Читать книгу Anuario de arbitraje 2018 - Mª José Menéndez Arias - Страница 17
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Оглавление28 U.S.C. § 1746.
28 U.S.C. § 1782.
Abaclat v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5.
Abi-Saab, G., «The Existence of a Euro-Mediterranean Legal and Arbitration Community», in Second Conference for a Euro-Mediterranean Community of International Arbitration, Cairo, 12 November 2015, UNCITRAL, 2016.
ALFORD, R.P., «The American Influence on International Arbitration», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003.
Alemanni v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8.
Altenkirch, M., & Frohloff, J., «International Arbitration Statistics 2016 – Busy Times for Arbitral Institutions», Global Arbitration News, 1 Sept. 2017, https://www.globalarbitrationnews.com/international-arbitration-statistics-2016-busy-times-for-arbitral-institutions/ (last accessed 24 November 2017).
Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9.
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Responsibility 1.2(d), 3.3(a)(3), 3.4(b), 8.4(c).
BAKER, C.M., & GREENWOOD, L., «Are Challenges Overused in International Arbitration?», Journal of International Arbitration, vol. 30 num. 2, 2013.
The Bar Standards Board Handbook rC9.4.
BERGSTEN, E., «Americanization of International Arbitration», Pace International Law Review, num. 18, 2006.
BLACKABY, N., PARTASIDES, C., et al., Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, Oxford (6th ed.), 2015.
Born, G., & Beale, K., «Party Autonomy and Default Rules: Reframing the Debate over Summary Disposition in International Arbitration», ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, ICC, vol. 21 num. 2, 2010.
Cairns, D.J.A., «The Premises of Witness Questioning in International Arbitration», in Kluwer Law International, Supplement Num. 93, February 2017.
CARLEVARIS, A., & DIGÓN, R., «Arbitrator Challenges under the ICC Rules and Practice», ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, num. 1, 2016.
Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, IBA, 2010.
Cremades Román, B.M., «¿Americanización de la fase escrita del arbitraje internacional?», Arbitraje: Revista de Arbitraje Comercial y de Inversiones, CIAMEN, IproLex, vol. 6 núm. 1, 2013.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
EL-AHDAB, J., & BOUCHENAKI, A., «Discovery in International Arbitration: A Foreign Creature for Civil Lawyers?», in VAN DEN BERG, A.J., Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, Wolters Kluwer, 2011.
EMMERING, J. & LEGG, M., «Room in American Courts for an Australian Hot Tub?», Jones Day, April 2013, http://www.jonesday.com/room_in_american_courts/ (last accessed 24 November 2017).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)-(c)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 27.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
GERBAY, R., «Is the End Nigh Again? An Empirical Assessment of the “Judicialization” of Arbitration», The American Review of International Arbitration, vol. 25, num. 2, 2014.
Hanotiau, B., «International Arbitration in a Global Economy: The Challenges of the Future», Journal of International Arbitration, num. 28, 2011.
Harbst, R., «Cross-Examination», in A Counsel’s Guide to Examining and Preparing Witnesses in International Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2015.
HELMER, E.V., «International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, “Civilized,” or Harmonized?», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003.
HKIAC, «Public Consultation Process on Proposed Amendments to the 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules», 29 August 2017, http://www.hkiac.org/news/revision-2013-administered-arbitration-rules (last accessed 24 November 2017).
Horvath, G., «The Judicialization of International Arbitration: Does the Increasing Introduction of Litigation-Style Practices, Regulations, Norms and Structures into International Arbitration Risk a Denial of Justice in International Business Disputes?», in Kröll, S.M., & Mistelis, L.A. (eds.), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, Wolters Kluwer, 2011.
IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, IBA, 2010.
ICC, «ICC Court revises note to include expedited determination of unmeritorious claims or defences», 30 October 2017, https://www.iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-court-revises-note-to-include-expedited-determination-of-unmeritorious-claims-or-defences/ (last accessed 24 November 2017).
ICC, «ICC reveals record number of new Arbitration cases filed in 2016», 18 January 2017, https://www.iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-reveals-record-number-new-arbitration-cases-filed-2016/ (last accessed 24 November 2017).
