Bifurcation in Inter-State Cases

Xinjun Zhang

2018-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:In the South China Sea Arbitration, China’s resolute decision on non-appearance without even appointing its own arbitrator was criticized as unwise. It was argued that the conventional litigation wisdom to contest jurisdiction exclusively at the preliminary phase serves to better China’s interests; and this would not prejudice its decision of non-appearance at the subsequent proceedings over merits. The validity of this tactic rests upon bifurcation – the division of the proceedings into determination of jurisdiction and determination of merits. Bifurcation has been routinely practiced by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) but has not been heeded much in other forums of inter-sate dispute settlement. The present author undertook the first time an investigation of 14 cases eventually went to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII Arbitration (as of 2017). It finds that the majority of tribunals adopted ad hoc Rules of Procedures by which the tribunals retain discretion on the matter of bifurcation (discretionary bifurcation), and in practice the tribunal’s flexibility terminates upon the rejection of the request to bifurcate. The practice is rather a reflection of the practice of international commercial arbitration, where efficiency is a great concern in the matter of bifurcation. Discretionary bifurcation is out of question since bifurcation falls into the inherent power of an international judicial organ in the management of legal proceedings. But why and how in ICJ, bifurcation becomes a procedural right of the parties? (Which enables the conventional litigation wisdom but misleading in the UNCLOS arbitration) This research traces the origin of the issues of bifurcation back to Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), and finds that when it was introduced by the Court in 1926, it was believed that bifurcation deserved special treatment in the Rules of Court in order for the Court to better handle its jurisdiction of inter-state disputes whose jurisdiction was confined by the consent of the parties. The subsequent revisions the Rules of Court in 1936/1946/1972/1978 and the 2001 modification gradually but solidly provide that a party is entitled to bifurcation, notwithstanding the generally accepted belief that the Court’s efficiency declines when it bifurcates proceedings. The divergence in practice may be determined by the distinctive nature of the two forums (adjudicative v. arbitral) as they decide the issue of bifurcation, balancing jurisdictional sensitivity against procedural efficiency. Nevertheless, this kind of balancing of the issue of bifurcation in the UNCLOS arbitrations will put unwilling respondents in an untenable situation: participation (with appointment of its own arbitrator) means less jurisdictional sensitivity and probably results in a negative decision on bifurcation; only non-appearance of the unwilling respondent is thought to deserve bifurcation in which it can fight exclusively on jurisdiction, yet the unwilling respondent must deprive itself of such opportunity. Facing up to this dilemma, the author argues that the value of rule-based bifurcation should be carefully considered, by which an UNCLOS arbitral tribunal may ensure the legitimacy of its judgments for the settlement of inter-state disputes by adhering to the best practice firmly established in PCIJ and ICJ. In this regard, the adoption of the Rules of Procedure under which Russia is entitled to bifurcation, together with Russia’s appearance (Russia did not appear in the UNCLOS arbitration Arctic Sunrise) in the pending UNCLOS arbitration case Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait sends some positive signals.