Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. that question has vexed lower federal courts. Although the Supreme Court did not address international arbitration directly, its reasoning appeared to support a broad interpretation that would encompass arbitral tribunals, which likewise act as “first-instance decision-makers” that render “dispositive rulings” subject to limited national court review. Moreover, in describing the scope of Section 1782, the Court found that Congress amended the statute in 1964 to “provide the possibility of U.S. judicial assistance in connection with administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings abroad” and quoted scholarly commentary that defined the term ‘tribunal’ to include “investigating magistrates, administrative and arbitral tribunals, and quasi-judicial agencies, as well as conventional civil, commercial, criminal, and administrative courts.”

In the wake of Intel, federal courts have struggled to apply the Court’s liberal Section 1782 standards to the context of international arbitration. Lower courts are divided on the question of whether a contract-based private international arbitral panel satisfies the statutory definition of “international tribunal.”

A majority have concluded that arbitral tribunals established by private contract are “foreign or international tribunals.” As the federal district court in In re Babcock Borsig AG, 583 F.Supp.2d 233 put it, addressing a Section 1782 petition involving an ICC arbitration, “[t]here is no textual basis upon which to draw a distinction between public and private arbitral tribunals, and the Supreme Court in Intel repeatedly refused to place ‘categorical limitations’ on the availability of § 1782(a).” Under this analysis, the functional approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Intel suggests that contract-based arbitral tribunals are first-instance decision-makers that issue decisions both responsive to the complaint and reviewable in court. As the court in Roz Trading, 469 F.Supp.2d 1221 put it, “it is the function of the body that makes it a ‘tribunal,’ not its formal identity as a ‘governmental’ or ‘private’ institution.”

Other federal district courts have concluded that private arbitral tribunals are not “international tribunals” within the meaning of Section 1782. These courts focus on arbitration as an alternative to litigation, foreclosing a key element of Intel’s analysis: judicial review. “[T]he very narrow circumstances in which [arbitral] decisions may be subject to review does not allow for judicial review of the merits of the parties’ dispute,” opined the federal district court in Norfolk Southern Corp., 626 F.Supp.2d 882. “Accordingly, the ‘arbitral tribunal’ at issue here does not fall within the definition the Supreme Court embraced in its Intel dictum.” Moreover, according to some courts, the fact that the source of judicial authority is derived from private agreement likewise militates against classifying it as a foreign or international proceeding under § 1782. Finally, pragmatic concerns have loomed large in the analysis. As one court put it, “[i]nterpreting § 1782 to apply to voluntary, private international arbitrations would be a body blow to such arbitration, since it would create a tremendous disincentive to engage in such arbitration wherever, as here, such a reading would create substantially asymmetrical discovery obligations.”

Whatever doubts there may be about the application of Section 1782 to contract-based international arbitration, federal courts uniformly agree that an arbitral tribunal established pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty constitutes an “international tribunal” within the meaning of the statute. Since Intel, over twenty federal courts have considered motions to compel Section 1782 discovery in aid of proceedings before treaty-based investment arbitration tribunals. Not a single federal court has held that such arbitral tribunals fall short of the statutory definition of an “international tribunal.”

Rather than take a functional approach that analyzes whether the investment tribunal is a first-instance decision-maker rendering decisions subject to judicial review, these courts either assume that such arbitral panels are “international tribunals,” or focus on the fact that the arbitral tribunal has its origins in a bilateral investment treaty. Although the absence of judicial review in the investment context is even more pronounced than in private commercial arbitration, this factor has not featured in any of the decisions applying Section 1782 to investment arbitration. In short, federal courts take a functional approach in defining an “international tribunal” in the commercial arbitration context, and a formalist approach in the investment arbitration context.

I am the (proud) editor and a contributor of the book and am delighted to have the opportunity to bring it to the attention of this group. I think it will be of special interest to arbitration practitioners.

The book examines the main existing international dispute resolution bodies in a systematic, comprehensive and accessible way.

To the extent possible, chapters are structured similarly, and each chapter explores a specific dispute resolution forum.

After a short introduction of the forum, each chapter provides essential information of the institution examined, including its composition, seat, operation, costs, applicable law, and detailed analysis of its jurisdiction.