In re Hallmark Capital Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d 951, 956 (D. Minn. 2007).
In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004).
International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration, Queen Mary University and White & Case, 2015.
International Dispute Resolution Procedures, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, 2014.
KARAMANIAN, S.L., «Overstating the “Americanization” of International Arbitration: Lessons from ICSID», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003.
KOH, S. & HAGER, J., «Ordering Costs to Temper the “Americanization” of International Commercial Arbitration», Bloomberg Law Reports, 2010, https://www.perkinscoie.com/images/content/2/2/v2/22139/comm 10 08 orderingcostsarticle.pdf (last accessed 24 November 2017).
Lamm, C., et al., «Ten Guidelines for the Cross-Examination of Financial and Technical Experts», in NEWMAN, L.W., & SHEPPARD, B.H., Take the Witness: Cross-Examination in International Arbitration, JurisNet, 2010.
Lew, J.D.M., «Is There a “Global Free-standing Body of Substantive Arbitration Law”?», in VAN DEN BERG, A.J. (ed.), International Arbitration: The Coming of a New Age?, ICCA Congress Series, Vol. 17, 2013.
Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, Art. 377.1.
Luttrell, S., «Bias Challenges in International Commercial Arbitration: The Need for a “Real Danger” Test», in Bias in International Commercial Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2009.
NAIMARK, R., «Harmonizing Contrary Ideas on Information Exchange in International Arbitration», in CARLEVARIS, A., LÉVY, L., et al. (eds.), International Arbitration Under Review: Essays in Honour of John Beechey, ICC, 2015.
National Broadcast Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999).
PARK, W.W., «Americanization of International Arbitration and Vice Versa», in Arbitration of International Business Disputes: Studies in Law and Practice, Oxford Press, 2006.
– «Procedural Evolution in Business Arbitration: Three Studies in Change», in Arbitration of International Business Disputes: Studies in Law and Practice, Oxford Press, 2006.
PEÑA GONZÁLEZ, F.A., «¿Es una forma de discovery trial la nueva prueba de los artículos [sic] 283 bis de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil?», Gómez-Acebo Pombo, September 2017, http://www.gomezacebo-pombo.com/media/k2/attachments/es-una-forma-de-discovery-trial-la-nueva-prueba-de-los-articulos-283-bis-de-la-ley-de-enjuiciamiento-civil.pdf (last accessed 24 November 2017).
RAU, A.S., «The Culture of American Arbitration and the Lessons of ADR», Texas International Law Journal, num. 40, 2005.
Report on the Reception of the IBA Arbitration Soft Law Products, IBA Arbitration Guidelines and Rules Subcommittee, 2016.
Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999).
Romano, C.P.R., «The Americanization of International Litigation», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003.
Seidenberg, S., «International Arbitration Loses Its Grip», American Bar Association Journal, 1 April 2010, http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/international_arbitration_loses_its_grip/ (last accessed 24 November 2017).
Shore, L., «Arbitration, Rhetoric, Proof», in ROVINE, A. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers, Brill, 2009.
– «Document Production, Witness Statements, and Cross-Examination: The Enduring Tensions in International Arbitration», in Brekoulakis, S.L., Lew, J.D.M., et al. (eds.), The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
TOOZE, A., The Deluge: The Great War and the Remaking of the Global Order 1916-1931, Penguin, 2014.
Ulmer, N.C., «The Cost Conundrum», Arbitration International, vol. 26, num. 2, 2010.
UNCITRAL, Chronological table of actions, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status_chronological (last accessed 24 November 2017).
VON MEHREM, G.M., & JOCHUM, A.C., «Is International Arbitration Becoming Too American?», Global Business Law Review, num. 2, 2011.
Wolf, C., «The limits of witness preparation in German court and arbitration proceedings», Corporate and Commercial Disputes Review, Norton Rose Fulbright, num. 4, November 2016.
A summary version of this article appears in Spanish in the 2018 Liber Amicorum dedicated to Gonzalo Jiménez-Blanco, who originally had the idea for publishing this great annual collaboration for which we owe him a debt of gratitude.
