is confirmed if we look at other criteria such as arbitrators, applicable law, the place of arbitration and language. Over the last eleven years, more than 200 Brazilian arbitrators have been confirmed or appointed in ICC arbitration proceedings. In 2011, Brazilian arbitrators represented more than 34% of all arbitrators from Latin America and the Caribbean. In the cases submitted in 2011, Brazilian law had been chosen as the applicable law in 2.4% of contracts underlying those cases, and in 3.8% of contracts in 2010. Between 1995 and 2011, 95 ICC arbitrations were seated in Brazil (86 of them between 2003 and 2011), more than half in the city of São Paulo, which has all the necessary technical and financial infrastructure to serve that purpose. Some 53% of ICC arbitrations seated in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2011 were in seated in Brazil. The number of ICC arbitrations conducted in Portuguese has also risen significantly over the last years. Portuguese was the language used in 1.87% of awards rendered in 2010 and in 3% of awards in 2011.

4. Relations between arbitrators and state courts have also taken a new turn. In his speech of investiture as Chief Judge of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court on 23 April 2010,4 Cezar Peluso highlighted the importance of alternative means of dispute resolution in helping to relieve court congestion in Brazil.5 It may be observed that dispute boards are now starting to be used in Brazil, in addition to other, more common forms of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation and conciliation.

5. The expansion of arbitration in Brazil has been helped by four legal developments that have given it the necessary foundations on which to grow. They are: (i) the enactment of Law No. 9.307 in 1996 (the 'Arbitration Law');6 (ii) the confirmation of its constitutionality by the Federal Supreme Court ('STF') in 2001;7 (iii) Brazil's ratification of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 2002 (Decree No. 4.311 of 23 July 2002);8 and (iv) the Superior Court of Justice's ('STJ') case decisions.

6. Lastly the development of the Brazilian economy has had no small part to play in the growth of arbitration. There has been a massive need for investment and joint ventures arising from the discovery of the pre-salt oil reserves, the hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games, and the implementation of the Program for the Acceleration of Growth to develop infrastructures. As a result of these developments, the flow of capital both into and out of Brazil has grown. In this context, the need for dispute resolution has become greater than ever before and will doubtless continue to increase in the years to come. [Page39:]

7. The extent to which arbitration has progressed in Brazil over the last sixteen years, and especially the last six years, corresponds to what it took other countries more than half a century to achieve. Brazil can now boast some 130 published books and hundreds of articles on arbitration and three specialized journals. It is also home to some 100 arbitration institutions, including six of international stature. In 2010 and 2011, the caseload of commercial arbitrations handled by the principal domestic institutions was double that of 2008 and totalled some 200 cases. These numbers are expected to continue increasing. Brazil's most established arbitration institutions saw the number of cases increase significantly between 2008 and 2011-those of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce and the CIESP/FIESP by more than 100%.

8. This article will look at recent legal developments relating to arbitration in Brazil, distinguishing between those in which a clear pro-arbitration position has emerged and those that are still controversial or cause hesitation. Consideration will also be given to developments in the conduct of the arbitration process, the profile of the players involved, and ICC arbitrations related to Brazil.

II. Case law strongly supportive of arbitration

9. To enforce a foreign arbitral award in Brazil, recognition proceedings must be brought in the STJ. Before 2005, jurisdiction for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards lay with the STF, but it was transferred to the STJ pursuant to Article 105, I, i of the Brazilian Constitution, as amended by Constitutional Amendment No. 45 of 8 December 2004. Resolution No. 9 of 4 May 2005 set forth the procedure for recognizing and enforcing foreign awards in the STJ. On average, recognition and enforcement proceedings last around a year. In special cases, the STJ may grant interim relief before rendering a final decision.

10. Brazil's system for recognizing foreign arbitral awards has proved to be highly favourable to arbitration. From 2004 to November 2012, the STJ ruled on 37 applications for the recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It ruled in favour of enforcement (at least partially) in 25 cases, against enforcement in 7 cases, and in the remaining 5 cases there was no decision on the merits of the application. The STJ's analysis is limited to the formal points listed in the Arbitration Law and the New York Convention. No review of the merits of the award is allowed.9

11. The STJ has also ruled on arbitration-related issues when ruling on applications for interim measures and appeals against lower court decisions. On several occasions, it has overturned lower court decisions unfavourable to arbitration.

12. The courts have been equally supportive of domestic arbitration, applying the Arbitration Law correctly and consistently,10 respecting the arbitrators' power to rule on their own jurisdiction,11 and refusing to review the merits of disputes submitted to arbitration or to set aside arbitral awards on grounds other than those expressly provided for in the Arbitration Law. Recent research reveals that from 2001 to 2008, out of a total of almost 700 cases, only 14 arbitral awards rendered in Brazil were set aside-most of them correctly-by the state courts.12

13. During the last seven years, in particular, the STJ and lower courts have handed down a number of landmark decisions that have played an important role in the development of arbitration in Brazil. The case law resulting from these decisions is discussed below.

1. Effectiveness of arbitration clauses

14. One of the most important changes introduced by the Arbitration Law was to recognize the positive and negative effects of arbitration clauses.

15. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1973, previously applicable, once a dispute had arisen, the execution of a submission agreement (compromisso) was always required. The arbitration clause (cláusula compromissória) was not sufficient in itself. In the 1996 Arbitration Law that double requirement was removed (Article 3 of the Arbitration Law). [Page40:]

16. Pursuant to the Arbitration Law, if the parties have agreed on a 'blank' clause that does not specify the method of constituting the arbitral tribunal-directly or by reference to arbitration rules-a specific agreement to resort to arbitration is required. This will not be necessary where the parties have indicated in their arbitration clause the rules applicable to the nomination of arbitrators, either expressly or by reference to other rules or an arbitral institution. These requirements have been repeatedly affirmed by the STJ and some lower courts during recent years.13

17. When ruling on some disputes arising from international contracts signed before the enactment of the 1996 Arbitration Law, the STJ has applied the principle of good faith and found that the arbitration agreements were immediately effective in these cases, too, and that no submission agreement was therefore required.14 On 28 June 2012, the STJ issued Precedential Rule (Súmula) No. 485, which states that the Arbitration Law applies to contracts containing an arbitral clause, even if executed before its enactment ('A Lei de Arbitragem aplica-se aos contratos que contenham cláusula arbitral, ainda que celebrados antes da sua edição.').

