Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/and Arbitral Discretion

The author of the book outlines US common law doctrines related to international commercial arbitration. He presents the developments in the US common law jurisprudence in international commercial for two reasons: First to inform the reader regarding doctrinal transformations, and second, with hope of achieving the perfect workings of international commercial arbitration as an aspirational goal. To this end, examining the American influence on international commercial arbitration is important. The author suggests that US common law may help to overcome challenges arising out of cultural differences in international commercial arbitration. While doing so, there are important contrasting and competing principles to consider, such as party-autonomy and arbitrator discretion, which stand out as saliently competing paradigms. The author indicates that giving equal weight to these competing principles in international commercial arbitration might be a useful strategy to harmonize seemingly polar opposite propositions. The book focuses, in part, on the US common law of discovery and how it might be adopted in international arbitration to develop efficiency in such proceedings. The International Bar Association (IBA) Rules on Evidence Gathering, the Prague Rules, and the role of 28 U.S.C. §1782 in international arbitration are closely analyzed, among others, to develop alternative approaches concerning evidence gathering in international commercial arbitration. Overall, the book contributes important discussions and suggestions to the literature. Also, the text presents analyses and suggested solutions with the help of leading principles developed by US common law, which facilitates understanding these principles from the author’s perspective. While the book provides those valuable inquiries and discussions, the book review took a critical approach towards them. The authors of the review critically analyze those suggestions. The book review compares to other books that pursue a similar approach to international commercial arbitration. How justified suggestions in the book are, as well as their strong and weak points, are displayed in the review. Are all those suggestions in the book correct? It must not be forgotten that the book looks into issues from an American perspective and those suggestions are coming from US common law. However, this approach can be problematic in international arbitration. If there is a dominant legal system in international commercial arbitration, how “international” can international arbitration be? The review criticizes those contradictions and presents a comprehensive analysis of the book. The authors of this review believe that an idea can be developed if there is criticism against it. Thus, authors here offer a critical eye towards the book with the purpose of development of the ideas within the book. Acknowledging the hard work of the author of the book, the authors of the review offer some thoughts to develop the ideas in the book and to make its next edition even better. Therefore, those who are interested in learning about Martinez Fraga’s book with a critical approach can find some interesting insights from the review.

The revised and expanded second edition of Gary Born's treatise Commercial provides detailed commentary, case analyses, and practice pointers. With full annotations and footnotes for research assistance, and analyses that identify and discuss critical issues, it should be a valuable guide to the actual practice of international commercial arbitration anywhere in the world. Among other things, Commercial Arbitration, Second Edition, examines the procedural aspects of international arbitration in contemporary practice; provides excerpts of representative international arbitral awards and national court decisions; and makes abundant reference to leading institutional rules as they are brought to bear on specific fact situations. It discusses in detail all leading international practices and legal sources relating to international commercial arbitration, including the New York and Inter-American Conventions, the UNCITRAL Model Law and other national arbitration legislation, and all leading institutional arbitration rules. It also expands and updates the First Edition's authoritative treatment of international arbitration by U.S. and other national courts. Divided into three parts - international arbitration agreements, international arbitral procedures, and international arbitration awards - the treatise explores each topic in detail, dealing with both legal and practical issues under leading international and national legal regimes. Through excerpts of key court decisions and detailed analysis, it thoroughly covers the role of U.S. courts in enforcing international arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act, providing a guide to the enforceability of international arbitration awards in U.S. courts and the role of U.S. courts in granting provisional remedies, selecting arbitrators and arbitral situses, ordering discovery, and otherwise providing judicial support for the international arbitral process. Appendices reproduce commonly-used materials essential for practitioners, including the New York and Inter-American Conventions, the Geneva Convention of 1961, the UNCITRAL Model Law, the Federal Arbitration Act, the Swiss Law on Private International Law, leading institutional arbitration rules (including the ICC, AAA, LCIA, and UNCITRAL Rules), and the IBA's Supplementary Rules Governing the Presentation and Reception of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration and Ethics for International Arbitrators.