PARK, W.W., «Americanization of International Arbitration and Vice Versa», in Arbitration of International Business Disputes: Studies in Law and Practice, Oxford Press, 2006, pg. 8.
See HELMER, E.V., «International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, “Civilized,” or Harmonized?», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003, pgs. 35-36 («For some U.S. lawyers, Americanization means converting European arbitrators to the “English language and to the usages of Anglo-Americans..., enlarg[ing] the club [of European arbitrators] and... rationaliz[ing] the practice of arbitration such that it could become offshore–U.S.-style–litigation”. On the Continent, “Americanization... is often a code word for an unbridled and ungentlemanly aggressivity and excess in arbitration. It can involve a strategy of ‘total warfare,’ the excesses of U.S.-style discovery, and distended briefs and document submissions.”» [alterations in original; citations omitted]); KARAMANIAN, S.L., «Overstating the “Americanization” of International Arbitration: Lessons from ICSID», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003, pgs. 1-20 (breaking Americanization down into three degrees: (1) Mild: cross-examination, discovery, party witnesses; (2) Moderate: use of depositions, recognition and application of US evidentiary principles and practices; and (3) Extreme: untimely disclosure of evidence, discovery abuse, seeking sanctions against opposing counsel, lack of cooperation); KOH, S., & HAGER, J., «Ordering Costs to Temper the “Americanization” of International Commercial Arbitration», Bloomberg Law Reports, 2010 («This trend towards Americanization is marked by broader discovery, larger damages requests, longer briefing schedules, lengthier briefs, greater reliance on expert testimony, and more procedural challenges to arbitrators and the arbitration.»).
See, e.g., EL-AHDAB, J., & BOUCHENAKI, A., «Discovery in International Arbitration: A Foreign Creature for Civil Lawyers?», in VAN DEN BERG, A.J. (ed.), Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, Wolters Kluwer, 2011, pg. 69; Abi-Saab, G., «The Existence of a Euro-Mediterranean Legal and Arbitration Community», in Second Conference for a Euro-Mediterranean Community of International Arbitration, Cairo, 12 November 2015, UNCITRAL, 2016, pg. 19; Helmer, supra note 2, pg. 50; Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 13.
Koh & Hager, supra note 2; Luttrell, S., «Bias Challenges in International Commercial Arbitration: The Need for a “Real Danger” Test», in Bias in International Commercial Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2009, pg. 255 («There must be a correlation between the increased rate of bias challenges and the arrival of free-market ideology via the agent of the Anglo-American technocrat.»).
Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 14.
RAU, A.S., «The Culture of American Arbitration and the Lessons of ADR», Texas International Law Journal, num. 40, 2005, pg. 449.
Abi-Saab, supra note 3, pg. 19; Karamanian, supra note 2, pgs. 10-12; Helmer, supra note 2, pg. 52 («Most civil lawyers are not skilled in the art of cross-examination and view it “with abhorrence”.» [quoting Holtzmann, H.M., «Balancing the Need for Certainty and Flexibility in International Arbitration Procedures», in LILLICH, R.B., & BROWER, C.N. (eds.), International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards «Judicialization» and Uniformity?, Martinus Nijhoff, 1993]).
See, e.g., Helmer, supra note 2, pg. 35; Abi-Saab, supra note 3, pg. 19 («Never-ending procedural disputes: extensive motion practice, jurisdictional objections, evidentiary objections, etc.»).
See, e.g., Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 11 («Cross-examination is heralded as “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth”». [quoting WIGMORE, J.H., Evidence in Trial at Common Law, Chadbourn rev. 1974, vol. 5, § 1367]).
El-Ahdab & Bouchenaki, supra note 3, pg. 72 («The difference in approaching the taking and collection of evidence between the civil law and common law traditions is generally attributed to the role of juries in the early English civil procedure, continued and developed in US civil procedure. Common law has developed elaborated rules of evidence, [whose] principal task is to keep from the juries evidence it is judged they, composed as they are of lay persons, are unable to evaluate properly». [internal quotation marks omitted]).
