Repeat Appointments - Impartiality, Independence and Diversity

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3699146

2020-01-01

Abstract:Prepared remarks for the Focus on the Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement seminar organized by the Institute for Transnational Arbitration.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

'One-Stop' Commercial Dispute Resolution Services: Implications for International Investment Law

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3471695

2019-01-01

Abstract:Many newly-created international commercial courts are supporting integrated commercial dispute resolution services, which blur lines between litigation, arbitration, and mediation services. Such “one-stop” commercial dispute resolution services will affect international arbitration generally and investment arbitration specifically. This chapter examines the likely impact of integrated international dispute resolution services on the investment arbitration regime in three respects: institutionalization, transparency, and enforcement. The chapter reaches the following conclusions.Regarding institutionalization, integrated dispute resolution services likely will contribute to the building momentum for greater institutionalization within the investment arbitration regime.Regarding transparency, integrated dispute resolution services likely will give rise to additional transparency gains within the regime by placing even greater attention on the need for coherent development of law, which requires public access to decision-making.Regarding enforcement, integrated dispute resolution services likely will narrow the existing enforceability gap between arbitral awards, on the one hand, and court judgments and mediated settlement agreements, on the other. A narrower enforceability gap would reduce the significance of one of the key advantages of international arbitration: an unmatched global enforcement regime. The diminished significance of that advantage likely would place additional pressure on the investment arbitration regime to address key vulnerabilities, notably recurrent perceptions of incoherent jurisprudence and arbitrator conflicts of interest.
Shenzhen and the Future of International Arbitration

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3599932

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Contribution on "My Story of International Arbitration" at the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, marking the 40th anniversary of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone.
Investment Arbitration Appellate Mechanism Options: Consistency, Accuracy, and Balance of Power

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713168

2017-01-01

ICSID Review

Abstract:For policymakers exploring appellate mechanism options for the international investment law regime, the competing interests of efficiency and finality will receive due consideration. But two additional — and possibly overlooked — risks also merit close analysis.First, gains in the consistency of treaty interpretation by a standing, permanent appellate body would not guarantee corresponding gains in the accuracy of treaty interpretation. As illustrated by two lines of case law applying denial of benefits provisions under a number of investment treaties, consistent treaty interpretation does not ensure accurate treaty interpretation. Second, a shift from an ad hoc to a more institutionalized international investment dispute settlement regime would significantly impact the balance of power between States and adjudicators. In general terms, standing, permanent tribunals are associated with greater levels of independence than ad hoc tribunals. The experience of the WTO Appellate Body illustrates how standing, permanent tribunals can develop as institutions through bold acts of independence. Greater levels of tribunal independence give rise to a greater need for control mechanisms to address the risk of tribunals exceeding their mandate. That risk is heightened in the context of the international investment arbitration, where, even under the current ad hoc regime, the level of tribunal independence is significant. Legitimate policy arguments — based on goals of achieving greater consistency, coherence, and predictability — can be made in favor of the development of one or more appellate mechanisms within the international investment law regime. But policymakers exploring appellate mechanism options should give careful consideration to all competing policy interests, which are not limited to the goals of efficiency and finality. The two additional risks analyzed in this article — the gap between consistent and accurate treaty interpretation, and the balance of power consequences of greater institutionalization — should be part of the policy discussion. That policy discussion also should include consideration of control mechanism options to address such risks.
The New York Convention and International Dispute Resolution

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3251091

2018-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Remarks from the 2018 China Arbitration Summit held in Beijing, China and organized by the Supreme People's Court of China, UNCITRAL, CCPIT, and CIETAC.
Interventions In Hong Kong Courts: A Case-Based Study

Le Cheng

2012-01-01

Abstract:Interventions in courtroom have been the research interest for many scholars. This case-based study examines the interventions by judges or counsels in the courts of Hong Kong with the aim to contribute the study on interventions in courtroom. There are two worth-noting findings in this study: as powerful participants in court interactions, the judges and the counsels are used to and more than happy to use interventions; as a neutral adjudicator, the judges should refrain themselves from unfair interventions by themselves but also from counsels. The propriety of judges' behavior in their interventions is, in return judged by other judges of a higher court. The conflict between solidarity as a discursive code and neutrality as a professional ethic complicate the interventions in courtroom, which is a complex of different social actors.
Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Principled Response to the Opportunity for Codification in England and Wales