18. If one of the parties refuses to sign the submission agreement, the opposing party can seek specific performance of the 'blank' arbitration clause before state courts pursuant to Article 7 of the Arbitration Law.

19. The Court of Appeal of the State of Paraná recently reversed a prior decision it had made15 denying the self-executing character of an arbitration clause and considering a submission agreement to be necessary. The Court emphasized that the arbitration agreement made between the parties was adequate and fully effective and thus a submission agreement was not required.16

2. Extension of the arbitration agreement to non-signatories

20. There have been some positive decisions on the possibility of extending the effects of an arbitration clause to non-signatories from the STJ and the Court of Appeal of São Paulo.

21. In 2006, the Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo upheld a decision from a lower court extending the effects of an arbitration agreement signed by a subsidiary to its parent company. It considered that the latter had personally conducted all the negotiations leading to the execution of the contract and was therefore jointly liable for its performance.17

22. More recently,18 the Court rendered a pioneering decision on the effect of an arbitration agreement in a legal entity's by-laws. The case involved a broker, W, associated with Bovespa, the São Paulo Stock Exchange. W claimed that the arbitration clause in Bovespa's by-laws was not binding on it, since the clause had been included in Bovespa's by-laws a long time after W became associated with Bovespa and therefore without W's consent. W argued that the clause formed part of an adhesion contract subject to special requirements under Article 4(2) of the Arbitration Law, which had not been met. The Court rejected W's argument and found that the arbitration clause had been validly included in Bovespa's by-laws through a majority decision of Bovespa's General Assembly, being therefore binding on all of Bovespa's associates, including those that had not voted for its inclusion. The Court also emphasized that the modification of a company's by-laws by a decision of its General Assembly did not constitute an adhesion contract, since all associates could take part in the discussion and vote. The Court therefore held that the arbitration agreement in Bovespa's by-laws was valid and not subject to the special requirements applying to adhesion contracts under Article 4(2). Recently, the participants of Jornadas de Direito Comercial, organized by the Federal Justice Council, adopted Statement 16 providing that there was no need for express consent to arbitration by a new shareholder/quota holder where the company's by-laws/statutes already provide for arbitration.19[Page41:]

23. In 2012, in Comverse v. American Telecommunication,20 the STJ considered that the arbitration agreement bound non-signatory parties, because the subsidiaries had actively participated in the execution of the contract that contained the arbitration clause and had voluntarily appointed a representative to take part in the arbitration proceedings.

3. State entities and state-owned companies

24. The arbitrability of disputes involving state entities and companies under state control became a controversial issue amongst Brazilian lawyers in the years following the enactment of the Arbitration Law.21 However, the situation has changed in recent years as a result of decisions in which the STJ has expressly recognized the arbitrability of such disputes.22

25. Latterly, the STJ has gone further and held that an arbitration agreement concerning such disputes may be executed by the parties at any time, even after the execution of their contract and notwithstanding the lack of an arbitration provision in an invitation to bid issued by the state party. Interestingly, one of the judges taking part in this ruling underlined the bad faith of the state entity which, after agreeing to arbitration, challenged the arbitrability of the dispute and the validity of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award when it discovered that the decision was not in its favour. Judge Uyeda remarked that such conduct violates the constitutional principle of morality in public administration.23

26. In recent years there have been a number of legislative changes allowing arbitration to be used to resolve disputes arising out of contracts relating to public utilities (concessões) and public-private partnerships ('PPPs').24

27. Law No. 11.196 of 22 November 2005 added a new provision to Law No. 8.987 of 13 February 1996 regulating public utilities, which expressly allowed arbitration clauses to be included in concession contracts, provided Brazil is chosen as the place of arbitration and Portuguese as the language of the arbitration. Although not expressly stated, Brazilian law must be chosen as the applicable law. However, arbitrators can be foreign nationals.

28. Pursuant to Law No. 11.079 of 30 December 2004 regulating PPPs with the Federal Government, parties are expressly authorized to include arbitration clauses in PPP contracts, so long as the arbitral proceedings take place in Brazil and are in Portuguese.

29. In addition, state entities have included ICC arbitration agreements in invitations to bid for concessions in relation to infrastructure projects. These include the construction and operation of some of Brazil's largest power plants, which will compose the Madeira River Complex (Santo Antonio and Jirau) in the Amazon region. The Brazilian electricity regulator, Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), has agreed to submit to arbitration disputes relating to its concessions. In the past, arbitration has already been used by other governmental regulatory bodies, such as the Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações and the Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás e Biocombustíveis, and other state entities such as the Brazilian Bank for the Social and Economic Development. The practice of state entities and federal states submitting to arbitration goes back even to the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Arbitration agreements have also been included in the invitations to bid for the expansion, maintenance and operation of some of Brazil's main airports (Guarulhos, Brasília, Viracopos).25[Page42:]

30. The enactment of the above-mentioned legislation demonstrates that the Brazilian government has recognized the importance of arbitration and is willing to encourage its use by the state and state entities. The fact that the Brazilian Attorney General approved a legal opinion opposed to the insertion of international arbitration agreements in contracts between the Brazilian state-owned company Petrobras, the Federal Government and the Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás e Biocombustíveis for the exploitation of the pre-salt oil fields should not be thought to be unfavourable to arbitration, as the reason for the opinion was that there was already an appropriate dispute resolution system within the Federal Administration, so clauses providing for international arbitration were unnecessary. That dispute resolution system was the Conciliation and Arbitration Chamber of the Federal Administration, which is part of the Attorney General's department. It was created in September 2007 to settle disputes between bodies within Brazil's Federal Administration.26

31. Further, state entities such as the Brazilian Development Bank have participated in ICC arbitrations initiated by foreign parties.27

4. Insolvency proceedings

32. In recent years, Brazilian courts have addressed a complex issue that still remains controversial in many countries: the arbitrability of disputes involving bankrupt companies or companies undergoing winding-up or reorganization proceedings.