There are currently no rules in international commercial arbitration law and practice assuring the coordination between (partial or final) arbitral awards and/or national court judgments rendered in identical or related cases. This lack of coordination is unsatisfactory, particularly in light of the ever-growing tendency of parties to submit their commercial disputes to international arbitration and the increasing complexity of international arbitration. Today, international commercial transactions and the disputes to which they give rise regularly involve multiple parties, contracts and issues. As a consequence, these disputes (or certain aspects of these disputes) are increasingly tried in multiple fora. In such circumstances, difficult issues regarding the res judicata effects of prior judgments or awards are likely to arise before international commercial arbitral tribunals.

This October 1988 sees the start of the Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration at the School of International Arbitration, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary College, University of London. The Diploma is the first course of its kind, anywhere in the world, dedicated to providing a post-graduate course in international commercial arbitration. It is hoped that the Diploma will not only provide an understanding of the practical problems of international commercial arbitration, but will provide a stepping stone to the professional becoming involved in international commercial arbitration. It is the aim of the School of International Arbitration, established in 1985, to develop educational programmes at the post-graduate level for those involved with international arbitration, whether as arbitrators, counsel, or expert witnesses, as well as to participate in areas of research which affect international arbitration. The Diploma is the first course of the school dedicated only to training lawyers and other professionals to participate in international commercial arbitration. Arbitration has now been taught as part of the London University intercollegiate Master of Laws programme for three years. There has been, in recent years, an enormous expansion in the use of arbitration, as a mechanism of dispute settlement in international commercial transactions. No-one really knows how many international arbitrations are held every year: the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce has in excess of 400 new cases every year; the specialist commodity institutions in London, including maritime arbitration, have many thousands of arbitrations in different centres. Other institutions, eg, the London Court of International Arbitration, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the American Arbitration Association also have increasing case loads. Certain specialist tribunals, like the Iran/US Claims Tribunal in The Hague, contribute to the international arbitral case load, as do the many unchartered ad hoc arbitrations. The problem is …

This article is dedicated to the study and disclosure of the legal essence of international commercial arbitration as a legal phenomenon representing an alternative method of resolving international commercial disputes. It highlights the growing popularity of arbitration among participants in foreign economic relations and the expanding jurisdictional scope of arbitration. Various approaches to defining the essence of this legal phenomenon have been explored, and three main aspects of it have been identified: (1) as a permanent or ad hoc arbitral body tasked with resolving international commercial disputes; (2) as a procedure (mechanism, process) for dispute resolution in accordance with arbitration rules established by the arbitral tribunal or agreed upon by the parties; and (3) as a specific panel of arbitrators who resolve a particular dispute, appointed or selected according to the procedure agreed upon by the parties, authorized to resolve the dispute on the merits and render an arbitral award. The article explores concepts related to international commercial arbitration, such as «arbitration», «commercial», and «international arbitration». It clarifies the conceptual correlation between international commercial arbitration and arbitral tribunals, as well as the term «international arbitration,» which should be distinguished from one another. The article identifies terminological discrepancies in the definitions of «arbitration», «arbitral tribunal», «arbitral institution» and «arbitration court» in Ukrainian national legislation compared to equivalent terms in international law, such as «arbitration», «arbitral tribunal» and «arbitral institution». Additionally, the subject matter and parties involved in legal relations that may be referred to arbitration are analyzed. The essential characteristics of arbitration are outlined, and a new definition of international commercial arbitration is proposed, considering both the approach of current Ukrainian legislation and the requirements of international law. The advantages of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution method compared to litigation in national courts are highlighted. These advantages include the flexibility of available arbitration types and institutions, the possibility of appointing a competent arbitrator who may be a specialized expert in a particular field without necessarily being a lawyer, the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings, the speed and efficiency of dispute resolution, the finality and binding nature of arbitral awards, and the extraterritorial enforceability of such awards. The article also addresses challenges in the regulation and practical application of arbitration.