Michael A. Greenop

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023028

2023-12-01

Journal of International Arbitration

Abstract:Confidentiality is often perceived as a pivotal aspect of arbitration, shielding sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure and preventing potential harm. This article examines the opportunity for codification of the confidentiality obligations in arbitration in England and Wales in light of the Law Commission’s recent review of the Arbitration Act 1996, emphasizing the importance of clear and predictable rules to enhance England and Wales’ status as a favoured arbitral seat. Codification will offer legal certainty and the concern that users from around the world must navigate a complex web of case law to determine the existence and scope of confidentiality duties, making it less accessible. By enshrining confidentiality in the Act, informed decisions can be made without ambiguity. This article is split into four sections, examining the concept and significance of confidentiality, the global development of confidentiality rules, the opportunity for codification, and the potential benefits of harmonizing international arbitration law. For codification to be effective, the drafters must define robust exceptions, such as consent, court orders, protection of legitimate interests, and public interest. Drawing inspiration from other jurisdictions, the Act should allow flexibility for courts to address unforeseen scenarios. By embracing confidentiality and providing clarity, England and Wales can strengthen its position as a leading jurisdiction for international commercial arbitration. Confidentiality, Arbitration, Procedure, Codification, Uniformity, Harmonization, UNCITRAL Model Law, Institutional Rules
International Arbitration and Transparency

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108304467.056

2023-01-01

Abstract:Over the past 15 years, a significant “transparency gap” has developed between the investment treaty arbitration and international commercial arbitration regimes. With increasing frequency in investment treaty cases, the public is provided with some form of access to documents and hearings as well as opportunities for participation through written amicus submissions; only to a very limited extent have such developments occurred within the international commercial arbitration regime. This chapter examines whether the existing transparency gap between the two regimes should be maintained. To evaluate that transparency gap, this chapter analyzes the respective regimes in light of three factors: (i) the nature of the public interest; (ii) the role of confidentiality; and (iii) the role of party autonomy. This chapter concludes that the existing transparency gap between the two regimes should — as a general matter — be maintained. Although the public interest in particular international commercial arbitration cases can be significant — most notably in cases involving State entities or statutory claims — on a systemic level the public interest in international commercial arbitration contrasts sharply with investment treaty arbitration, where cases consistently involve State entities and challenges to government measures. Equally important, two cornerstones of international commercial arbitration also support the existing transparency gap: (i) the availability of discreet and dispassionate dispute resolution, made possible by confidential proceedings, and (ii) the primacy of party autonomy. But with respect to the particular issue of public availability of arbitral awards, this chapter concludes that the existing transparency gap should be narrowed significantly, given the compelling and multifaceted nature of the public interest in that context. The public interest in obtaining access to arbitral awards exceeds — both in strength and multiplicity — the public interest in obtaining access to other documents and hearings, or in participating in disputes as amicus curiae. With respect to the future development of international law, it is the awards — not other documents, hearing transcripts, and/or amicus submissions — that hold the greatest potential for significant impact.With a view to increasing the public availability of commercial arbitration awards, this chapter proposes three alternative models for rulemaking: (i) a default rule model (which — absent party agreement to keep awards confidential — would require publication of redacted versions of awards), (ii) a modified mandatory rule model (which would track the ICSID approach of publishing, at a minimum, excerpts of the legal reasoning in each award), and (iii) a mandatory rule model (which would track recent investment treaty practice, requiring publication of awards subject to redaction of protected information).
Mediation: Rulemaking and Practice

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4786092

2024-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser Add Paper to My Library Share: Permalink Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely Copy URL Copy DOI
Evidence-Guided Reform: Surveying the Empirical Research on Arbitrator Bias and Diversity in Investor–State Arbitration

Daniel Behn,Malcolm Langford,Laura Létourneau-Tremblay,Runar Hilleren Lie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966122.011

2021-07-22

Abstract:The post-Cold War era has seen an unprecedented move towards more legalization in international cooperation and a growth of third-party dispute settlement systems. WTO panels, the Appellate Body and investor-state dispute settlement cases have received increasing attention beyond the core trade and investment constituencies within governments. Scrutiny by business, civil society, academia, and trade and investment experts has been on the rise. This book asks whether we observe a transformation or a demise of existing institutions and mechanisms to adjudicate disputes over trade or investment. It makes a contribution to the question in which direction international economic dispute settlement is heading in times of change, uncertainty and increasing economic nationalism. In order to do so, it brings together chapters written by leading researchers and experts in law and political science to address the challenges of settling disputes in the global economy and to sketch possible scenarios ahead of us.
Article: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Overlooked Procedural Deficiencies in ICSID’s Annulment Structure