33. In a noteworthy case decided in 2008,28 the STJ for the first time confirmed the arbitrability of disputes involving companies in liquidation that are brought under an arbitration agreement executed before the liquidation order, when the signatories still had full capacity to contract and to be sued. The decision emphasized the competence-competence principle, empowering arbitrators to decide in the first place on their own jurisdiction and the validity of the arbitration agreement and limiting the courts' powers to a review of the legality of the arbitral award after the arbitration.

34. The Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo has taken a similar position,29 although there has been an isolated departure from this trend in a case where the insolvent party appeared as claimant in the arbitration.30

5. Public policy

35. The STJ has adopted a constructive approach to the use of public policy as a ground for refusing to recognize or enforce foreign arbitral awards.

36. In a case in which a Brazilian party alleged that the arbitral award was null and void due to the arbitrators' failure to apply a certain rule of Brazilian private law, which the party considered to be a violation of Brazilian public policy, the STJ found that the non-application of a given statutory provision by the arbitral tribunal does not constitute a breach of public policy.31 In doing so, the STJ demonstrated that its decision was informed by international public policy rather than parochial notions of public policy. [Page43:]

6. Provisional and interim measures

37. It is accepted that state courts have the power to grant provisional or conservatory measures prior to the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Brazilian courts have rendered several decisions affirming that an application for injunctive relief filed in a state court before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal does not constitute a breach of the arbitration agreement.32 The main purpose of such provisional measures is to protect the rights of a party prior to the commencement of the arbitral proceedings.

38. In cases where the arbitral proceedings have yet to commence, Brazilian courts have recognized that their jurisdiction is restricted to a preparatory and interim phase and that the merits will be decided by the arbitral tribunal once it has been constituted.33

39. Brazilian courts have also ruled that state courts cease to have jurisdiction to order interim measures as soon as the arbitral tribunal is constituted. From that moment, jurisdiction to grant interim relief lies with the arbitrators, who can uphold, modify or revoke any prior interim measures ordered by state courts.34

40. Where coercive measures are required to enforce an interim measure, arbitrators can request such measures from the competent judicial authority under Article 22(4) of the Arbitration Law.

41. In Itaruma v. PCBIOS,35 the STJ held that arbitrators have jurisdiction to order interim measures; yet, because they lack coercive powers, they can request assistance from the courts to enforce their orders if a party refuses to comply. According to the STJ, once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, a state court no longer has jurisdiction to rule on an interim measure it has already ordered; that order remains in force, subject to review by the arbitral tribunal, which has the power to maintain, modify or set aside the court order.

III. Issues on which case law is still uncertain or undecided

42. No final or consistent case law has yet emerged from Brazilian state courts on the validity of tacit arbitration agreements and arbitration agreement incorporated into contracts by reference, conflicts of jurisdiction between state courts and arbitral tribunals, or anti-suit injunctions. There are also a number of other issues, much discussed in the world arbitration community, on which Brazilian courts have not yet had the opportunity to rule.

1. Tacit arbitration agreement and incorporation by reference

43. Before the enactment of Constitutional Amendment No. 45 of 2004, the STF did not recognize tacit consent to arbitration. It refused to recognize any award that had been rendered on the basis of an arbitration agreement that had not been signed by the parties.36

44. Since 2005-when jurisdiction over recognition proceedings was transferred to the STJ-the STJ has adopted a more flexible, case-by-case approach to the writing requirement. In one case, the STJ considered such elements as the parties' behaviour during the proceedings and the fact that it is customary to resort to arbitration in the industry concerned to find that a party had consented to arbitration despite not having signed the contract.37 The STJ applied similar reasoning in another case,38 considering that a brief reference in the parties' contract to arbitration according to the Rules of the Liverpool Cotton Association confirmed the existence of an agreement on arbitration despite the respondent's refusal to participate in the proceedings. [Page44:]

45. On the other hand, the STJ has refused recognition of a foreign arbitral award in a case where it considered an arbitration agreement contained in faxes exchanged between commercial agents representing one of the parties to be invalid. The STJ concluded here that there was no proof that the opposing party knew about the arbitration agreement.39 In another case in which the parties' contract referred to arbitration under the Rules of the Liverpool Cotton Association, the STJ held that the requirements of the Arbitration Law for arbitration agreements in adhesion contracts had not been met and refused to recognize the award.40 The STJ has also refused to recognize a foreign arbitral award in a case where the contracting party claimed to have expressly objected to the arbitration agreement following receipt of the contract from the other party. However, the STJ gave as the reasons for its decision (i) the res judicata effect of the decision of a Brazilian court in proceedings concerning the rescission of the contract; and (ii) contradictory behavior by the applicant, which introduced a claim in insolvency proceedings before the arbitral award was rendered.41

46. As can be seen from the above decisions, no consistent line has yet emerged on the subject. At the present time, the STJ's position can be summarized as follows:

- As a rule, the arbitration agreement must be explicit, preferably in writing.

- Where a party does not object to the arbitration and takes part in the proceedings, the arbitral award can be recognized and enforced in Brazil, even if it the parties' contract does not expressly provide for arbitration.

- Where one of the parties proposes an arbitration agreement and the proposal is rejected by the other party, there can be no reliance on the arbitration agreement to which the parties have not consented.

- In industries and international contracts in which it is customary to use arbitration (e.g. the cotton industry), the STJ has considered that there could be a presumption of consent to arbitration.

47. Given the practical importance nowadays of arbitration agreements incorporated by reference, their validity is generally recognized by Brazilian courts.42

2. Conflicts of jurisdiction between state courts and arbitrators

48. Where state courts do not respect the limits of their jurisdiction over a dispute subject to arbitration, conflicts of jurisdiction may arise. Such conflicts occur, as a rule, in the context of requests for interim measures to state courts before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, in cases in which the previous decision rendered by a state court has been modified or revoked by the arbitral tribunal after its constitution.