India embraced the modern international arbitration regime towards the end of last century by reforming its arbitration law, mainly to attract foreign investment. However, the practice shows that Indian courts have been unfavourable to international commercial arbitration in contrast to the standards of international arbitration law. Against the backdrop of tremendous foreign investment commitments and a vast Bilateral Investment Treaty network by India, approach of the national judiciary towards international commercial arbitration rights of a foreign investor is highly significant. In this context, the article seeks to analyse how the investment treaty legal framework operates to make Indian courts accountable. Thus, it essentially addresses the question, whether international responsibility arising out of actions of the national courts would help disciplining the international commercial arbitration landscape in India? In response, the article claims that investment treaty arbitration regime has contributed to the reinforcement of international commercial arbitration in India. The article concludes by signalling at some of the pressing issues in the context of interplay between international investment and commercial arbitrations.

There are currently no rules in international commercial arbitration law and practice assuring the coordination between arbitral awards and/or national court judgments rendered in identical or related cases. This lack of coordination is unsatisfactory, particularly in light of the ever-growing tendency of parties to submit their commercial disputes to international commercial arbitration and the increasing complexity of international arbitration. Today, international commercial transactions and the disputes to which they give rise regularly involve multiple parties, contracts and issues. As a consequence, these disputes (or certain aspects of these disputes) are increasingly tried in multiple fora. In such circumstances, difficult issues regarding the res judicata effects of prior judgments or awards are likely to arise before international commercial arbitral tribunals. The central hypothesis underlying this research is that transnational principles of res judicata should be elaborated for international commercial arbitral tribunals. This solution is justified for several reasons. First, it is justified given the differences among domestic laws regarding res judicata and the difficulties surrounding the formulation of appropriate conflict-of-laws rules. Second, it avoids inappropriate analogies between international arbitration proceedings and litigation. Finally, the solution provides guidance and ensures a certain degree of fairness, certainty and predictability, which is expected by arbitration users. This research seeks to achieve its aims in two stages: Part One examines the doctrine of res judicata in litigation, analysing the doctrine as applied in different domestic laws, as well as in private and public international law. Part Two aims to determine whether and to what extent the res judicata doctrine may be applied by international commercial arbitral tribunals. It aims to demonstrate that transnational principles of res judicata should be elaborated and will seek to formulate such principles.

The development in the practice of international commercial arbitration, it appears, is such that a convergence is emerging in terms of procedural similarities, practice of arbitral tribunals, and judicial approaches in setting aside and enforcing cases, irrespective of the legal seat. This has in turn molded the expectations of users and hence the revision and updating of institutional arbitration rules and national laws to meet these expectations. At the risk of stating the obvious, there are two universal and overarching principles that underpin the legality and efficacy of international commercial arbitration--parties' consent and the New York Convention, which may be aptly described as the constitutional framework of international arbitrations, for without them, the system of international commercial arbitration would not exist nor would its use be on the ascent. The other factor that gives international commercial arbitration its efficacy is the practice generally adopted by the experienced arbitrators in dealing with procedural, jurisdictional, or substantive (where awards are published) issues. This practices does not in any way form binding precedents or have formal jurisprudential weight, but decisions have strong persuasive effects in shaping subsequent decisions on similar issues by others, and some may argue that they will eventually form a system of customary laws. Through exchanges in international forums and discussions, experiences are shared (on an anonymous basis, needless to say) and the practice adopted can be criticized, enhanced, and gradually formulated systematically into These norms have, it is submitted, two further far-reaching effects. First, they create an expectation in the users about how issues would generally be dealt with, and in turn reinforces the adoption of such norms. Second, they create the basis on which institutional arbitration rules are updated and national arbitration laws revised. The third important element to the institution of international arbitration is the legal seat itself. The importance of the choice of seat in relation to the process of arbitration itself is perhaps somewhat overstated. The convergence of arbitration laws (manifested generally through the adoption of the UNCITRAL model law), and institutional rules and practice of tribunals in international arbitrations have rendered the differences in the arbitration process in different seats less significant. Yet the distinction in the national laws on recourse against awards and judicial approaches to the same remains significant, and it is that which, it is submitted, ought to be the consideration for the choice of the seat. There are generally three types of approaches in respect of recourse against awards: UNCITRAL model law jurisdictions such as Hong Kong where the only recourse is to set aside on basis of procedural defects; England and Wales where, apart from setting aside on procedural defects, the court also retains a right to confirm, set aside, or vary an award if it contains an error of law, irrespective whether it is a domestic or international award; and jurisdictions which make a distinction between domestic and international arbitrations, such as in mainland China and Singapore, where international awards can only be set aside on procedural grounds, and domestic awards can be reviewed by a national court on errors of law. The choice of seat may therefore depend on whether a party prefers the preservation of the correctness of the substantive law and its jurisprudential development by the national courts of the seat, or simply prefers finality of awards. The factors identified above interact to enhance and reinforce the convergence of the system of international arbitrations. Some examples and comments are set out below. In Plakito Inv. Ltd. v. Klockner East Asia Ltd., (1) the CIETAC tribunal received a tribunal's expert report and relied on it to render an award without giving the parties an opportunity to view or comment on it. …

There are few topics in international arbitration that engender more intense sentiments amongst practitioners than discovery. While debate endures over the applicability, suitability and extent of discovery within this autonomous system of justice, it is impossible to escape the reality that national laws and courts will and do have a role—often a significant one—to play in international arbitration proceedings, most notably to assist in the arbitral process. One US federal law in particular, 28 USC § 1782, has become increasingly relevant in recent years, as more parties attempt to harness its potency in facilitating discovery of evidence in aid of foreign arbitration. The application of the statute to foreign or international arbitral tribunals, however, is a murky question, and not one on which all US federal courts agree. Most recently, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit broke with some of its sister circuits in finding that discovery under section 1782 is permissible for use in foreign or international commercial arbitrations. While many have denounced the decision as contrary to, or arguably likely to render less effective, principles or aspects of international arbitration deemed sacrosanct by arbitration enthusiasts, the effect of the Sixth Circuit’s decision on the broader practice of arbitration must not be overstated. Practitioners, tribunals, and the US federal district courts in particular already have ample means at their disposal to thwart section 1782’s potentially broad reach and effectiveness in creating inequities or turmoil in arbitration proceedings. Channeled effectively, these tools and proper considerations of discretion can ensure an appropriate balance between the need for critical evidence and the prevention of drawn-out, inequitable, and inefficient arbitral proceedings.

This chapter surveys the existing empirical literature on international arbitration. It seeks to be thorough but does not claim to be comprehensive. The chapter focuses on quantitative rather than qualitative empirical studies, and covers studies both of international commercial arbitration and international investment arbitration. Part I describes empirical research on the use of arbitration to resolve transnational disputes — in particular, the extent to which parties use arbitration clauses in international contracts, why they do so, and the frequency of international commercial and investment arbitration proceedings. Part II examines arbitral procedures, and Part III considers the applicable law in international commercial arbitration. Part IV looks at the demographics of international arbitrators, with emphasis on their diversity (or lack thereof), and arbitrator decisionmaking, in particular potential biases of party-appointed arbitrators, whether arbitrators make compromise awards, and the psychological aspects of arbitrator decisionmaking. Part V looks at the controversy over studies of outcomes in investment arbitrations. Finally, Part VI examines empirical studies of compliance with and enforcement of international arbitration awards, while Part VII considers their precedential effect, if any.