But see ALFORD, R.P., «The American Influence on International Arbitration», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003, pgs. 84-85 (discussing the appeal of New York law as a choice of law to govern contracts); Karamanian, supra note 2, pgs. 19-20 (discussing the Americanness of arbitral awards that cite other arbitral awards as precedent as a pseudo-form of stare decisis that has «helped to create the arbitral component of lex mercatoria»).
However, the private, fragmented, and competitive nature of the business of managing international arbitrations may guarantee that there are niche forums for parties of all appetites.
One indicator of the growth of international commercial arbitration around the world is the recent proliferation of new arbitral institutions, as well as the opening of regional branches of established arbitral institutions, such as the ICC’s centers in New York, Singapore, Shanghai, Sao Paulo and Abu Dhabi.
Indeed, throughout the development of modern international arbitration over the past several centuries, the world’s leading economies were the British Empire and then, from 1916 onward, the United States, both of which have common-law traditions. See TOOZE, A., The Deluge: The Great War and the Remaking of the Global Order 1916-1931, Penguin, 2014, pgs. 10-11. And yet, modern-day international commercial arbitration was primarily developed and practiced by Continental European attorneys trained in civil law. See BERGSTEN, E., «Americanization of International Arbitration», Pace International Law Review, num. 18, 2006, pg. 292.
Whether Americanization can be considered a trend at this point is dubious. According to one commentator, the term «Americanization» in reference to international arbitration was first used in 1985 by Stephen Bond. Helmer, supra note 2, pg. 35 (citing ULMER, N.C., «A Comment on “The ‘Americanization’ of International Arbitration”», Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, num. 16, 2001, pg. 24). There is now a generation of attorneys practicing in international arbitration who were born around the time of Mr. Bond’s use of the term.
See, e.g., Alford, supra note 11, pgs. 72-75 (describing features of modern international arbitration found in the Jay Treaty of 1794 and the Alabama Claims arbitration after the American Civil War, as well as the United States’ role in founding the Permanent Court of Arbitration).
See Bergsten, supra note 14, pg. 292; Alford, supra note 11, pg. 71 (noting that the United States delegation «took no part in any of the working sessions» for the New York Convention and «declined even to cast a vote on the question of whether the Conference should adopt the final text of the Convention as a whole.» [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
See UNCITRAL Chronological table of actions.
Bergsten, supra note 14, pg. 294.
Ibid.
For example, in the mid-1970s, the US and Soviet governments used private arbitration institutions in Sweden to hear trade disputes between parties from the two nations. Id., pgs. 295-298. Then, in the early 1980s, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal was created. Id., pgs. 298-300.
Id., pg. 300.
See International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration, Queen Mary University and White & Case, 2015, pg. 2 («90% of respondents [from all countries] indicate that international arbitration is their preferred dispute resolution mechanism [for resolving cross-border disputes].»); Altenkirch, M., & Frohloff, J., «International Arbitration Statistics 2016 – Busy Times for Arbitral Institutions», Global Arbitration News, 1 Sept. 2017 (showing a 37% increase in total cases reported annually by major arbitral institutions from 2012 to 2016).
See, e.g., Hanotiau, B., «International Arbitration in a Global Economy: The Challenges of the Future», Journal of International Arbitration, num. 28, 2011, pg. 99; Horvath, G., «The Judicialization of International Arbitration: Does the Increasing Introduction of Litigation-Style Practices, Regulations, Norms and Structures into International Arbitration Risk a Denial of Justice in International Business Disputes?», in Kröll, S.M., & Mistelis, L.A. (eds.), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, Wolters Kluwer, 2011, pgs. 251-271.
See Helmer, supra note 2, at 36 [citing LALIVE, P., «The Internationalisation of International Arbitration: Some Observations», in HUNTER, M., et al. (eds.), The Internationalisation of International Arbitration: The LCIA Centenary Conference, 1993, pg. 54].
