Fraport v. Philippines, ICSID, and Counsel Disqualification: The Power and the Praxis

C. Rogers, Alexander Wiker
{"title":"Fraport v. Philippines, ICSID, and Counsel Disqualification: The Power and the Praxis","authors":"C. Rogers, Alexander Wiker","doi":"10.1163/22119000-01504017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An important 2008 ICSID ad hoc Committee ruling on disqualification of counsel has recently been published. The decision was rendered in the Fraport v. Philippines dispute. It was issued in the shadow of (but without reference to) HEP v. Slovenia. The Fraport decision arrives in the midst of a larger, ongoing debate in the international arbitration community generally about arbitral tribunals’ role in assessing attorney conduct and tribunal power to impose consequences for alleged misconduct. Earlier installments in the debate over counsel conduct focused almost exclusively on conflicts of interest between attorneys and the tribunal. Fraport represents an important contribution to the debate because it contemplates counsel conflicts of interest with parties. These types of conflicts, and allegations of counsel misconduct more generally, are increasingly common not only in investment arbitration, but also in international commercial arbitration cases. This essay explores, through the Fraport decision and other related cases tribunals' exercise of such power, analysis about the sources of such power, and the need for more deliberative efforts to clarify both the substance of the ethical obligations of counsel and the role of arbitral tribunals in enforcing such obligations.","PeriodicalId":365224,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Investment (Topic)","volume":"241 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Investment (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22119000-01504017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An important 2008 ICSID ad hoc Committee ruling on disqualification of counsel has recently been published. The decision was rendered in the Fraport v. Philippines dispute. It was issued in the shadow of (but without reference to) HEP v. Slovenia. The Fraport decision arrives in the midst of a larger, ongoing debate in the international arbitration community generally about arbitral tribunals’ role in assessing attorney conduct and tribunal power to impose consequences for alleged misconduct. Earlier installments in the debate over counsel conduct focused almost exclusively on conflicts of interest between attorneys and the tribunal. Fraport represents an important contribution to the debate because it contemplates counsel conflicts of interest with parties. These types of conflicts, and allegations of counsel misconduct more generally, are increasingly common not only in investment arbitration, but also in international commercial arbitration cases. This essay explores, through the Fraport decision and other related cases tribunals' exercise of such power, analysis about the sources of such power, and the need for more deliberative efforts to clarify both the substance of the ethical obligations of counsel and the role of arbitral tribunals in enforcing such obligations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fraport诉菲律宾,ICSID和律师资格取消:权力和实践
最近公布了一项重要的2008年ICSID特设委员会关于取消律师资格的裁决。这一裁决是在Fraport诉菲律宾争端中作出的。它是在HEP诉斯洛文尼亚案(但没有提及)的阴影下发布的。国际仲裁界正在就仲裁庭在评估律师行为方面的作用以及仲裁庭对涉嫌不当行为施加后果的权力展开更大、更持续的辩论。关于律师行为的早期辩论几乎完全集中在律师和法庭之间的利益冲突上。Fraport对这场辩论做出了重要贡献,因为它考虑到了律师与当事人的利益冲突。这些类型的冲突,以及更普遍的对律师行为不当的指控,不仅在投资仲裁中,而且在国际商事仲裁案件中也越来越普遍。本文通过对Fraport案的判决和其他相关案件,探讨了法庭对这种权力的行使,分析了这种权力的来源,以及需要更多的审议努力来澄清律师道德义务的实质和仲裁法庭在执行这种义务方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Impact and Application of the UNCITRAL Rules in Domestic Jurisdictions An Analysis and Assessment of China's Investment in Ghana. The (Ir)relevance of Transnational Public Policy in Investment Treaty Arbitration Foreign Investment Screening Beyond the COVID-19 Challenge: Overcoming the Emergency Capacity to Borrow and Sovereign Debt
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1