> The Parties may present any proof that they judge useful, and the Court is entirely free to take the evidence into account to the extent that it deems it pertinent.1 > > M. Huber IN MANY respects Judge Huber's statement, made in 1925 in connection with the amendment of the rules of the Permanent Court of International Justice,2 still holds true today with respect to much of the practice and procedure relating to evidence in international arbitration. Subject to the principle that arbitrations should be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner that ensures equal treatment of the parties, the parties to an international arbitration are generally free to submit any evidence they wish in order to prove the facts necessary to establish their respective cases. It is within the discretion of the tribunal to evaluate the evidence submitted. The purpose of evidence in proceedings before international arbitral tribunals, as in proceedings before municipal courts, is to assist the tribunal in determining the truth as to disputed issues of fact. Like municipal courts, international tribunals have rules of procedure that govern the submission of evidence and its evaluation by the tribunal. Such rules, however, are less restrictive than those typically found in municipal law systems. International arbitration may occur between sovereign states (or other international persons), between a sovereign state and a private party or, as is usually the case in international commercial arbitrations, between private parties. The conduct of the arbitration may be governed by international law, by municipal law – that is, the ‘national’ or ‘local’ law of the place of the arbitration – or by some combination thereof. Regardless of the nature of the parties and the law applicable to the arbitration, certain principles and rules pertaining to evidence will in principle be applicable to any arbitration. These principles …

This dissertation provides an analysis of the scope and procedure of obtaining documents from the opponent in international commercial arbitration. The goal of this research is to provide an in-depth study of the myriad of detailed questions regarding the procedure and scope of obtaining document production which goes beyond analyzing the differences between common law and civil law practices and takes an international commercial arbitration perspective. The primary aim, however, is not to supply definite answers, but rather to present possible best practices by, for example, discussing various approaches and problematic areas of the topic and also providing the reader with awareness of different aspects that should be taken into account when dealing with document production. To reach this aim, the method of legal dogmatics is predominantly employed. The core of this research is in the interpretation and systematization of international arbitration sources, especially soft law, which provide detailed guidance regarding document production, against the background of legal principles of arbitral procedure. The challenge of conducting research regarding document production is that procedural timetables, document requests, objections and procedural orders are confidential. However, the author of this dissertation had the rare opportunity to research files of ICC cases and anonymized examples from the chosen cases serve as valuable source regarding international arbitration practice. The research is divided into five substantive chapters. In Chapter 2, the framework for document production is discussed. In Chapter 3, the procedure and requirements of the request for documents is analyzed. Here im-portant questions are considered, such as what is the basis of a party’s right to obtain documents, how to delimit a narrow category of documents, what is meant by relevance and materiality, can a party request documents relating to issues it does not have the burden of proving and also when are the documents considered as being in a party’s control. In Chapter 4, the attention turns to the possible bases for an objection to a document request, such as privilege, confidentiality, data protection, unreasonable burden of production etc. Chapter 5 contains analysis of the questions connected to the actual production, including the tribunal’s order to produce or dismiss a production request, the form of production and the consequences of non-compliance, i.e. adverse inferences and financial consequences. In Chapter 6, the issue of national courts’ assistance in obtaining documents from the opponent is addressed. The detailed results of the analysis are presented throughout this dissertation and the significance of this research is in the discussion of the specific questions. Nonetheless, on the basis of the conducted study certain key find-ings are also drawn. First, the research shows that many issues can be resolved on the basis of balancing principles of international commercial arbitration. Consequently, there is no need for more regulation. Arbitration needs to remain flexible. Predictability should not be achieved on the level of arbitration rules and soft law, but in specific arbitration proceedings. Second, there are important legal implications relating to production of electronic documents and participants of the arbitral process need to be aware of them. Third, arbitrators are very cautious when making decisions as to not violate possible due process or public policy requirements. In fact, only one arbitral award has been set aside due to a reason connected to a document production question. Finally, with respect to many questions regarding the scope and procedure of document production, one can refer to an international commercial arbitration approach.