Daniel Rosenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/amdm2022035

2022-10-01

Abstract:i style=""Over the past several decades, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes’ annulment procedure has proved an object of consternation for states and investors alike. The substantive principles of Article 52 of the ICSID Convention are commonly criticized as either too expansive or too narrow. The author contends that this criticism is misplaced, however, and that it is procedural deficiencies which will plague ICSID’s annulment proceedings in this time of broad investor-state dispute reform. Overconcentration of annulment committee appointment and challenge power in the hands of the Chairman of the ICSID Committee and ICSID Secretariat, compounded by continued problems of ‘double-hatting’ at the annulment level, threaten the due process rights and autonomy of parties to ICSID annulments. The author proposes a feasible restructuring of annulment appointment and challenge procedure under the ICSID Arbitration Rules as a potential rectification of these procedural flaws, including a dispersal of appointment power, a new pool system for annulment panel members, and the creation of an independent review body to consider challenges to annulment panel members.
The (Irrelevance Of Adrs In Resolving Financial Disputes: An Empirical Assessment And Roadmap Of Shanghai

Shen Wei,Yu Tao

2016-01-01

Hong kong law journal

Abstract:The increasing resolution of financial disputes through ADRs continues the current trend in China of diversifying and improving the efficiency of its dispute settlement mechanisms. However, when it comes to Shanghai, it has been disappointing to note the following: (1) the third-party mediation mechanism has caused a considerable waste of resources due to the low utility of existing institutional facilities, (2) judicial confirmation of the mediation agreement could distort some basic mediation norms such as voluntariness and party autonomy, and (3) judicial confirmation of the mediation agreement does not have a strong legal basis according to civil procedure law and arbitration law. This article, based on empirical studies, makes the following proposals to correct these institutional failures. First, we could enhance the efficiency of the existing ADR institutions by encouraging financial industrial players to take advantage of mediation and other existing ADRs. Second, various incentives can be offered to users of ADRs. Finally, linking the mediation agreement and arbitral award may help correct problems caused by the frequent use of judicial confirmation.
Resolving Investor State Dispute Settlement’s Legitimacy Crisis: The Case for Reinstating the Requirement to Exhaust Local Remedies

Sebastian Timothy Whitefoord Curtis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.330

2022-03-16

Abstract:Resolving Investor State Dispute Settlement’s Legitimacy Crisis: The Case for Reinstating the Requirement to Exhaust Local Remedies This article dissects a variety of structural issues that contribute to the “legitimacy crisis” currently faced by Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and in particular, treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (ISA). Primarily, it addresses issues of jurisdictional overlap with domestic courts, and the inability of ISA to engender “good governance” norms and the rule of law in respondent states. By examining these structural issues and their relationship with the difficult, and at times inflammatory relationship between the international investment protection regime and domestic governments and judiciaries, it contends that further internationalization, or “systemic reform” in lieu of the proposals made by the European Union is not adequate for resolving the legitimacy crisis. Rather, it proposes that a more radical, reintegration of domestic courts is necessary through the reinstatement of a traditional requirement of customary international law, the requirement to exhaust local remedies before commencing arbitral proceedings.
Setting Limits on Corporate Nationality Planning in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sis026

2012-01-01

ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal

Abstract:Maintaining stability in investment treaty arbitration requires the establishment of predictable limits on corporate nationality planning. With increasing frequency, respondents have attempted to set such limits by relying on the principle of abuse of right, seeking the dismissal of claims on grounds of abusive corporate restructuring by claimants. Although several investor-State tribunals have found that abusive corporate restructuring can deprive a tribunal of jurisdiction, the analysis in such cases has been divergent. Expansive application of the principle of abuse of right by tribunals also may increase State exposure under investment treaties by encouraging claimants to seek damages based on allegations of abuse of right by States. When available, denial of benefits provisions can provide respondents with a superior, treatybased alternative for establishing predictable limits on corporate nationality planning in investment treaty arbitration. In addition, given the rapidly increasing availability of denial of benefits provisions, the scale of their contribution to the stability of investment treaty arbitration can be significant. For such an important contribution to be achievable, however, tribunals in future cases must refrain from imposing unrealistic requirements on respondents invoking denial of benefits provisions.
Effecting Consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Through the Introduction of Precedent in a Multilateral Investment Court