See Brekoulakis, S.L., «Introduction: The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration», in Brekoulakis, S.L., Lew, J.D.M., et al. (eds.), The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2016, pgs. 5-6, ¶ 1.11; Rau, supra note 6, pg. 451 («Allegiance to the ideal of party autonomy, coupled with a growing presumption of arbitral competence, has had startling consequences: Whole bodies of regulatory law, for example –antitrust, securities, RICO, and civil rights legislation among them– have been subjected to arbitral decisionmaking».); HIERRO, A., «Towards a Global Arbitration Law», Spain Arbitration Review | Revista del Club Español del Arbitraje, núm. 23, 2015, pgs. 56-57.
See Seidenberg, S., «International Arbitration Loses Its Grip», American Bar Association Journal, 1 April 2010 («[B]ecause so much money is at stake, the companies involved are willing to spend extra money on the process, in order to increase their odds.»).
Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 7.
For an eloquent treatment of cost issues and the perception that international arbitration used to be simpler and less costly, see generally Ulmer, N.C., «The Cost Conundrum», Arbitration International, vol. 26, num. 2, 2010, pgs. 248-49 [«There will be no revolution that will convert (or return) international arbitration to some warm ancestral south where its procedures were largely consensual, cost-effective and quick.»].
See HORVATH, supra note 24, pg. 271 («If [judicialization] continues to occur, the risk that a highly effective and successful dispute resolution mechanism will be lost to the international business community.»).
ICC, «ICC reveals record number of new Arbitration cases filed in 2016», 18 January 2017; see also ALTENKIRCH & FROHLOFF, supra note 23 (showing increased caseloads at other arbitral institutions in 2016). Moreover, in March 2017, the ICC began offering expedited proceedings for lower-value disputes. These efforts show that institutions are sensitive to the perceived criticism of the increased costs and inefficiencies of international arbitration. It also shows that not all cases are being given Americanized treatment.
See HELMER, supra note 2, pg. 55; VON MEHREM, G.M., & JOCHUM, A.C., «Is International Arbitration Becoming Too American?», Global Business Law Review, num. 2, 2011, pgs. 54-55.
BERGSTEN, supra note 14, pg. 294.
See VON MEHREM & JOCHUM, supra note 32, pg. 55.
Supra note 4.
See LUTRELL, supra note 4, pgs. 251-52 (Americans may have pushed such challenges due to (1) the paramount importance of the constitutional right of due process and the impartial and independent judge that right entails, and (2) the «ancient» nature of the Federal Arbitration Act, which does not allow interlocutory judicial challenges to an arbitration; thus, because parties have to wait until an award is rendered to get court review, American counsel got into the habit of using every procedural trick they could to win the arbitration itself); cf. BLACKABY, N., PARTASIDES, C., et al., Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, Oxford (6th ed.), 2015, pg. 258.
BAKER, C.M., & GREENWOOD, L., «Are Challenges Overused in International Arbitration?», Journal of International Arbitration, vol. 30 num. 2, 2013, pg. 112 («In the past, counsel might have been concerned whether a tribunal would be alienated by a tactical challenge; now, it seems as if both counsel and tribunals are more tolerant of such tactics.»); LUTTRELL, supra note 4, pgs. 3-4.
See GERBAY, R., «Is the End Nigh Again? An Empirical Assessment of the “Judicialization” of Arbitration», The American Review of International Arbitration, vol. 25, num. 2, 2014, pgs. 231-235.
Id., pg. 234 (Gerbay also found that the percentage of cases in which the ICC Court had to appoint a sole arbitrator because the parties could not agree dropped from 46.6% in 1992 to 31.8% from 2007-2011).
CARLEVARIS, A., & DIGÓN, R., «Arbitrator Challenges under the ICC Rules and Practice», ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, num. 1, 2016, pg. 25 («When considered in proportion to the number of arbitrators confirmed or appointed in ICC cases, challenges have remained relatively stable, not exceeding 3.7% of the total number of arbitrators appointed or confirmed [annually] over the past ten years»).
Given different rules on privilege and ethical obligations to clients –civil-law attorneys are not permitted to disclose information harmful to the client and communications from in-house counsel are generally not considered privileged, while common-law attorneys are required to turn over information requested by an adversary and communications from in-house counsel are considered privileged– it is understandable why civil-law attorneys are uncomfortable with US-style discovery. See NAIMARK, R., «Harmonizing Contrary Ideas on Information Exchange in International Arbitration», in CARLEVARIS, A., LÉVY, L., et. al. (eds.), International Arbitration Under Review: Essays in Honour of John Beechey, ICC, 2015, pg. 296.
