Available in Russian
Author: Mikhail Galperin
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2023-4-3-16
Keywords: international dispute resolution; judicial ethics; conflict of interest; standards of conduct; rules of international tribunals
This article evaluates from a legal perspective the current mode of and prospects for regulating the professional conduct of participants in international judicial and arbitration tribunals (interstate, investment, commercial). Taking into account the increasing attention paid in recent years to the moral character of those in power, in the context of the revival of the so-called global “new ethics”, issues of professional conduct have acquired key importance. Considering the traditional leading role of international justice in promoting universal standards for the protection of human rights and for proper behavior of state officials, in countering unethical and unscrupulous behavior, and in the overall professionalization of the system of resolving the growing number of international and cross-border disputes, it is important to assess whether international jurisdictional bodies are themselves models of ethical behavior. There is a shortage of domestic research in this area. Having analyzed a number of well-known historical and fresh examples in the practice of international justice as well as the views expressed in foreign literature, the author comes to the conclusion that the professional ethical standards of conduct for judges, arbitrators, and representatives of the parties have not changed significantly over time, but the problem of actual compliance with these standards has become increasingly acute. Until now, there have been no universal and legally binding documents that comprehensively regulate the relevant issues, despite the fact that compliance with ethical standards for judges, arbitrators, professional representatives (government agents and external advisers), experts, and judicial personnel directly affects assessments of the validity of awards and their enforceability. Compliance also affects the credibility of the international dispute resolution system as a whole. As a result, the article concludes by considering, from the perspectives of legal, political, and other factors, possible models of regulation of the relevant issues at the global level, both in terms of form (i.e., their sources) and content (i.e., their approaches to the drafting of ethical rules), while also considering the interests of Russia as a participant in international processes.
About the author: Mikhail Galperin – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Master of Laws, University of London, Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, Head of the Chair of International Justice, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Galperin M. (2023) Facie professionis: o “novoy” staroy etike v mezhdunarodnom pravosudii [Facie professionis: on the “new” old ethics in international justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 3–16. (In Russian).
References
(2022) Vyderzhka iz dnevnikov Fyodora Fyodorovicha Martensa za 1899 god [A fragment from Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens’ diary for 1899]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 122–137. (In Russian).
Сrook J.R. (2019) Dual Hats and Arbitrator Diversity: Goals in Tension. American Journal of International Law Unbound, vol. 113, pp. 284–289.
Dunoff J.L., Giorgetti Ch. (2019) Introduction to the Symposium: A Focus on Ethics in International Courts and Tribunals. American Journal of International Law Unbound, vol. 113, pp. 279–283.
Fernández H. (2021) Representation of Venezuela in Investment Arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 16 January. Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/01/16/representation-of-venezuela-in-investment-arbitration/ (accessed: 16.11.2023).
Goldstone R.J. (2015) International Judges: Is There a Global Ethic? Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 249–258.
Harrison J. (2012) Decision on Challenge to Arbitrator in Chagos Dispute. International Law Observer, 10 January. Available at: https://internationallawobserver.eu/decision-on-challenge-to-arbitrator-in-chagos-dispute (accessed: 16.11.2023).
Ispolinov A.S. (2017) Evolyutsiya i puti razvitiya sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya [Evolution and ways of contemporary international justice development]. Lex russica, no. 10, pp. 58–87. (In Russian).
Ispolinov A.S. (2021) Printsipy avtonomnosti i prioriteta prava ES kak oruzhie suda Evropeyskogo Coyuza v konflikte s investitsionnymi arbitrazhami. Chast’ 2. Posle dela Achmea [The principles of autonomy and priority of EU law as a weapon of the European Court of Justice in the conflict with investment arbitration. Part 2. Following the Achmea case]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no. 3, pp. 31–48. (In Russian).
Krotovskaya N.G., Kulagina-Yartseva V.S. (2022) “Novaya etika”, istoki i sovremennost’ (obzor) [“New ethics”: review of origins and modernity]. Kontekst i refleksiya: filosofiya o mire i cheloveke, no. 2A, pp. 241–259. (In Russian).
Michaels R. (2014) Roles and Role Perceptions of International Arbitrators. In: Mattli W., Dietz Th. (eds.) International Arbitration and Global Governance: Contending Theories and Evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–73.
Moses M. (2017) The Role of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in Arbitrator Challenges. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 23 November. Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/11/23/role-iba-guidelines-conflicts-interest-arbitrator-challenges/ (accessed: 16.11.2023).
Rachkov I., Rachkova E. (2022) Delo Gayana protiv Venesuely: o tom, kak proshloe ne dayot zhit’ v nastoyashchem: Vmesto predisloviya [Guyana vs. Venezuela: how the past prevents us from living in the present: Instead of a foreword]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 113–121. (In Russian).
Rachkov I., Saveliev A. (2023) Niderlandskaya yustitsiya: samaya spravedlivaya v mire? [The justice system of the Netherlands: the fairest in the world?]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 18–43. (In Russian).
Sarvarian A. (2013) Professional Ethics at the International Bar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sarvarian A., Baker R. (2015) Arbitration between Croatia and Slovenia: Leaks, Wiretaps, Scandal (Part 3). EJIL: Talk! 25 August. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/arbitration-between-croatia-and-slovenia-final-part-3/ (accessed: 16.11.2023).
Sattorova M. (2012) Denial of Justice Disguised? Investment Arbitration and the Protection of Foreign Investors from Judicial Misconduct. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 223–246.
Seibert-Fohr A. (2013) International Judicial Ethics. In: Romano C.P.R. et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 757–778.
Sthoeger E., Wood M., Sir. (2013) The International Bar. In: Romano C.P.R. et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 639–654.
Tropper J. (2021) From Achmea to Komstroy: The CJEU Strikes Back Against Investment Arbitration Under the Energy Charter Treaty. Völkerrechtsblog, 22 September. Available at: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/from-achmea-to-komstroy/ (accessed: 16.11.2023).
Yashina A.A. (2020) Eticheskie aspekty druzheskikh otnosheniy sud’i v kontekste obespecheniya ego bespristrastnosti [Ethical aspects of friendly relations of a judge from the standpoint of securing his/her impartiality]. Rossiyskiy sud’ya, no. 4, pp. 44–49. (In Russian).
Živković P. (2015) Severe Breaches of Duty of Confidentiality and Impartiality in the Dispute between Croatia and Slovenia: Is Arbitration Immune to Such Violations? Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 29 July. Available at: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2015/07/29/severe-breaches-of-duty-of-confidentiality-and-impartiality-in-a-dispute-between-croatia-and-slovenia-is-arbitration-immune-to-such-violations/ (accessed: 16.11.2023).