49. There have been two cases in which the STJ has admitted that a procedural measure known as Conflito de Competência (set forth in Article 105, I, d, of the Constitution), generally used to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction between state courts, can also be used to resolve a conflict between a state court and an arbitral tribunal where both assume jurisdiction over the same dispute.43 In one of the cases the STJ ordered interim relief staying the state court proceedings and upholding the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction to proceed with the case until a final judgment on the conflict.44 Judges Andrighi, Salomão45 and Sanseverino46 have already rendered their opinions, in which they understand that the STJ has jurisdiction to hear the case, while Judge Gallotti rejects jurisdiction to hear the case, on the ground that the constitutional provision does not encompass that type of conflict. In another case involving a conflict of jurisdiction between an arbitral tribunal and a first instance court in Rio de Janeiro, Judge Gallotti47 restated her opinion in the former case, concurring with Judge Uyeda.48 These judgments are, however, still pending before the STJ. [Page45:]

3. Anti-suit injunctions

50. Brazilian courts have generally recognized the competence-competence principle and refused to order anti-suit injunctions against an arbitration on grounds related to the existence, validity or effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal of São Paulo has recently stated that an order staying arbitration may exceptionally be granted, where a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement indicates that the latter is invalid under applicable Brazilian law.

51. In Enesa et al. v. Sulamérica et al.,49 the Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo issued an injunction to stay an arbitration seated in London relating to the construction of a power plant in Brazil's Amazon region. Previously, a British court had issued an order preventing Enesa et al. from contesting the validity of the arbitration agreement in Brazilian courts, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal.50 According to the British Court of Appeal, the arbitration agreement was subject to English rather than Brazilian law, since the parties had chosen London as the seat of the arbitration.

52. It is unclear whether that legal presumption under English law is consistent with the parties' true intention, given that the parties had failed to agree on the law governing the arbitration agreement. As noted by the Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo, (i) the contract was executed between Brazilian parties; (ii) the transaction involved the construction of a power plant in Brazil; and (iii) the parties chose Brazilian law as the substantive law applicable to the contract. Hence, Brazilian courts may find that the parties' true intention was to submit the arbitration agreement to Brazilian law as the law most closely connected to their legal relationship and that, according to Brazilian law, there has been no consent to arbitrate. Lack of consent to arbitration could prevent the award from being recognized in Brazil on public policy grounds.

53. The Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo took a different approach. It decided to grant an injunction to stay the arbitration until Brazilian courts reach a final decision on the validity of the arbitration agreement. The Court stressed that an order from a foreign court cannot prevent Brazilian nationals from filing a lawsuit in Brazilian courts, which is a fundamental right set out in the Brazilian Federal Constitution. Moreover, a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement led the Court to consider that the allegation of its invalidity was likely to be well founded, which justified granting interim relief to stay the arbitration until a final decision on the issue. Finally, the Court found that a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement by state courts was consistent with the competence-competence principle, as noted by Brazilian commentators.

4. Other issues as yet undecided

54. Brazil's higher courts have not had the opportunity to decide upon a number of other important issues in international arbitration. They include (i) the recognition and enforcement in Brazil of a foreign arbitral award that has been set aside at the place of the arbitration; (ii) the arbitrability of disputes relating to competition, intellectual property and tax law;51 (iii) the extension of arbitration agreements in groups of contracts; (iv) whether an arbitral award grounded on an issue of law not raised by the parties in the arbitral proceedings (iura novit curia) violates due process; (v) the validity of an arbitral award without reasoning, in light of the procedural rules applicable to the arbitration; (vi) the possibility of enforcing partial awards.

55. In light of the developments in arbitration case law in Brazil over the last ten years, it is likely that these issues will soon reach the Brazilian courts and that solutions favourable to arbitration will be found. On some of these matters there have already been a few decisions from lower courts but none as yet from higher courts.

56. The question of whether a foreign arbitral award that has been set aside or is subject to annulment proceedings at the place of the arbitration can be recognized in Brazil under the New York Convention and the Arbitration Law has recently been referred to the STJ and a decision can be expected soon.52[Page46:]

57. The STJ has already adopted a positive approach when ruling on a request for the recognition of an arbitral award rendered in the United States that was subject to annulment proceedings wrongly filed in Brazil. The STJ recognized the arbitral award, disregarding the existence of pending annulment proceedings as a ground for refusing recognition. However, it did not address the question of the jurisdiction of Brazilian courts to hear such setting-aside proceedings.53

58. In this regard, the majority of the official texts of the New York Convention provide for a discretionary power to recognize foreign arbitral awards that have been set aside at the place of the arbitration: there is no 'duty' for national courts to refuse recognition in such cases.54 In the Portuguese version, for instance, this is reflected in the use of the word poder (may) in the introductory paragraph of Article V(1).55 The same word is used in Article 38, VI of the Arbitration Law.

IV. Arbitration practice

59. Arbitration in Brazil has undergone a 'cultural revolution' since the enactment of the Arbitration Act in 1996.56 The profile of its players has changed, as has the process itself.

1. The players

60. One of the most noticeable changes has been the specialization of arbitration.

61. In the past, Brazil's most frequently appointed arbitrators57 were professors who had for many years taught international, private or commercial law at Brazilian (and, in some cases, foreign) universities. Most of them had also practised as lawyers for twenty years or more in areas such as international trade and commercial law.

62. Lately, a new generation of younger Brazilian arbitrators has emerged. They have been practising law for around ten to fifteen years and have acquired their expertise as counsel in domestic and international arbitrations since the enactment of the 1996 Arbitration Law. Several of them have obtained academic and practical knowledge of the subject in foreign countries where there is a long tradition of arbitration, notably France and the United States. Many have worked in foreign law firms, at the ICC (as staff or interns) and have participated in international conferences and moots.

63. The advantages of arbitrators with expertise in particular fields and industries has become increasingly apparent and led to specialization among practitioners. Following a trend already observed in Europe and the USA, specialist boutique firms are starting to appear in Brazil.

64. While Brazilian arbitrators are influenced by European legal cultures and traditions, particularly French and Italian, their awards, like the decisions of Brazil's state courts, are usually very technical with abundant references to scholarly writings and state court decisions.

65. Some of the Brazilian lawyers who act as counsel in arbitrations have a similar background to that of the Brazilian arbitrators, although some of them tend to be more influenced by the legal culture of the USA than by that of Europe. The rise in the demand for arbitration practitioners in Brazil has led to an increasing involvement of litigation lawyers, some of whom have brought with them the more belligerent and formalistic approach that typifies litigation.

66. Traditionally, neither Brazilian parties involved in arbitrations nor Brazilian arbitrators are belligerent. By avoiding antagonism, arbitration can become a catalyst for settlement between the parties, adopting a forward-looking as well as a backward-looking perspective. 58[Page47:]

2. The process

67. Brazilian lawyers have adopted the practice of referring to arbitration specialists for advice in drafting dispute settlement clauses. This avoids many problems that may arise from pathological arbitration agreements. They are generally advised to prefer institutional arbitration, which explains the small number of ad hoc arbitrations in Brazil. Institutional arbitration is seen as more able to control time and cost in relation to such matters as jurisdiction and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and generally to reduce the risk of annulment.

68. As elsewhere, the question of whether an arbitrator possesses strong case management skills and has the necessary availability is an important consideration when selecting members of the arbitral tribunal.

69. It is common practice for arbitral institutions to forward to the parties a draft of the terms of reference at the start of the proceedings. This encourages parties, via their representatives, to be proactive and to make suggestions for the conduct of the proceedings, such as the electronic filing of submissions, the creation of a procedural timetable or the establishment of a coherent system for numbering documents.

70. International practices are also being adopted to help better organize the proceedings and save time and expense. They include the use of witness statements and the preparation of core bundles of documents to be handed out to the arbitrators and the opposing party's counsel during a hearing.

71. Brazilian arbitrators have sometimes decided to bifurcate proceedings, on their own initiative or at the parties' request. In doing so, they have sought greater efficiency by dividing the proceedings into two distinct phases, the first devoted to jurisdiction and the second to the merits, or the first to liability and the second to the quantification of damages, or to allow a preliminary question such as the effect of a time-bar to be dealt with in an initial, separate phase of the proceedings. This of course creates a need for the recognition and enforcement of partial awards, as does the fact that partial awards are admissible under Brazilian law.59

72. In proceedings requiring expert evidence, both the arbitral tribunal and the parties have usually nominated experts, who act simultaneously or successively, although arbitral tribunals have sometimes relied upon the work of party-appointed experts alone, subject to the agreement of both parties. Brazilian arbitrators usually discuss the subject matter and scope of expert reports with the parties prior to the production of evidence, with a view to saving time and cost. It is as yet uncommon-although not unheard of-for experts to meet prior to a hearing to identify issues on which they agree or disagree, again with a view to achieving greater time and cost efficiency.

73. It is unusual for Brazilian arbitrators to order discovery. This is linked to the fact that in Brazil a party cannot be obliged to produce evidence harmful to itself, which likely derived from the constitutional principle of innocence in criminal law. It possibly explains why arbitration practitioners educated in Brazil tend not to request or order extensive document production from the parties. Nonetheless, Brazilian practitioners frequently involved in international arbitrations are more accustomed to this practice and usually do not object to it.

74. With respect to the iura novit curia principle, Brazilian arbitral tribunals have acted on the safe side when raising new issues of law on their own initiative, although in Brazilian litigation the application of that principle is undisputed. Article 21, 2, of the Arbitration Law provides that in arbitral proceedings the parties must have a fair opportunity to present their case and must receive equal treatment. Accordingly, when raising a new point of law, arbitrators in Brazil have generally granted the parties the opportunity to make submissions on the matter, in order to avoid future lawsuits seeking the annulment of the arbitral award on this ground.

75. As regards post-hearing submissions, some Brazilian arbitrators have adopted a practice partially inspired by the so-known Sachs-Wälde-Reichert method,60 inviting the parties to limit their post-hearing or final submissions to those issues that the arbitral tribunal considers most significant. [Page48:]

3. ICC arbitration

76. One of the characteristics of the ICC's Brazil-related caseload is the complexity of the disputes. They often involve multiple parties and/or multiple contracts, which reflects the complexity of business relations and the phase of transition through which the Brazilian economy is currently passing.

77. Other peculiarities of Brazilian cases include the greater number of challenges against arbitrators and requests for clarification of awards than in cases relating to most other countries. This is partially explained by the litigation background of some of Brazil's contemporary practitioners, who are more combative over the selection of arbitrators who, in the face of unfavourable decisions, have a tendency to exhaust all arguments including even those of a secondary nature. However, arbitral tribunals and the ICC Court have responded to such manoeuvres reasonably and constructively, in accordance with the ICC Rules, widely recognized arbitration principles and international arbitration best practices.

78. Also noteworthy is the Brazilian government's sympathy towards ICC arbitration. The inclusion of ICC arbitration agreements in contracts executed by Brazilian state entities with private parties has gradually become a common practice, as illustrated by several major infrastructure projects.61

79. Although arbitration has acquired prominence in Brazil, it still suffers from a lack of knowledge and understanding. Brazilian judges unfamiliar with arbitration in general have rendered some pathological decisions giving rise to situations that have attracted negative comment in the international arbitration community and cast doubt on the otherwise positive developments that have been taking place in Brazil. Happily, such decisions are increasingly rare and, as shown in the discussion above, tend to be remedied eventually by higher courts.

V. Conclusion

80. Since 1996, when Brazil's current Arbitration Law was enacted, the practice of arbitration in Brazil has benefited from a favourable legal environment, a buoyant economy and an increasing demand from users for legal stability and rapid and efficient solutions to their disputes. 62

81. These conditions explain the unprecedented pace at which international arbitration has developed. The achievements made during the last six years in particular have put Brazil on a par with developed nations in the field of international arbitration, setting it apart from some of its Latin-American neighbours.

82. However, this is no cause for complacency. There is still much to be done and a few controversial issues still need to be settled.

83. Recently, the Brazilian Senate set up a commission composed of a judge from the STJ and five arbitration experts to propose amendments to the Arbitration Law. The commission's role will be to respond to the needs and challenges that have arisen over the last sixteen years since the entry into force of the Arbitration Law and the new and more complex aspects of business life in Brazil. It is expected that the commission will work closely with the commission drafting the new Code of Civil Procedure, which includes some provisions on important aspects of arbitration such as the recognition of foreign arbitral awards. Cooperation between the two commissions is essential to avoid inconsistencies and ensure that any amendments are coherent and will be effective.

84. Growing demand in the coming years for construction contracts, joint venture investments and corporate governance, together with continuing difficulties and unforeseeability resulting from the financial crisis, can be expected to bring new opportunities for applying and further developing arbitration law and practice in Brazil.

85. In conclusion, the 21st century promises to be the century of international arbitration in Brazil. This is an exciting yet challenging prospect, which will further underline the importance of finding rapid solutions to increasingly numerous and complex disputes.

1
The rise of arbitration in Brazil in the years following the enactment of its 1996 arbitration statute has been discussed in three articles published in this Bulletin: A. Wald, 'Developments in Brazilian Arbitration Legislation, 1996(2001', Vol. 12 No. 2 (2001) 42; L. Gama Jr., 'Recognition of Foreign Awards in Brazil: Recent Developments', Vol. 16 No. 1 (2005) 71; C.C. Roos & R.S. Grion, 'Arbitration in Brazil: Law and Practice from an ICC Perspective", Vol. 17 No. 2 (2006) 11.

2
See the annual statistical reports published in this Bulletin and online in the ICC Dispute Resolution Library (www.iccdrl.com).

3
See C.C. Roos & R.S. Grion, 'Arbitration in Brazil: the ICC Experience", Revista de Arbitragem e Mediação ('RAM') 10 ( July/Sept. 2006) 93.

4
Available at <http://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/ cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/discursoPeluso.pdf>.

5
See also A. Wald, 'A arbitragem contratual e os dispute boards', RAM 6 (July/Sept. 2005) 9; 'Dispute resolution boards: evolução recente', RAM 30 (July/Sept. 2011) 139.

6
The World Bank has given Brazil's arbitration law a rating of 84.9 out of 100, <http://iab.worldbank.org/Data/Explore %20Economies/Brazil#/Arbitrating-disputes>.

7
STF, Plenary, decision on Agravo Regimental na Sentença Estrangeira ('AgRg SE') 5206/ES, 12 Dec. 2001 (Reporting judge ('RJ'): S. Pertence), Revista Trimestral de Jurisprudência, 190 (Oct./Dec. 2004) 908.

8
See A. Wald, 'La ratification de la Convention de New York par le Brésil', Revue de l'arbitrage, 2003/1, 91.

9
STJ, Special Ch., decision on Sentença Estrangeira Contestada ('SEC') 3035/FR, 19 Aug. 2009 (RJ: F. Gonçalves), Official Gazette 31 Aug. 2009; decision on SEC 611/US, 23 Nov. 2006 (RJ: J.O. de Noronha), RAM 13 (Apr./ June 2007) 260; decision on SEC 507/GB, 18 Oct. 2006 (RJ: G. Dipp), RAM 13 (Apr./June 2007) 251; decision on SEC 866/GB, 17 May 2006 (RJ: F. Fischer), RAM 12 (Jan./Mar. 2007) 256; decision on SEC 760/US, 19 June 2006 (RJ: F. Fischer), RAM 12 (Jan./Mar. 2007) 264; decision on SEC 856/GB, 18 May 2005 (RJ: C.A.M. Direito), RAM 6 (July/Sept. 2005) 228.

10
On the correct application of the legal grounds for annulment, see Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo ('TJSP'), 4th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 99405115895-2, 11 Nov. 2010 (RJ: F. Quadros); 3d Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 99409279845-3, 28 Sept. 2010 (RJ: D. Morandini); Court of Appeal of the State of Goiás, 4th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 4639528820098090051, 11 Nov. 2010 (RJ: A.W. de Oliveira); 47th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 1727585920078090051, 25 Nov. 2010 (RJ: A.W. de Oliveira).

11
See, e.g., STJ, 3d Branch, decision on interim measure ('MC') 14.295, 8 June 2008 (RJ: N. Andrighi), RAM 19 (Oct./Dec. 2008) 167; and the recent decisions of the 17th Ch. of Priv. Law of the Court of Appeal of the State of Rio Grande do Sul on app. 70034162867 and 70030777312, 22 Apr. 2010 (RJ: L.R.A. da Silva).

12
See <http://www.cbar.org.br/PDF/Pesquisa_GV-CBAr_relatorio_final_1_etapa_2fase_24.06.09.pdf>.

13
STJ, Special Ch., decision on SEC 1.210/GB, 20 June 2007 (RJ: F. Gonçalves), RAM 17 (Apr./June 2008) 243; TJSP, 25th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 1117830-0/7, 26 Feb. 2008 (RJ: A.B. Ribeiro Pinto), RAM 17 (Apr./June 2008) 200; TJSP, 28th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 1103701-0/9, 11 Dec. 2007 (RJ: C.L.B. de Camargo); TJSP, 14th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 7.127.102-2, 19 Sept. 2007 (RJ: P. Ablas); TJSP, 14th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 990.10.090526-0, 12 May 2010 (RJ: M. Colombi).

14
STJ, 3d Branch, decision on special appeal ('REsp') 712.566/RJ, 18 Aug. 2005 (RJ: N. Andrighi), RAM 7 (Oct./Dec. 2005) 212; Special Ch., decision on SEC 349, 21 Mar. 2007 (RJ: E. Calmon), RAM 14 ( July/Sept. 2007) 155. Two pioneering decisions were rendered on this subject by the Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo, in a dispute involving the French company Renault and the Brazilian CAOA: TJSP, 5th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on interlocutory appeal ('AgIn') 124.217.4/0, 16 Sept. 1999 (RJ: Rodrigues de Carvalho), Revista de Direito Bancário, do Mercado de Capitais e da Arbitragem ('RDB') 7 (Jan./Mar. 2000) 336. Aff'd STJ, 4th Branch, REsp 249.255-SP, 6 Dec. 2001 (RJ: A. Passarinho Jr), RDB 16 (Apr./ June 2002) 381; TJSP, 25th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 1117830-0/7, 26 Feb. 2008 (RJ: A.B. Ribeiro Pinto), RAM 17 (Apr./June 2008) 200.

15
Court of Appeal of the State of Paraná, 18th Ch. of Priv. Law, AgIn 428.067-1, 30 Jan. 2008 (RJ: C.M. Arida), RAM 17 (Apr./ June 2008) 212.

16
The decision quoted in the preceding footnote was reversed by the same court on 7 December 2011, through a decision on Embargos Infringentes (civil injunction for reconsideration) 428.067-1/10, 18th Ch. of Priv. Law (RJ: Stewalt Camargo Filho), RAM 32 (Jan./Mar. 2011) 343.

17
TJSP, 7th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app 267.450-4/6, 24 May 2006 (RJ: C. Gonzala), RAM 10 (July/Sept. 2006) 243.

18
TJSP, 7th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 472.973-4/2-00, 19 Oct. 2011 (RJ: A. Passos), RAM 34 (July/Sept. 2012) [forthcoming].

19
See < http://www.jf.jus.br/cjf/CEJ-Coedi/Enunciados%20 aprovados%20na%20Jornada%20de%20Direito%20Comercial.pdf>.

20
STJ, Special Ch., decision on SEC 3.709/US, 14 Jun. 2012 (RJ T.A. Zavascki), RAM 34 (July/Sept. 2012) 363.

21
See S. F. Lemes, 'Arbitragem na concessão de serviço público-Perspectivas', RDB 17 (July/Sept. 2002) 342; A. Wald & A. Serrão, 'Aspectos constitucionais e administrativos da arbitragem nas concessões', RAM 16 (Jan./Mar. 2008) 11; A. Wald & J. Kalicki, 'The Settlement of Disputes between the Public Administration and Private Companies by Arbitration under Brazilian Law', (2009) 26:4 Journal of International Arbitration 557.

22
STJ, 2d Branch, decision on REsp 612.439/RS, 25 Oct. 2005 (RJ: J.O. de Noronha), RAM 11 (Oct./Dec. 2006) 177; 1st Sect., decision on Internal App. in Writ of Mandamus 11.308/DF, 26 June 2006 (RJ: L. Fux), RAM 11 (Oct./Dec. 2006) 194, and decision on Writ of Mandamus 11.308/DF, 9 Apr. 2008, RAM 21 (Apr./ June 2009) 286; 3d Branch, decision on REsp 954.065/MS, 13 May 2008 (RJ: A. Pargendler), RAM 22 (July/Sept. 2009) 282.

23
STJ, 3d Branch, decision on REsp 904.813/PR, 20 Oct. 2011 (RJ: N. Andrighi, separate opinion of M. Uyeda) and comments by A. Wald in RAM 33 (Apr./June 2012) 361.

24
See A. Wald, 'A infra-estrutura, as PPPs e a arbitragem', RAM 5 (Apr./June 2005) 14.

25
The invitation to bid and the draft contract that will be signed with the winners are available at http://www.aviacaocivil.gov.br/noticias/2011/12/acesse-o-edital-e-contrato-de-concessao-dos-aeroportos-de-guarulhos-brasilia-e-viracopos, access on 13 February 2012. See also note by A. Wald, "Arbitration on the runway", <http://www.latinlawyer.com/lawfirms/article/43159/arbitration-runway>.

26
See <http://www.agu.gov.br/sistemas/site/TemplateTexto.aspx?idConteudo=170561&id_site=1104&aberto=&fechado=>. For the opinion, see RAM 28 (Jan./Mar. 2011) 251.

27
See < http://www.latinarbitrationlaw.com/ecuador/>.

28
STJ, 3d Branch, decision on MC 14.295 (RJ: N. Andrighi), 8 June 2008, RAM 19 (Oct./Dec. 2008) 167; and decision on annulment action 583.00.2008.224372-5, 3d Priv. Court of São Paulo Circumscription, 15 Dec. 2008 (RJ: A.C. Mendes), RAM 22 (July/Sept. 2009) 250; REsp 1.125.185, 12 Aug. 2011 (RJ: N. Andrighi), RAM 31 (Oct./Dec. 2011) 411. For further information, see A. Wald & R. Garcia da Fonseca, with the collaboration of M. de Melo Vieira, 'International arbitration-Bankruptcy disputes: Outside counsel perspective', in H. Geiger Nano & P. Mason, eds., International Commercial Arbitration Practice: 21st Century Perspectives, 2d ed. (New Providence (NJ): LexisNexis, 2011) ch. 34; A. Wald, 'Arbitrage et insolvabilité: les questions controversées au Brésil et en Amérique Latine' [2010:2] The Paris Journal of International Arbitration 391.

29
TJSP, Special Chamber for Bankruptcy and Judicial Reorganization Proceedings, decision on AgIn 531.020-4/3-00, 25 June 2008 (RJ: P. Calças), RAM 19 (Oct./Dec. 2008) 174; 4th Ch. of Priv. Law, Request for Clarification 644.204-4/4-01, 10 Dec. 2009 (RJ: Maia Cunha).

30
TJSP, 6th Ch. of Priv. Law, AgIn 658.014-4/2-00, 10 Dec. 2009 (RJ: R. Solimene), RAM 28 (Jan./Mar. 2011) 303.

31
STJ, Special Ch., decision on SEC 802-EX, 17 Aug. 2005 (RJ: J. Delgado), RAM 7 (Oct./Dec. 2005) 195. See also STJ, Special Ch., decision on SEC 3709, 14 Jun. 2012 (RJ: T. Zavaski).