This introduction is followed by a procedural overview, which includes rules of procedure, the structure of the proceedings, role of third parties, interim measures of protection, languages used and available remedies and enforcement procedures.

Uniquely, each chapter also includes an extensive review of the essential jurisprudence of the institution examined, which will be particularly relevant for academics and practitioners in international law alike.

Additionally, the similar structure makes each forum both easily accessible and comparable with other fora included in the book.

International courts and tribunals analyzed in the book include:

- Courts and tribunals of general jurisdiction, such as the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration;

- Fora of specialized jurisdiction, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, and the World Trade Organization’ dispute settlement system;

- Human rights courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Human rights system;

- International criminal courts and tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, as well as hybrid and internationalized tribunals;

- Courts and tribunals of regional integration agreements, including NAFTA, the European Union system and by other regional economic integration agreements.

The book also includes a chapter reviewing the administrative tribunals of international organizations, and chapters on the United Nations Claims Commission, the Iran-US Claims Tribunal and the Claims Resolution Tribunal.

The complete table of contents is here.

Many well know practitioners and contributors to this blog have contributed to this book, including the blog’s general editor, Roger Alford, as well as Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Brooks Daly, Timothy Feighery, Carolyn Lamm, Andrea Menaker, Sean Murphy and Jeremy Sharpe. A complete list of authors is available here.

My hope is that this book will fill a vacuum that I identified when teaching an introductory class on international courts and tribunals for a simple but comprehensive review of the rule and practice of international courts and tribunals.

I would love to hear feedback from readers!

Chiara Giorgetti
White & Case LLP

Conducted by QMUL’s School of International Arbitration and sponsored by White & Case LLP, the 2012 survey aims to examine whether a “harmonised international arbitration procedure is emerging, by canvassing the views of experienced arbitration practitioners from all over the world,” comments Professor Loukas Mistelis, Director of the School of International Arbitration at QMUL.

Entitled “Current and Best Practices in the Arbitral Process,” the survey is the fourth carried out by QMUL since 2006, and seeks to conduct a major investigation into arbitration practices and trends worldwide. Corporate attitudes towards arbitration, recognition and enforcement of foreign awards, and corporate choices in arbitration in key and emerging markets were past survey themes.

There are two significant differences between this survey and those done before. First, this survey concerns the arbitral process itself, rather than corporate user attitudes towards arbitration. Second, this survey reaches out to arbitration counsel and to arbitrators, in addition to inside counsel. This should provide a much broader universe of respondents, along with greater empirical evidence for what actually occurs in arbitration and what works and what does not.

The following topics will be explored in the 2012 survey:

• Arbitrator selection: The preferred methods of selecting arbitrators, experiences in interviewing potential arbitrators and expectations regarding the conduct of such interviews.
• Organising arbitral proceedings: How procedural meetings are convened, the use of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, experiences and expectations regarding the role of the tribunal secretary, methods for expediting arbitration proceedings and the use of fast-track arbitration.
• Interim measures and court assistance: The frequency of interim measures applications to tribunals and courts (including security for costs applications), the level of compliance with tribunal-ordered interim measures and the power of arbitrators to order interim measures ex parte.
• Document disclosure: The frequency of document disclosure requests, the standard that applies/should apply for disclosing documents in international arbitration and how to best manage the disclosure process.
• Fact and expert witnesses: The effectiveness of fact witness statements, experiences and views on mock cross-examination of witnesses and witness conferencing, types of expert witnesses most frequently used and the preferred method of appointing expert witnesses.
• Pleadings and hearings: The number and order of delivery of written submissions, methods of expediting pleadings and hearings, duration and mode of hearings and the effectiveness of oral closing submissions and post-hearing briefs.
• Arbitral awards and costs: The frequency of partial, interim and dissenting awards, expectations regarding the length of time to issue an award and experiences and preferences regarding costs allocation.

The questionnaire for this year’s survey can be accessed at www.arbitrationonline.org/survey. Corporate counsel, private practitioners and arbitrators are encouraged to participate.

Those who wish to contribute have until the end of May to complete their responses. Questionnaire responses may be followed by individual interviews for those willing to participate. The report is expected to be launched in September 2012.