Supra note 3.
Despite its bad reputation, discovery is not the lawless Wild West that some may imagine it to be. See KARAMANIAN, supra note 2, pg. 13 («Contrary to popular belief, the Federal Rules do not tolerate “fishing expeditions” for documents irrelevant to the dispute.» [citing cases]). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure place reasonable limits on document requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In fact, the 1 December 2015 amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restored an explicit proportionality standard to the definition of the scope of discovery that requires the court to consider «the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit» Ibid.
See EL-AHDAB & BOUCHENAKI, supra note 3, pg. 97; see, e.g., PEÑA GONZÁLEZ, F.A., «¿Es una forma de discovery trial la nueva prueba de los artículos [sic] 283 bis de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil?», Gómez-Acebo Pombo, September 2017 (discussing how Spain, in complying with an EU directive, recently made pretrial discovery-like procedures available in cases for damages for violations of competition law).
El-Ahdab & Bouchenaki, supra note 3, pgs. 81-82 (stating that, while a right to production of evidence exists in many civil-law jurisdictions, such right is «[r]arely used in practice»).
See generally IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, IBA, 2010, art. 3.
REED, L., & HANCOCK, G., «US-Style Discovery: Good or Evil?», in GIOVANNINI, T., & MOURRE, A. (eds.), Dossier of the ICC Institute of World Business Law: Written Evidence and Discovery in International Arbitration: New Issues and Tendencies, ICC, 2009, pg. 347 («None of the institutional rules contemplates that parties will go beyond basic document production, for example by serving interrogatories or requests for admission.»).
Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 16 («Depositions remain uncommon in international commercial arbitrations....»).
International Dispute Resolution Procedures, International Centre for Dispute Resolution, 2014, art. 21.10.
Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, IBA, 2010, pg. 7. Notably, according to a recent survey and study performed by the IBA, «nearly half (48%) of the arbitrations known to Respondents worldwide referenced the [IBA] Rules on Evidence». Report on the Reception of the IBA Arbitration Soft Law Products, IBA Arbitration Guidelines and Rules Subcommittee, 2016, pg. 4, § II.A. ¶ 13. The Report found that «there does not appear to be a difference in their use between common and civil law jurisdictions». Id., § II.A. ¶ 14. The Report shows that arbitrators from a variety of legal traditions agree that the IBA Rules represent an acceptable hybrid solution that bridges the gap between civil- and common-law traditions when it comes to document production and evidentiary rules.
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) («To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.»).
See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 258 (2004) (citing SMIT, H., «International Litigation under the United States Code», Columbia Law Review, num. 65, 1965, pgs. 1026-27, notes 71, 73).
Compare, e.g., National Broadcast Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir. 1999), and Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International, 168 F.3d 880, 881 (5th Cir. 1999), with In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1226 (N.D. Ga. 2006), and In re Hallmark Capital Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d 951, 956 (D. Minn. 2007).
See EL-AHDAB & BOUCHENAKI, supra note 3, pgs. 76-77.
See von Mehrem & Jochum, supra note 32, pg. 57 [citing DERAINS, Y., «Towards Greater Efficiency in Document Production before Arbitral Tribunals – A Continental Viewpoint», ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Special Supplement 2006, ¶ 14 (proposing that tribunals, rather than focusing on one legal system or another’s point of view on discovery, focus on what is actually needed for a party to meet its burden of proof in that case)].
See, e.g., Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil Art. 377.1.
Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 14; see, e.g., IBA Rules, art. 4.2.
See von Mehrem & Jochum, supra note 32, pg. 48.
Shore, L., «Document Production, Witness Statements, and Cross-Examination: The Enduring Tensions in International Arbitration», in Brekoulakis, S.L., Lew, J.D.M., et al. (eds.), The Evolution and Future of International Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2016, pg. 42, ¶ 3.10.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (permitting unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury instead of sworn affidavit).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 (describing the requirements for taking a deposition to perpetuate a witness’s testimony). Even when deposition testimony is substituted for live testimony, it is usually presented by video, not a written statement.
