Arbitrators and the Rule of X

Abstract

My topic tonight is the far-flung array of individuals who serve as international adjudicators, arbitrators, commissioners and judges.

I have given a great deal of thought in my research to this group. For me, it is the most difficult group in international courts to predict, to give a logic to. Some academics say they seek reappointment; that is true of some but most certainly not of all and not the primary driver in my experience for most. My focus tonight concerns international arbitrators who are appointed for only one matter; who are reappointed by virtue of their reputation, if not first-hand knowledge.

There has been much debate in several dimensions concerning this pool of arbitrators over the past two decades.

At the outset, I wish to emphasize that this discussion is only starting and in my view presents a much deeper agenda then currently set out. A segment of a course on arbitration addresses the identity beliefs and conduct of arbitrators, but only the minimum parties may expect from them in terms of law (that is, challenges). That course may also discuss the minimum parties should expect in terms of ethics. Unaddressed to my knowledge is a discussion not of minimums but of what arbitrators professionally should demand of themselves and each other.