Afolabi Adekemi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/1435-439x-2021-4-663

2021-01-01

Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien

Abstract:In recent years, the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system has been a subject of reform discussions triggered by several factors, amongst which includes the lack of consistency in ISDS decisions commonly rendered by arbitration tribunals. This undesirable fact places the current ISDS system in conflict with essential rule of law values such as stability, reliability, predictability, and equality - which inevitably diminish the legitimacy of the current system. Undeniably, the un-uniform investment treaties underlying ISDS decisions is a valid justification for divergent outcomes, however, the recognition that a majority of investment treaties share similar if not identical legal standards also makes the argument for consistent ISDS decisions legitimate and in fact necessary to foster the harmonious development of investment law across the network of identical treaty standards. To this end, the use of “precedent” is critical in achieving the aforesaid goal. Notably, albeit informally, the use of precedent is already a recognised practice in ISDS, yet inconsistent decisions persist. As a turning point, this article advocates that consistency in ISDS decisions can be best achieved through the “formal introduction of a system of precedent”, in “a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC)”, which is possible without jeopardizing the inherent differences contained in International Investment Agreements (IIA).
Comments on China's Draft Revised Arbitration Law

Mark Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4110546

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Comments on China's Draft Revised Arbitration Law prepared in response to Letter of Consultation issued by the Office of the Committee on Social and Legal Affairs of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).
Revisiting Disqualification of Arbitrators During Arbitral Proceedings: A Critique of Toyoshima & Co., Ltd. V. Gaomi Luyuan Textile Co., Ltd.

Beibei Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2020023

2020-01-01

Journal of International Arbitration

Abstract:Entering into an arbitration agreement means that the parties forfeit their right to sue before a national court if disputes that fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement arise. This nevertheless does not deprive the parties of the protections universally recognized as fundamental human rights. Therefore, a challenge to the arbitrator during the arbitral proceedings is possible when the integrity of the proceedings and that of the final award would otherwise be compromised. As a result of the influence of the pro-arbitration policy, domestic courts are usually biased towards not disqualifying arbitrators after the commencement of the procedures, especially when the enforcement of the award is governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This is consistent with the Convention’s purpose to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, as well as global trade activities. In some cases, however, it is worth discussing whether the national courts have gone too far in this direction. Toyoshima & Co., Ltd. v. Gaomi Luyuan Textile Co., Ltd. before the Chinese courts illustrates this concern well. Arbitration, disqualification of arbitrator, procedural integrity, the standard for disqualification
The Benefits of Differentiated Transparency. Proposal for Graduated Confidentiality Regimes within International Tax Disputes

Stefano Castagna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2020113

2020-11-01

Intertax

Abstract:To date, legislators and policymakers have not yet used any explicit policy criterion to balance transparency matters when dealing with EU and OECD tax dispute resolution reforms. This article wants to fill this void by providing a unique tool for implementing changes in international tax dispute resolution mechanisms, balancing different expectations and needs of stakeholders. Providing an example of its application, it proposes the use of differentiated levels of transparency according to stakeholders’ interests to ensure efficiency and fairness of outcome. The article employs principles of data protection regulations as a means to propose changes, drawing inspiration from comparable dispute resolution regimes that deal with taxation matters (Investor-State Dispute Settlement, International Commercial Arbitration and World Trade Organization dispute resolution mechanism). It concludes by providing proposals to render more efficient the current EU and OECD tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Transparency, dispute resolution, international arbitration, legitimate interests, reform, WTO, ICSID, commercial arbitration, EU tax, OECD.
Fundamentals of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes in Construction

Sai-On Cheung,Henry C. H. Suen,Tsun-Ip Lam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2002)128:5(409)