By Paul Friedland and John Templeman
White & Case, LLP

The factual background to West Tankers has been widely discussed (and is summarised in paragraphs 1 to 14 of the judgment) and there is no need to do so again here. Before the Court of Appeal, West Tankers submitted that judgment be entered under s. 66(2) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”) against the insurers on the terms of a declaratory arbitral award. This was on the basis that such a judgment would allow West Tankers to establish the primacy of the award over any judgment by Italian courts in ongoing proceedings of the same dispute. The High Court held that “[t]he purpose of s. 66 (1) and (2) [of the Act] is to provide a means by which the victorious party in an arbitration can obtain the material benefit of the award in his favour other than by suing on it” and that “[w]here … the victorious party’s objective in obtaining an order under s. 66 (1) and (2) is to establish the primacy of a declaratory award over an inconsistent judgment, the court will have jurisdiction to make a s. 66 order because to do so will be to make a positive contribution to the securing of the material benefit of the award”.

The insurers appealed, arguing that Field J had erred in his construction of s. 66 of the Act, specifically in the meaning of the word “enforced”, and that a declaratory judgment (and in particular a negative declaratory judgment) is incapable of being “enforced” under the meaning of the section. Lord Justice Toulson, in the leading judgment, however agreed with West Tankers that a broader interpretation of the phrase ‘enforced in the same manner as a judgment to the same effect’ in s. 66 is “closer to the purpose of the Act and makes better sense in the context of the way in which arbitration works”. He rejected the insurers’ argument that in the present case the court would not be enforcing an award but only the rights determined by an award as being “an over subtle and unconvincing distinction [that] sits on shaky foundations”, emphasising that “the enforcement of any judgment or award is the enforcement of the rights which the judgment or award has established”. However, Toulson LJ emphasised that the language of s. 66 is permissive and requires the court to determine whether it is appropriate in the situation before it to enter judgment – it is not “an administrative rubber stamping exercise”.

Although Toulson LJ emphasised that the issue before the Court of Appeal “is not a question with a distinctively European flavour”, the consequences of the judgment, and more generally of the approach of the English courts, clearly are (as illustrated earlier in African Fertilisers). It remains uncertain whether the judgment falls under the arbitration exception to the Brussels Regulation 44/2001, thereby underlining the need for reform of the Regulation. As any such reform is likely to take time, there remains the real possibility that the English courts may, before any such reform, be faced with enforcement proceedings under the Regulation of an (inconsistent) judgment of the Italian courts. The questions presented by African Fertilisers remain unanswered for the time being.

Phillip Capper and Christian Blank

White & Case LLP
London

Much to the surprise of many seasoned international arbitration practitioners, the D.C. Circuit vacated a US$ 185.3 million Final Award against Argentina, essentially nullifying a hard-fought, four-and-a-half year arbitration between the parties. The court vacated the Award on the basis that the “arbitral panel rendered a decision . . . without regard to the contracting parties’ agreement establishing a precondition to arbitration,” namely the clause in the Argentina-UK bilateral investment treaty (BIT) requiring claimants to submit disputes to the Argentine courts for 18 months before resorting to arbitration. In the underlying UNCITRAL arbitration, the tribunal had considered whether the dispute was admissible without having been first submitted to the Argentine courts. It ruled that such submission was not essential because it in this case it would have been an exercise in futility: the claimant could not have obtained relief anyway from the Argentine courts, given the Republic’s apparent interference with access to the courts and its punishment of all would-be local court litigants by excluding them from contract renegotiations. The tribunal concluded that in these circumstances, the 18-month provision could not “be construed as an absolute impediment to arbitration,” and therefore deemed BG Group’s arbitration claims admissible.

By contrast, the D.C. Circuit concluded that this entire analysis was misplaced, since in its view the BIT terms—which it analyzed principally by reference to U.S. domestic law on contractual intent to arbitrate, rather than under the Vienna Convention—were clearly designed to require prior recourse to the Argentine courts. The court found that the tribunal had exceeded its powers by permitting direct access to arbitration contrary to that expressed intent. Indeed, the court suggested that under U.S. case law, the tribunal should not have even engaged in an analysis of the feasibility or usefulness of prior resort to the Argentine courts, because as a threshold matter it had no proper authority under the BIT to admit such issues for substantive consideration.

