Introduction. A Transnational Study of Legal and Ethical Dilemmas

  • Katia Fach Gómez


Before examining the contours and content of some of the key duties of international investment arbitrators in detail, this introductory chapter aims to present an overview of the current status quo of investment arbitration vis-à-vis its adjudicators. Attention is specifically focused on EU intervention in the matter and the ways in which its novel proposals affect the contemporary figure of the investment arbitrator. The incorporation of Codes of conduct into recent EU FTAs and the interest in ethics in international arbitration shown by UNCITRAL Working Group III are two examples of the topic’s increasing importance. While still a work in progress, the legal area dealing with investment arbitrators’ duties ultimately needs to provide answers to a series of cross-cutting issues that are outlined in this chapter and developed throughout the book.


  1. Álvarez Zárate JM, Fach Gómez K (2018) The duties, rights and powers of international arbitrators. Special Issue. Law Pract Int Tribunals 17(1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASIL-ICCA (2016) Report of the Joint Task Force on Issue Conflicts in Investor-State Arbitration.
  3. Baker McKenzie (2017) Submissions to the ICSID Secretariat on amendments to the ICSID rules and regulations. In: Public Comments to Amendment of ICSID’s Rules and Regulations.
  4. Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Johnson L, Marshall F (2010), Arbitrator independence and impartiality: examining the dual role of arbitrator and counsel. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  5. Bjorklund A, Brosseau J (2017) Sources of inherent powers in international adjudication. Eur Int Arbitr Rev 6(2):1–49Google Scholar
  6. Brower CN, Rosenberg CB (2013) The death of the two-headed nightingale: why the Paulsson-van den Berg presumption that party-appointed arbitrators are untrustworthy is wrongheaded. Arbitr Int 29(1):7–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bungenberg M (2015) Towards a more balanced international investment law 2.0? In: Hermann C, Simma B, Streinz R (eds) Trade policy between law, diplomacy and scholarship. Liber amicorum in memoriam Horst G. Krenzler. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark DS (n.a.) Chapter 3. The Organization of Lawyers and Judges. Section XI. Judicial Accountability and Independence. In: Cappelletti M (chief ed) International Encyclopedia of comparative law. Civil procedure, vol XVI. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden Boston, pp. 97–101Google Scholar
  9. Cleis MN (2017) The independence and impartiality of ICSID arbitrators. Brill Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman M, Innes T (2015) Provisional measures during suspension of ICSID proceedings. ICSID Rev 30(1):713-728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corporate Europe Observatory (2016) The zombie ISDS. Rebranded as ICS, rights for corporations to sue states refuse to die.
  12. Debevoise & Plimpton (2017) Proposed Amendments to 2006 ICSID Rules. In: Public Comments to Amendment of ICSID’s Rules and Regulations.
  13. Derains & Gharavi (2017) ICSID Rules Amendment Project. In: Public Comments to Amendment of ICSID’s Rules and Regulations.
  14. EFILA (2017) Response of the European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration to the Invitation to File Suggestions for ICSID Rules Amendments. In: Public Comments to Amendment of ICSID’s Rules and Regulations.
  15. Fach Gómez K (2018) Diversity and the principle of independence and impartiality in the future multilateral investment court. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 17(1):78–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fach Gómez K (2019) Los árbitros en el arbitraje internacional de inversiones. In: Zenkiewicz M, Álvarez Zárate JM (eds) Inversiones Internacionales, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá., in pressGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernández Rozas JC (2010) Clearer ethics guidelines and comparative standards for arbitrators. In: Fernández-Ballesteros MA, Arias D (eds) Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades. La Ley, Madrid, pp 413–449Google Scholar
  18. Geisinger E (2015) “Soft Law” and hard questions: ASA’s initiative in the debate on counsel ethics in international arbitration. In: Favalli D (ed) Sense and non-sense of guidelines, rules and other para-regulatory texts in international arbitration - ASA Special Series No. 37. Juris, Huntington, pp 17–32Google Scholar
  19. Hacking BS (2016) Ethics in arbitration: party and arbitral misconduct. In: Betancourt JC (ed) Defining issues in international arbitration: celebrating 100 years of the chartered institute of arbitrators. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris TL (2013) Ethics in international arbitration: they’re not just for lawyers. Constr Law Int 8(3):37–40Google Scholar
  21. Howse R (last accessed June 2018) Courting the critics of investor-state dispute settlement: the EU proposal for a judicial system for investment disputes.
  22. Hunter MH, Paulsson J (1985) A code of ethics for arbitrators in international commercial arbitration. Int Bus Lawyer 13:153–160Google Scholar
  23. ICSID Secretariat, Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules—Synopsis, Volume 1, August 2, 2018.,
  24. Investment Treaty Working Group of the American Bar Association (2016) Task Force Report on the Investment Court System Proposal.
  25. Jacques Delors Institute (2015) ISDS-The devil is in the details.
  26. Jacquet JM (2015) Les libertés de l’arbitre international. In: Mélanges en l'honneur du Professeur Pierre Mayer. LGDJ, Paris, pp 311–329Google Scholar
  27. Joint Working Group on Trade & Investment Law Reform (2017) Principles for a 21st Century Investment Law Regime.
  28. Kahale G III (2018) ISDS: the wild, wild west of international law and arbitration. Brooklyn J Int Law 44(1).,%20Wild%20West%20of%20International%20Law%20and%20Arbitration.pdf
  29. Kaufmann-Kohler G (2016) Remarks. American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the 110th Annual Meeting 142–149Google Scholar
  30. Krajewski M (2014) Modalities for investment protection and ISDS in TTIP from a trade union perspective.