See Cairns, D.J.A., «The Premises of Witness Questioning in International Arbitration», in Kluwer Law International, Supplement Num. 93, February 2017, ¶ 11.
Shore, supra note 59, pg. 43 («Even when cross-examination does not discredit the witness, a tribunal rarely relies in its award on a witness statement.»).
Compare, e.g., American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Responsibility 1.2(d), 3.3(a)(3), 3.4(b), 8.4(c) (generally prohibiting knowingly promoting a witness to give false or misleading testimony, but not prohibiting witness preparation or coaching), with The Bar Standards Board Handbook (regulating English barristers) rC9.4 («[Y]ou must not rehearse, practise with or coach a witness in respect of their evidence.»), and Wolf, C., «The limits of witness preparation in German court and arbitration proceedings», Corporate and Commercial Disputes Review, Norton Rose Fulbright, num. 4, November 2016, pgs. 22-23 (describing a recent criminal investigation in Germany involving preparation of various bank executives in a civil-court case; the question was whether they had committed fraud in court after they were prepared in a mock trial and written answers had been drafted by their lawyers).
Helmer, supra note 2, pg. 53 (citing Griffin, P. R., «Recent Trends in the Conduct of International Arbitration: Discovery Procedures and Witness Hearings», Journal of International Arbitration, Apr. 2000, pgs. 19, 26).
Harbst, R., «Cross-Examination», in A Counsel’s Guide to Examining and Preparing Witnesses in International Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 2015, pgs. 107-09.
Ibid.; see also IBA Rules art. 8.3(b) (placing scope limit only on re-direct examination).
See Lamm, C., et al., «Ten Guidelines for the Cross-Examination of Financial and Technical Experts», in NEWMAN, L.W., & SHEPPARD, B.H. (eds.), Take the Witness: Cross-Examination in International Arbitration, JurisNet, 2010, pg. 195.
Harbst, supra note 66, at 136. Neither, for that matter, has the requirement to prove the reliability of expert-witness testimony become a common part of international arbitration. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Helmer, supra note 2, pg. 53.
See IBA Rules arts. 8.2, 9.2. It is also worth noting that, when it comes to document production and witness evidence, the UNCITRAL Rules and various arbitral institutions’ rules are extremely brief and general; they provide almost no guidance and express no preference as between continental European civil-law approaches and American common-law approaches. See von Mehrem & Jochum, supra note 32, pgs. 51-52 (marveling at the brevity of Article 20 [now Article 22] of the ICC Rules as compared to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Cf. Shore, L., «Arbitration, Rhetoric, Proof», in ROVINE, A. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers, Brill, 2009, pgs. 293-304 («Proof is the core of evidentiary proceedings in all legal fora, but a formal set of evidentiary rules does not tell anyone how to decipher the documentary evidence or how to make a sound assessment of the truthfulness of a witness’s testimony... proof and the pursuit of truth are cross-cultural goals... [and] powerful legal arguments are not culturally bounded.»).
A prime example of this is the incorporation into international arbitration of practices rarely used in US litigation, such as concurrent expert witness conferencing. See EMMERIG, J. & LEGG, M., «Room in American Courts for an Australian Hot Tub?», Jones Day, April 2013 (discussing the Australian origins of witness conferencing).
Shore, supra note 59, pg. 45 (noting «the tension between counsel’s need (as she/he sees it) to have a reasonable opportunity to put her/his case, and the decision-maker’s need to understand what is important in order to reach a sound, efficient result»).
See Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 6 («Can the American process fit into a neat and simple descriptive box in which winning at all costs is the ultimate goal? No. The conduct of American lawyers varies from one part of the United States to the next, if not among individual members of the bar» [citations omitted]).
Romano, C.P.R., «The Americanization of International Litigation», Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, num. 19:1, 2003, pg. 92. Similarly, the comparative-law discussion on common law vs. civil law tends to paint all civil-law systems with the same brush even though they are many and diverse. See El-Ahdab & Bouchenaki, supra note 3, pgs. 69-70 (discussing widespread variation among civil-law systems in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East).