The awarding of arbitration costs and attorneys’ fees in international arbitrations is often arbitrary and unpredictable. In one recent investment arbitration where the tribunal deciding a case under the auspices of the international Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) had broad discretion to award costs and fees, the tribunal allocated arbitration costs evenly amongst the claimant and respondent and required each party to bear its own fees and expenses, even though the claimant prevailed. In another case where the claimant was successful on its substantive claim, the ICSID tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant US$6 million for legal fees, but required the parties to bear the costs of the arbitration equally. And in still another recent investment arbitration the unsuccessful respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the arbitration, but each party was responsible for its own legal fees. These results are not unique to investment arbitrations; they can also be found in international commercial arbitrations. The lack of uniformity in the awarding of costs and fees poses two major problems. First, arbitrary awards undermine the legitimacy of the dispute resolution system. Second, the lack of predictability may hinder parties from being able to settle the dispute and could rob arbitration of its efficiency. These problems are exacerbated in the international context because the costs and fees in transnational disputes can run into the millions of dollars. Indeed, in one recent celebrated arbitration, the costs and fees totaled over US$21 million. This article examines the awarding of costs and fees in international commercial arbitrations and transnational investment disputes. My study finds that awards of costs and fees are arbitrary and unpredictable under both systems. To remedy these problems, I propose two different approaches: one for ICSID tribunals and another for international commercial arbitrations. In the case of ICSID arbitrations, the parties should share equally the costs of the arbitration and bear their own legal expenses. In essence, I propose that ICSID adopt what has become known as the American Rule with respect to the awarding of costs and fees. This approach is needed to bring predictability to the field, provide greater administrative efficiency, and reduce the overall costs. In the case of international commercial arbitrations, I argue that parties should be free to select the method for resolving claims for costs and fees, including authorizing the tribunal to resolve such claims pursuant to the principle of “costs follow the event” or the “loser pays” rule. In this context, the adoption of the American Rule would not achieve the same administrative and economic benefits, and the principle of party autonomy calls for this different approach.

At its 90th session (9–11 May, 2011), the Governing Council of UNIDROIT adopted the 3rd edition of the UNIDROIT Principles (2010 Principles), whereby it introduced a new section devoted to the issue of “illegality”. This paper analyzes the civil law consequences of corruption in international commercial arbitration under the new section on illegality in light of current arbitration practice. After drawing a distinction between contractual and restitutionary remedies, the authors concluded that, under the 2010 Principles, while parties to a contract tainted with corruption would still be denied any contractual remedies in most (if not all) of the possible instances, the same is not true with respect to the right to obtain restitution of what they have paid or rendered under the illegal agreement. In fact, the new section on illegality responds to concerns that have become more compelling in international commercial transactions and which must be recognized by international arbitral tribunals.

The article discusses the procedure of taking evidence in international commercial arbitration from the perspective of balancing different legal cultures and values. It analyses the results of the existing evidentiary rules and attempts to harmonise the procedure, and their sufficiency in terms of securing the interests, expectations and rights of the parties involved in the international arbitration. The actual outcome must be estimated taking into consideration the balancing of the relationships and the differences between legal cultures, fairness and flexibility. In the first instance the author analyses each of the legal systems, civil law and common law, in order to compare the differences and similarities in terms of the procedure, especially in relation to evidentiary issues. A further step involves the analysis of the need for harmonised rules of procedure and in particular evidentiary rules in international arbitration and the factors in the determination and application of the rules, with a focus on the role of the tribunal’s discretion, the parties’ autonomy, as well as the impact of cultural background. Furthermore, the International Bar Association (IBA) Rules on Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration are analysed in terms of their completeness in such areas as admissibility and assessment of evidence, which permits the comprehension of the strengths and weaknesses of the IBA Rules and the need for the introduction of further rules. Finally, conclusions follow as to the proper way of balancing the competing values and approaches and the need for the application of new solutions in terms of taking of evidence in order to achieve the desired outcome in arbitral proceedings.