In the most narrow sense, the D.C. Circuit’s decision did not directly repudiate the years of fairly consistent rulings by ICSID and UNCITRAL tribunals with respect to the 18-month local court requirement under similar Argentine BITs. That is because the BG Group tribunal had not relied on the BIT’s most-favored-nation (MFN) clause, upon which prior tribunals had rested their decisions, even though BG Group did argue that point. Nonetheless, the D.C. Circuit’s analysis implicitly suggests that it also might have overturned an MFN-based decision, since by the Court’s logic, the tribunals who rendered those decisions likewise would have had no authority to bypass the BIT parties’ allegedly clear intent to require local court proceedings in all circumstances. If the decision is read in this broader way, it can be seen as impugning the core logic of many prior decisions. This would include Maffezini v. Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, 1 September 2000), where the tribunal allowed an Argentine investor to invoke (by way of an MFN clause) the Chile-Spain BIT to avoid the domestic court prerequisite in the Argentina-Spain BIT; Siemens v. Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/028, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004), where the tribunal permitted a German investor to invoke the Argentina-Chile BIT to proceed directly to arbitration; National Grid plc v. Argentina (UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction, 20 June 2006), where the tribunal permitted a British investor to invoke a more favorable term in the Argentina-US BIT to avoid 18 months of litigation in the Argentine courts; and several other cases in the same line. Until the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, the jurisprudence appeared to be converging on consensus regarding the 18-month waiting requirement, even though much controversy remained about the broader application of MFN clauses in other, less procedural, contexts.

Now, with one 17-page decision, a national court not only has completely up-ended the result in one major case, but also in the process unsettled what most observers had thought to be a progression towards certainty, predictability and finality with respect to this issue. Much can—and undoubtedly will— be written about the substance of the court’s analysis. But at heart, it serves as a reminder that some degree of uncertainty is inherent in international arbitration in any forum, so long as there is any mechanism for review and challenge of arbitral awards. This is just as true for the “alternative” routes of ad hoc UNCITRAL or non-ICSID institutional arbitration as it is for ICSID arbitration, since all non-ICSID mechanisms allow for national court challenges under the New York Convention, and national courts (once vested of the matter) may be tempted to apply their own national laws, including on core issues such as arbitrability. Arguably, the uncertainty of national court review may be even greater than that of ICSID annulment review, since most national court judges are comparatively unfamiliar with investment treaty jurisprudence and may be less concerned about contributing to the growth of consensus or emerging doctrine. The choice between the two systems, thus, should not be framed as a quest for predictability and finality, but rather as something more fundamental: a decision about which decision-makers will evaluate challenges, and what rules and standard of review they will use in deciding.

By Jean E. Kalicki and Dawn Yamane Hewett

Drawing on US Supreme Court decisions on class arbitration, Professor Abi-Saab finds that there is such a fundamental difference between regular bilateral arbitration and mass proceedings that “special consent” is required for mass proceedings and that this consent cannot be deduced from a simple consent to arbitration.  With respect to ICSID practice, he notes that cases of multi-party arbitration have either proceeded with the consent of the parties or without objection from the respondent.  With respect to mass claims processes in international law, he notes that the practice has been to establish a specific process for the mass claims with the consent of the parties and that the only exception to this uniform practice is the United Nations Compensation Commission, which was established by the Security Council under its Chapter VII powers.

Professor Abi-Saab then turns to a subsidiary objection.  Even if in principle Argentina’s consent to arbitration could be interpreted as consent to mass claims, he finds that the Tribunal does not have the power under the ICSID Convention and Arbitration Rules to adopt procedures for dealing with a mass claims proceeding.  He takes issue with the majority’s distinction between a modification to the arbitration rules without party consent (which, according to the majority, a tribunal may not do) and adopting procedures to address the handling of mass claims (which, according to the majority, a tribunal is entitled to do).  In Professor Abi-Saab’s view, the Tribunal has arrogated itself “the power to set aside, in large measure, the existing Rules of Procedure, and replacing them by another set of rules of its own; acting as a legislator, be it for one case.” (para. 208)