  31. Langbroek PM, Fabri M (2007) The right judge for each case. A study of case assignment and impartiality in six European judiciaries. Intersentia. Antwerp-OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Law Council of Australia (2017) Potential rule amendments or improvements to the arbitration and conciliation procedures of ICSID. In: Public Comments to Amendment of ICSID’s Rules and Regulations.
  33. Lazareff S (2005) L’arbitre singe. Ou comment assassiner l’arbitrage. In: Aksen G et al (ed) Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner. Global reflections on international law, commerce and dispute resolution. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 477–489Google Scholar
  34. Malmström C (2015a) Blog. Investments in TTIP and beyond-towards an international investment court.
  35. Malmström C (2015b) Blog. Proposing an Investment Court System.
  36. Malmström C (2015c) Opening remarks: discussion on investment in TTIP.
  37. Menkel-Meadow C (2002) Ethics issues in arbitration and related dispute resolution processes: what’s happening and what’s not. Univ Miami Law Rev 56:949–1008Google Scholar
  38. Menon S (2012) International arbitration: the coming of a new age for Asia (and elsewhere). In: ICCA Congress. Opening Plenary Session.
  39. Menon S (2013) Some cautionary notes for an age of opportunity. Key Note. Chartered Institute of Arbitrators International Arbitration Conference.
  40. Michaelson PL (2007–2008) In international arbitration, disclosure rules at the place of enforcement matter too. Dispute Resolut J 62(3):82–88Google Scholar
  41. Moses C (2012) Ethics in international arbitration: traps for the unwary. Loyola Univ Chicago Int Law Rev 10:73Google Scholar
  42. N.A. (2017) Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations. In: Public Comments to Amendment of ICSID’s Rules and Regulations.
  43. Nappert S (2015) International arbitration and its users: ships passing in the night? A dialogue with Michael McIlwrath. Bahrain Chamber Dispute Resolut Int Arbitr Rev 2(1):15–29Google Scholar
  44. Ng J (2016) When the arbitrator creates the conflict: understanding arbitrator ethics through the IBA guidelines on conflict of internet and published changes. McGill J Dispute Resolut 23(2):23–42Google Scholar
  45. Niedermeyer MK (2014) Ethics for arbitrators at the international level: who writes the rules of the game? Am Rev Int Arbitr 25:481–496Google Scholar
  46. Oyre T (2002) Ethical Codes of conduct for arbitrators and disciplinary proceedings of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Arbitration 68(2):90–105Google Scholar
  47. Park WW (2011a) The four musketeers of arbitral duty: neither one-for-all nor all-for-one. In: Derains Y, Lévy L (eds) Is arbitrator only as good as the arbitrator? Status, powers and role of the arbitrators. Dossiers ICC Institute of World Business Law 8:25–45Google Scholar
  48. Park WW (2011b) Rectitude in international arbitration. Arbitr Int 27(3):473–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Park WW (2011c) Maturity in arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest J 26(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paulsson J (2013) The idea of arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rauber M (2014) The impact of ethical rules for counsel in international commercial arbitration- is there a need for developing international ethical rules? Int Arbitr Law Rev 17(1):17–36Google Scholar
  52. Rogers AC (2001) Fit and function in legal ethics: developing a code of conduct for international arbitration. Mich J Int Law 23:341–423Google Scholar
  53. Rogers AC (2014) Ethics in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruiping D, Xiaosong D (2014) Promoting impartiality of international commercial arbitrators through Chinese criminal law: arbitration by “perversion of law”. Int Law Manage Rev 10:109–138Google Scholar
  55. Ruiz Fabri H, Sorel JM (2010) Indépendance et impartialité des juges internationaux. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  56. Sarmiento MG (2015) The 2014 Draft Constitutive Agreement of the Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes of the UNASUR.
  57. Seattle to Brussels Network (2013) BITs that bite into budgets: will the EP let private lawyers decide?
  58. Seibert-Fohr A (2013) International judicial ethics. In: Romano CPR, Alter KJ, Avgerou C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 757–776Google Scholar
  59. Shetreet S, Forsyth C (2011) The culture of judicial independence: conceptual foundations and practical challenges. Brill Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  60. St. John T, Chernykh Y (2018) Déjà Vu? Investment court proposals from 1960 and today. Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  61. Sussman E, Ebere S (2011) All’s fair in love and war – or is it? Reflections on ethical standards for counsel in international arbitration. Am Rev Int Arbitr 22(4):611–623Google Scholar
  62. TACD (2016) Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, Response to the European Commission’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement “Reform” Proposal.
  63. Thomson D (2016) Is ICSID a “monarchy”? Glob Arbitr Rev. Accessed 4 Jan 2016
  64. Transnational Institute (2012) Profiting from Injustice.
  65. Tung KY (2016) CETA and TTIP. A New Platinum Standard for ICSID? American Society of International Law. Proceedings of the 110th Annual Meeting, 54–59Google Scholar
  66. Van Compernolle J, Tarzia G (2006) L’impartialité du juge et de l’arbitre. Etude de droit comparé. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  67. Venzke VI (2016) ISDS in TTIP from the perspective of a public law theory of international adjudication. J World Invest Trade 17:374–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wai R (2002) Transnational liftoff and juridical touchdown: the regulatory function of private international law in an era of globalization. Columbia J Transnl Law 40:209–274Google Scholar
  69. Warwas BA (2017) The liability of arbitral institutions: legitimacy challenges and functional responses. Asser Press, Springer, Berlin HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. White & Case (2018) International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration.