32
See, e.g., TJSP, 4th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on MC 494.408-4/6, 28 June 2007 (RJ: E. Zuliani); TJSP, 17th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 0173445-07.2010.8.26.0100, 27 July 2011 (RJ: E. Oliveira).

33
E.g. TJSP, 3d Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on AgIn 614.006-4/4/00, 18 Feb. 2009 (RJ: R. Mac Cracken).

34
Court of Appeal of the State of Minas Gerais, 14th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on AgIn 1.0024.07.600275-7/002 in AgIn 1.0024.07.600275-7/001, 17 Jan. 2008 (RJ: E. Camilo), RAM 19 (Oct./Dec. 2008) 191; 12th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on app. 1.0480.06.083392-2/001, 14 Feb. 2007 (RJ: D. Coelho); 4th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on AgIn 2.0000.00.410.533-5/000, 27 Aug. 2003 (RJ: A. de Ávila); TJSP, 20th Ch. of Priv. Law, decision on App. 999.843/6, 23 June 2008 (RJ: A. Torres Jr.).

35
STJ, 3d Branch, decision on REsp 1.297.974/RJ, 12 Jun. 2012 (RJ: N. Andrighi) in RAM [forthcoming].

36
E.g. STF Plenary, decision on SEC 6.753-7/UK, 13 June 2002 (RJ: M. Corrêa), RDB 18 (Oct./Dec. 2002) 370.

37
STJ, Special Court, decision on SEC 856-EX, 18 May 2005, (RJ: C.A.M. Direito), RAM 6 (Oct./Dec. 1999) 228.

38
SEC 1.210/GB, see supra note 13.

39
STJ, Special Court, decision on SEC 866, 17 May 2006, (RJ: F. Fischer), RAM 12 (Jan./Mar. 2007) 256.

40
STJ, Special Court, decision on SEC 978/EX, 18 Dec. 2008 (RJ: H. Carvalhido), RAM 24 (Jan./Mar. 2010) 215.

41
STJ, Special Court, decision on SEC 826, 15 Sept. 2010, (RJ: H. Carvalhido), RAM 28 (Jan./Mar. 2011) 826.

42
See, e.g., K. von Wobeser, 'La Incorporación por Referencia' in G.S. Tawil, E. Zuleta, eds., El Arbitraje Comercial Internacional: Estudios de la Convención de Nueva York con Motivo de su 50º Aniversario (Buenos Ayres: Abeledo-Perrot, 2008) 246.

43
STJ, 2d Sect., decision on Conflict of Jurisdiction ('CC') 106.121/AL, 23 June 2009 (RJ: A. Passarinho Jr); 2d Sect., decision on CC 111.230/DF, 1 July 2010 (RJ: A. Passarinho Jr.), RAM 27 (Oct./Dec. 2010) 333.

44
STJ, decision on CC 111.230/DF, 1 July 2010 (RJ: A. Passarinho Jr.), RAM 27 (Oct./Dec. 2010) 333.

45
STJ, opinions on CC 111.230/DF, 22 Aug. 2012, N. Andrighi & L. F. Salomão.

46
STJ, opinion on CC 111.230/DF, 28 Nov. 2012, P.T.V. Sanseverino.

47
STJ, opinion on CC 122.439/RJ, 28 Nov. 2012, M.I.D. Gallotti.

48
STJ, opinion on CC 122.439/RJ, 15 May 2012, M. Uyeda.

49
TJSP, 6th Ch. Of Priv. Law, decision on AgIn 0304979-49.2011.8.26.0000, 19 Apr. 2012 (RJ: P. Alcides),

50
Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros S.A. et al. v Enesa Engenharia S.A. et al., Case A3/2012/0249, 16 May 2012.

51
On arbitration involving tax law, see A.L.M.R. Monteiro & L.F.M. e Castro, 'Direito Tributário e Arbitragem: uma análise da possibilidade e dos óbices ao juízo arbitral em matéria tributária no Brasil, RAM 23 (Oct./Dec. 2009) 60.

52
See STJ, SEC 5782 [pending].

53
STJ, Special Court, SEC 611/US (RJ: J.O. de Noronha), RAM 13 (Apr./June 2007) 260.

54
A. Mourre, 'A propos des articles V et VII de la Convention de New York et de la reconnaissance des sentences annulées dans leur pays d'origine: où va-t-on après les arrêts Putrabali et TermoRio?', Revue de l'arbitrage, 2008/2, 263.

55
Decree No. 4.311 of 23 July 2002.

56
See A. Wald, 'O espírito da arbitragem', Revista do Instituto dos Advogados de São Paulo 23 (Jan./June 2009) 24.

57
Cf. T. Clay, 'Qui sont les arbitres internationaux? Approche sociologique' in J. Rosell, ed., Les arbitres internationaux (Paris: Société de Législation Comparé, 2005) 13.

58
R. David, 'Le dépassement du droit et les systèmes de droit contemporains', Archives de philosophie du droit 8, 1963, 8, where the author describes the purpose of arbitration as: 'de restaurer l'harmonie entre les intéressés, d'organiser leurs rapports pour l'avenir, autant et plus que de fixer, en se tournant vers le passé, ce qui est dû à chacun'.

59
D. Armelin, 'Notas sobre sentença parcial e arbitragem', RAM 18 (July/Sept. 2008) 274; A. Wald, 'A validade da sentença arbitral parcial nas arbitragens submetidas ao regime da CCI', RDB 17 (July/Sept. 2002) 329.

60
See J. Bédard, 'The Sachs-Wälde-Reichert Method', RAM 19 (Oct./Dec. 2008) 13..

61
E.g. Madeira River complex and Brazilian airports, see para. 29 above.

62
See Judge J. Barbosa's investiture speech at the STF, <http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/cms/ verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=224522>.