The thrust of this article is to examine a contemporary international arbitration process in commercial and investment cases, specifically the interplay of common law and civil law elements in the taking of evidence. It begins with a survey of the provisions of the most popular international arbitration instruments, including international arbitration rules and IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. Following the discussion of some relevant examples of international arbitration instruments, the author tries to answer the question whether these instruments, in their current form, support the popular thesis that the international arbitration process has become largely harmonized. In trying to verify this thesis, the article also goes beyond the text of international arbitration instruments and considers the influence of the cultural biases of international arbitration actors.
Background and objective: Urological diseases represent a signifi cant health issue worldwide. Presented study aimed at assessing current urological knowledge and confi dence in performing urological diagnostic and therapeutic procedures among medical students at Jagiellonian University Medical College in Poland and compare it on diff erent stages of the undergraduate medical education. Material and methods: We designed an anonymous survey distributed among Polish students from 1st to 6th year of medical studies, before and aft er clinical urology course. Questions concerned general urological knowledge, prostate diseases, erectile dysfunction, and self-reported practical urological skills. Results: Overall, 437 respondents participated in the survey. Mean total test score in our study groupwas 50.08%, mean general urological knowledge score was 53.44%, mean prostate diseases knowledge score was 55.43%, mean erectile dysfunction score was 36% and mean practical skills score was 45.83%. Mean total test score increased with consecutive years of studies (R = 0.58; p <0.001). Th e risk of an above average total test score was signifi cantly infl uenced by the urology course (OR = 7.95, 95%CI = 1.81–34.84, p = 0.006) and the year of medical studies (4th–6th vs. 1st–3rd) (OR = 5.16, 95%CI = 3.41–7.81, p <0.001). Practical skills score above average was signifi cantly more frequent in the group aft er the urology course (OR = 6.75, 95%CI = 1.54–29.58, p = 0.011). Conclusions: Results of this study reveal low mean scores obtained by students, even aft er completing the urology course, which implies that curriculum requires further development. Urological knowledge and self-assessed practical skills increased with years of medical education. The urology course improved the score obtained in our survey, both in terms of total test score and practical skills.