Arbitration Acts, Institutional Arbitration Rules, and Codes of Conduct

  1. CEA (2005) Código de buenas prácticas arbitrales. Code of Good Arbitration Practices (author’s translation).

International Conventions

  1. ICSID (1966) Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States.
  2. UNCITRAL (2014) UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration.

Legal Documents

  1. CIArb (last accessed June 2018) How CIArb Investigates Complaints of Misconduct Against its Members.
  2. CJEU (2016) Code of Conduct for Members and former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
  3. OSCE-ODIHR (2010) Kyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia.
  4. Council of Europe (2016) Plan of Action on Strengthening Judicial Independence and Impartiality.
  5. Council of the EU (2018) Negotiating directives for a Convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes.
  6. EC (2015a) Report. Online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP).
  7. EC (2015b) Concept Paper-Investment in TTIP and beyond – the path for reform. Enhancing the right to regulate and moving from current ad hoc arbitration towards an Investment Court.
  8. EC (2015c) In: Press Release Database. EU finalises proposal for investment protection and Court System for TTIP.
  9. EC (2016a) In: Press Release Database. CETA: EU and Canada agree on new approach on investment in trade agreement.
  10. EC (2018a) In: Memorandum. EU-Singapore trade and investment agreements (authentic texts as of April 2018).
  11. EC (2018b) New EU-Mexico agreement- The agreement in principle.
  12. EC (2018c) Commission welcomes green light to start trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand. In: Press Release Database.
  13. EP (2015) Resolution of 8 July 2015 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2014/2228(INI)), P8_TA(2015)0252,
  14. EP. Directorate-General for External Policies. Policy Department (2017) In Pursuit of an International Investment Court: Recently Negotiated Investment Chapters in EU Comprehensive FTA in comparative perspective.
  15. EU (2018) Possible Reform of Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS).
  16. Government of Thailand (2018) Possible reform of Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Comments by the Government of Thailand.
  17. Kingdom of Belgium (2017) Minister Reynders submits request for opinion on CETA.
  18. UNCITRAL (2018) Report of the Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-fifth session.
  19. UNCTAD (2018a) Recent Developments in the International Investment Regime. IIA Issues Note.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katia Fach Gómez
    • 1
  1. 1.Tenured Professor (Profesora Titular) at the Law SchoolUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations