A Question of Impartiality

Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, Laura Létourneau-Tremblay
{"title":"A Question of Impartiality","authors":"Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, Laura Létourneau-Tremblay","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198870753.003.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As part of the larger debate on the legitimacy of the international investment regime, our study of 117 dissents and 87 dissenting arbitrators finds no significant correlation between the nationality of the dissenters, their gender, or appointment by the investor or the State, and the number of dissents written. In the absence of data on the educational and professional backgrounds of all appointed arbitrators, our findings concerning education and the professional background are more tentative. Where we do see significant correlation, is between dissents and appointments by the losing party. Arbitrators appointed by the losing party dissented roughly three times more often than the other arbitrators did. The fact that most dissents are written by arbitrators appointed by the losing party creates the perception that some arbitrators act more like the advocates of their appointers instead of impartial adjudicators. We propose that a standing, two-tier investment court that provides for non-renewable, long-term appointments and fixed salaries could remedy the perceived partiality of party-appointed arbitrators and ensure the survival of dissents.","PeriodicalId":394226,"journal":{"name":"Identity and Diversity on the International Bench","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Identity and Diversity on the International Bench","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198870753.003.0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

As part of the larger debate on the legitimacy of the international investment regime, our study of 117 dissents and 87 dissenting arbitrators finds no significant correlation between the nationality of the dissenters, their gender, or appointment by the investor or the State, and the number of dissents written. In the absence of data on the educational and professional backgrounds of all appointed arbitrators, our findings concerning education and the professional background are more tentative. Where we do see significant correlation, is between dissents and appointments by the losing party. Arbitrators appointed by the losing party dissented roughly three times more often than the other arbitrators did. The fact that most dissents are written by arbitrators appointed by the losing party creates the perception that some arbitrators act more like the advocates of their appointers instead of impartial adjudicators. We propose that a standing, two-tier investment court that provides for non-renewable, long-term appointments and fixed salaries could remedy the perceived partiality of party-appointed arbitrators and ensure the survival of dissents.
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
公正问题
作为关于国际投资制度合法性的更大辩论的一部分,我们对117名持不同意见的仲裁员和87名持不同意见的仲裁员的研究发现,持不同意见的人的国籍、性别或投资者或国家的任命与书面异议的数量之间没有显著的相关性。在缺乏所有指定仲裁员的教育和专业背景数据的情况下,我们关于教育和专业背景的调查结果更具试探性。我们确实看到了显著的相关性,在异议和败选政党的任命之间。败诉方指定的仲裁员提出异议的频率大约是其他仲裁员的三倍。大多数异议都是由败诉方指定的仲裁员撰写的,这一事实造成了一种看法,即一些仲裁员的行为更像是其指定人的拥护者,而不是公正的裁决者。我们建议设立一个常设、两层的投资法院,规定不可续期、长期任命和固定工资,这可以补救当事人指定的仲裁员的明显偏袒,并确保异议的存在。
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
A Question of Impartiality Epilogue Fifty Years of Women at the European Court of Human Rights Judicial Education and International Courts The Smurfette Principle
×
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