2002-10-01

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management

Abstract:With the surge of increasingly complex and fast-track construction projects, disputes are inevitable. Skills in dispute resolution should be part of the tool kit of any practitioner in a managerial position. The perceived shortcomings of litigation and arbitration, with their concomitant rise in costs, delays, and adversarial relationships, have encouraged the rapid growth of alternative dispute-resolution processes, namely, conciliation, mediation, adjudication, and other hybrid processes that have been widely used and well received by the Hong Kong construction industry. For example, mediation is now an integral part of most conditions of contracts published by the government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. However, the last decade evidenced the incorporation of increasingly complex dispute-resolution clauses in construction contracts, typically involving several alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques and arbitration arranged in sequential tiers. These dispute-resolution procedures render the supposedly more economic and speedy ADR process ineffective. In this study, a hierarchical model is developed to organize attributes of ADR processes. This presentation fits with the use of analytical hierarchy process methodology by a panel of experts to prioritize ADR process attributes. The top-ranked attributes identified as critical include, among others, preservation of relationships, enforceability, neutrality, and consensus. The experts also suggested means to establish these attributes. By focusing on these critical attributes, the dispute-resolution process can be kept simple and effective.

construction & building technology,engineering, civil, industrial
Flexibility in International Commercial Dispute Resolution: CIArb Singapore Annual Thought Leadership Lecture

Doug Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/amdm2024017

2024-05-01

Abstract:International commercial dispute resolution mechanisms are often lauded for the flexibility that they provide, particularly in comparison to courts and tribunals which are oftentimes constrained by rules and regulations. This article will examine the ways in which arbitration, as well as other non-binding forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as mediation, can leverage their flexibility to facilitate the effective, economic, and expeditious resolution of international disputes. This can be achieved via the adoption of certain (often unburdensome) processes at various stages across the lifetime of a dispute, from the exchanges of case, to adducing evidence, and the finalization of an outcome. To contextualize the analysis, this article will also draw comparisons to the relevant options available in Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).
A Trinity Analytical Framework for ISDS Reform

Wenhua Shan,Yunya Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2018.66

2018-01-01

AJIL Unbound

Abstract:The American Journal of International Law’s recent articles on the reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) make important contributions to ongoing debates. The article by Sergio Puig and Gregory Shaffer elaborates on the methods of investment dispute resolution—the various institutional innovations that states might pursue to improve the system. The essay by Anthea Roberts in turn explores the subjects of investment dispute resolution—states and their varying positions on reform. In our essay, we supply a third perspective by discussing the objects of ISDS—that is, the disputes themselves, which vary considerably from one case to another. We believe that considering methods, subjects, and objects together—what we refer to as a “trinity analytical framework”—could assist states as they formulate their positions in the reform process going forward. At the same time, we do not think that all reform options are equally meritorious, and we critique Puig and Shaffer's proposal for complementarity between municipal courts and international mechanisms as at best premature.

Repeat Appointments - Impartiality, Independence and Diversity

'One-Stop' Commercial Dispute Resolution Services: Implications for International Investment Law

Shenzhen and the Future of International Arbitration

Investment Arbitration Appellate Mechanism Options: Consistency, Accuracy, and Balance of Power

The New York Convention and International Dispute Resolution

Interventions In Hong Kong Courts: A Case-Based Study

Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Principled Response to the Opportunity for Codification in England and Wales

International Arbitration and Transparency

Mediation: Rulemaking and Practice

Evidence-Guided Reform: Surveying the Empirical Research on Arbitrator Bias and Diversity in Investor–State Arbitration

Article: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Overlooked Procedural Deficiencies in ICSID’s Annulment Structure

The (Irrelevance Of Adrs In Resolving Financial Disputes: An Empirical Assessment And Roadmap Of Shanghai

Resolving Investor State Dispute Settlement’s Legitimacy Crisis: The Case for Reinstating the Requirement to Exhaust Local Remedies

Setting Limits on Corporate Nationality Planning in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Effecting Consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Through the Introduction of Precedent in a Multilateral Investment Court

Comments on China's Draft Revised Arbitration Law

Revisiting Disqualification of Arbitrators During Arbitral Proceedings: A Critique of Toyoshima & Co., Ltd. V. Gaomi Luyuan Textile Co., Ltd.

The Benefits of Differentiated Transparency. Proposal for Graduated Confidentiality Regimes within International Tax Disputes

Fundamentals of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes in Construction

Flexibility in International Commercial Dispute Resolution: CIArb Singapore Annual Thought Leadership Lecture

A Trinity Analytical Framework for ISDS Reform