With respect to the concept of admissibility, Professor Abi-Saab appears to affirm that it has a role to play in international arbitration.  He notes that “[g]enerically, the admissibility conditions relate to the claim, and whether it is ripe and capable of being examined judicially, as well as to the claimant, and whether he or she is legally empowered to bring the claim to court.” (para. 18), but goes on to state that “none of these conditions has anything to do with the determination of the scope of consent whether to the general or the  special jurisdiction of tribunals”.  He also notes that “regardless of the classification of the objection as a plea to jurisdiction or to admissibility, the result of the non-fulfilment of the requirements should have been the same, the dismissal of the case.” (para. 25).  He thus takes issue with the approach of the majority, which he views as deciding questions of admissibility in its own discretion based on of its own subjective “balancing of interests” (para. 261).

Although the majority’s decision on consent is certainly controversial, it is sound in principle.  Unlike an arbitration clause in a typical commercial contract, offers to arbitrate in investment treaties are open to the world of qualified investors.  The offer to arbitrate is made to investors with investments.  In principle, this offer to the world should be able to be accepted by a multitude of investors.  If there is consent to arbitrate where one shareholder holds 100,000 shares, why is there not equally consent when there are 100,000 shareholders each holding one share?

Professor Abi-Saab is undoubtedly correct that the existence and scope of a Tribunal’s powers go to jurisdiction.  For example, where an investment treaty provides that a tribunal’s remedial powers are limited to the granting of damages, it would be an excess of jurisdiction for the tribunal to order restitution of property or the specific performance of a contract. However, the Dissent is misguided in finding that the Tribunal exceeded its powers in adapting procedures for a mass claim arbitration.  While it is true that the Abaclat proceedings might diverge from the usual ICSID proceedings, the ICSID Arbitration Rules provide a tribunal significant discretion in how proceedings are organized.  While denouncing the majority’s decision as “replacing” (para. 219) the ICSID Arbitration Rules, the Dissent does not provide any specific examples of where the majority’s proposed adaptation to the proceedings would be contrary to the ICSID Arbitration Rules.  In sum, the Dissent appears to equate what happens in the usual ICSID proceedings with what the ICSID Arbitration Rules require.  For example, the ICSID Rules say very little about the mechanics for taking and considering evidence.

The Dissent expresses valid concerns with the procedures the Majority proposes for the simplification of the examination of claims and whether these procedures satisfy due process.   Nevertheless, it is not possible to say ex ante that simplified procedures for the examination of evidence will necessarily breach the Respondent’s due process rights. The Majority states in conclusion that:

 … the Tribunal remains obliged to examine all relevant aspects of the claims relating to Claimants’ rights under the BIT as well as to Respondent’s obligations thereunder subject to the Parties‘ submissions.  Thus, it is the manner in which the Tribunal will conduct such examination which may diverge from usual ICSID proceedings (para. 533).

Due process is not ignored by diverging from “usual ICSID proceedings”.  The form and mechanics of proceedings are, and should be, a function of the claims to be decided and the evidence to be assessed.  As the Majority notes:

Notwithstanding the high number of Claimants involved, the Tribunal must examine not only the elements necessary to determine its jurisdiction (i.e., the nationality of the Claimants, their status of investor and the existence of their investment, etc.), but also those necessary to establish Claimants‘ claims and relating to the merits of the case (i.e., the existence of a breach by Argentina of its obligations under the BIT, the effect of such breach on Claimants‘ investment, etc.). Thus, the high number of Claimants may not serve as an excuse not to examine such elements and adaptations to the procedure may therefore not affect the object of the Tribunal‘s examination. (para. 529).

The task ahead for the Abaclat Tribunal is gargantuan.  Examining all elements of the claims and ensuring that the Respondent is accorded due process will be extremely time consuming.  Even if one may well wonder if an ad hoc Tribunal of three busy arbitrators is the best mechanism to address this kind of dispute, the majority was correct to find that it can hear a mass claim.

This post is written by Andrew Newcombe as a member of the ITA Academic Council.

Georg von Segesser / Alexandre Mazuranic

The background is as follows:

To build a golf course in Moscow, a Russian company (the “Russian Borrower”) had borrowed 22 million Swedish Crowns from a Swedish bank (the “Swedish Bank”) under a loan agreement entered into on 24 January 1990 (the “Loan Agreement”). The Loan Agreement included an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”).

