The Discussion about Party-Appointed Arbitrators: Addressing “Moral Hazards” with Possible Solutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60131/adr.1.2024.8345Keywords:
AI, arbitration, blind appointments, impartiality, independence, joint appointment, party-appointed arbitrators, “moral hazard”.Abstract
Arbitration is a widely favored method for resolving disputes, particularly in transnational business contexts. In order it to remain being an effective and favored means of dispute resolution is it crucial to keep arbitrators impartial and independent.
However, some practitioners and scholars argue that the system of party-appointed arbitrators compromises the independence and impartiality of arbitration. Professor Paulsson advocates abandoning this system, citing significant concerns. This article begins with an overview of current practices and the challenges they pose to impartiality. It then analyzes Paulsson's arguments in detail and examines counterpoints from other scholars who view party-appointed arbitrators as integral to the arbitration process. Finally, the article proposes several potential solutions—such as joint selection, appointment by neutral bodies, and AI involvement—to enhance independence and impartiality in party-appointed arbitrator system.
References
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, United Nations, 10/06/1958.
German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO), Book 10, Federal Law Gazette I.
Law of Georgia on Arbitration, LHG, 13, 02/07/2009.
UNCITRAL Model LAW on International Commercial Arbitration, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 21/06/1985.
International Bar Association (IBA) Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators, 1987.
Arbitration Rules of International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), 2021.
Vienna Rules, VIAC Rules of Arbitration, 1/07/2021.
Bastida B. M., The Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators in International Commercial Arbitration, Revista E-Mercatoria, Vol. 6, №1, 2007, 1-4.
Brower C. N. and Rosenberg C. B., The Death of the Two-Headed Nightingale: Why the Paulsson—van den Berg Presumption that Party-Appointed Arbitrators are Untrustworthy is Wrongheaded, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, Issue 1, 2013, 9, 13.
Feebily R., Neutrality, Independence and Impartiality in International Commercial Arbitration, a Fine Balance in the Quest for Arbitral Justice, Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs, Vol. 7, №1, 2019, 90.
Jaffae A. and Dash A., Grounds of the Challenge of Arbitrators: The Difference between Independence and Impartiality, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2022, 1858-62.
Narmania G., Party-Appointed Arbitrators: Past, Present and Future, Alternative Dispute Resolution Yearbook, 2014, 67, 69-70.
Oglinda B., Key Criteria in Appointment of Arbitrators in International Arbitration, Juridical Tribune, Vol. 5, №2, 2015, 124, 127.
Paulsson J., Moral Hazard in International Dispute Resolution, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 25, Issue 2, 2010, 340, 348-49, 352-53.
Philip D. A., Neutrality vis-a-vis Party Autonomy in Appointment of Arbitrators, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, Vol. 4, Issue 6, 2021, 1203, 1206.
Rogers C. A., Reconceptualizing the Party-Appointed Arbitrator and the Meaning of Impartiality, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 64, №1, 2023, 137.
Schwing M. A., Don’t Rage Against the Machine: Why AI May Be the Cure for the ‘Moral Hazard’ of Party Appointments, Arbitration International, Vol. 36, Issue 4, 2020, 495, 498, 502, 506.
Tufte-Kristensen J., The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators, Arbitration International, Vol. 32, Issue 3, 2016, 503.
Várady T. and others, Commercial Arbitration: A Transnational Perspective, 6th ed, St. Paul (U.S.), 2019, 408-15, 541.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