See Alford, supra note 11, pgs. 80-83; see Cremades Román, B.M., «¿Americanización de la fase escrita del arbitraje internacional?», Arbitraje: Revista de Arbitraje Comercial y de Inversiones, CIAMEN, IproLex, vol. 6 núm. 1, 2013.
See CREMADES ROMÁN, supra note 77, pgs. 45-48.
von Mehrem & Jochum, supra note 32, pg. 56.
Another fascinating possible importation not discussed here is the class action. While procedural devices for collective redress have now been employed in certain international investment-treaty arbitrations –see Abaclat v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5; Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9; and Alemanni v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8– their use in commercial arbitrations remains nearly exclusively domestic. Due to the space limitations of this article, the complex interplay between class actions and notions of due process, as well as the immense rule changes such an importation would entail, we limit discussion to summary disposition of claims, a feature that already exists in international arbitration but is perhaps underutilized.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)-(c) (requiring certain defenses to be raised before a responsive pleading, e.g., lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and permitting motion to dismiss based on the initial pleadings).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (summary judgment permissible where no genuine dispute as to any material fact exists).
See Ulmer, supra note 29, pgs. 246-47 («Arbitration has imported many of the motions and some of the procedure of complex litigation but without the arbitrators being able, or sometimes willing, to make use of tools effectively to deal with them. As Lord Mustill put it rather colourfully, international arbitration can have “all the elephantine laboriousness of an action in court, without the saving grace of the exacerbated judges’ power to bang together the heads of recalcitrant parties”.»).
Born, G., & Beale, K., «Party Autonomy and Default Rules: Reframing the Debate over Summary Disposition in International Arbitration», ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, ICC, vol. 21, num. 2, 2010, pg. 21.
Id., pg. 22.
Ibid.
Singapore and Stockholm are two examples of international courts of arbitration adopting express rules permitting summary resolution of claims or defenses. See Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 2016, Rule 29.1; Arbitration Rules, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, 2017, Rule 39. In addition, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Court is considering adding a rule «to allow the arbitral tribunal to determine one or more issues of fact or law in a preliminary or separate phase, and in a summary fashion». HKIAC, «Public Consultation Process on Proposed Amendments to the 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules», 29 August 2017.
ICC, «ICC Court revises note to include expedited determination of unmeritorious claims or defences», 30 October 2017.
While a tribunal organized under ICC or LCIA rules is, of course, free to interpret those rules as permitting it to use summary-disposition procedures, such a tribunal may be placing its decision at greater risk of being challenged than would one organized under the SIAC or SCC rules. Even the ICC’s Expedited Procedure Rules, which came into effect on 1 March 2017, do not contain express rules on early determination of claims and defenses.
Speaking of final awards, perhaps a corollary American feature that could be recommended here is that suggested by Professor Karamanian: «an award that does not repeat in detail each point made in every submission but instead gives a factual statement, based on the evidence presented, and then applies the law to the facts». Karamanian, supra note 2, pg. 20.
Ulmer, supra note 29, pg. 222.
See BERGSTEN, supra note 14, pg. 301 («The international commercial arbitration experience during the last fifty years is analogous to the experience of immigration into a country. Immigrants must adjust to their new country, but the country will also change to accommodate them. This is what happened in international commercial arbitration when the Americans arrived, and things have been evolving ever since.»); see also Lew, J.D.M., «Is There a “Global Free-standing Body of Substantive Arbitration Law”?», in VAN DEN BERG, A.J. (ed.), International Arbitration: The Coming of a New Age?, ICCA Congress Series, Vol. 17, 2013, pg. 59 («[I]t remains clear that the adoption of converging rules leads to harmonization in the substantive treatment of arbitral disputes.»); PARK, W.W., «Procedural Evolution in Business Arbitration: Three Studies in Change», in Arbitration of International Business Disputes: Studies in Law and Practice, Oxford Press, 2006, pg. 6 (describing international arbitration as a process of «intellectual cross-pollination»).
See Helmer, supra note 2, pg. 66.
Id., pg. 55.