On 19 December 2008 the Swedish bank requested arbitration against the Russian Borrower seeking repayment of a certain capital amount under the Loan Agreement. The Russian Borrower rejected the claim and argued, inter alia, that the Loan Agreement violated then mandatory currency regulations in the former Soviet Union and that the dispute was therefore not arbitrable.

The SCC decided that the seat of the arbitration proceedings should be Stockholm.

The sole arbitrator held in the award, inter alia, that the Russian Borrower had not proved that the Loan Agreement violated then mandatory currency regulations in the former Soviet Union or in Russia and the Russian Borrower was ordered to pay a certain capital amount with interest thereon and compensation for costs.

The Russian Borrower turned to the Svea Court of Appeal and requested, inter alia, a declaration that the award was invalid on the basis that the award included the review of an issue which is regulated in mandatory currency regulations. Hence, the Russian Borrower argued that the issue was not arbitrable and the award should therefore be declared invalid. In the alternative the Russian Borrower requested annulment of the award on the basis that the arbitration agreement was not valid and binding as it violated mandatory currency regulations.

The Russian Borrower argued as follows: Rigorous currency regulations were in force in the beginning of the 1990s, both in Sweden and in the Soviet Union. Import or export of currency without authorization from the proper authorities was not allowed. Nor was the reduction of a loan amount or granting a respite for payment. In Sweden this followed from the Exchange Control Act (Sw: valutalagen (1939:350)) and the Exchange Control Regulation (Sw: valutaförordningen (1959:264)). The provisions were sanctioned by penalty and any currency could be forfeited. Since the Loan Agreement violated these provisions the Loan Agreement was invalid.

Further, the parties could not before or after a dispute had arisen “heal” the invalidity of the Loan Agreement. It was not amenable to settlement. Hence, issues arising out of the Loan Agreement were not arbitrable and no dispute under the arbitration clause could be referred to arbitration. This in turn meant that the arbitration agreement was invalid. The relevant point in time for assessing whether an issue is arbitrable is when the arbitration agreement is entered into.

The Swedish Bank disputed that the award was invalid or that it should be annulled. The issue tried in the award – whether the Russian Borrower had a payment liability under the Loan Agreement – is arbitrable. Further, the question whether an arbitration agreement is valid and binding has to be tried separately. The arbitration agreement is valid and binding under Swedish law which is the governing law of the arbitration agreement. Even though the main agreement may be invalid (which the Swedish Bank disputed) this does not mean that the arbitration agreement is invalid. The currency regulations are of no relevance for the validity of the arbitration agreement.

The Svea Court of Appeal held as follows:

Since the arbitration proceedings had been held in Stockholm it was clear that the arbitration agreement was governed by Swedish law. The question whether the dispute was arbitrable was therefore to be tried under Swedish law and under the Arbitration Act only disputes in respect of which the parties may reach a settlement may be referred to arbitration.

An arbitral award is invalid if it includes the determination of an issue which, in accordance with Swedish law, may not be decided by arbitrators (lack of arbitrability). However, the fact that there is mandatory legislation in a certain area of the law does not automatically mean that disputes in this area are not arbitrable. With respect to international disputes which involve foreign legislation it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis whether the foreign law is such that a voluntary settlement of the dispute before a Swedish court would not be accepted. With regard to economical-political regulations in a foreign state there is often no reason why the mandatory provisions should affect the possibility to settle in Sweden and, hence, the arbitrability under Swedish law. This view is in accordance with an international trend to accept that an international dispute may be settled by arbitration although a corresponding national dispute would not be arbitrable.

The relevant point in time for assessing whether the dispute in question is arbitrable is when the Loan Agreement was entered into, i.e. on 24 January 1990. At that time the parties should be able to foresee the consequences of any lack of arbitrability.

When the Loan Agreement was entered into, Sweden as well as the Soviet Union had mandatory currency regulations. The Swedish Exchange Control Act and Exchange Control Regulation included restrictions on the import and export of foreign currency and securities. The same applied to the purchase and sale of foreign currency and foreign claims. However, there were no restrictions for a Swedish legal entity to enter into a loan agreement whereby a foreign legal entity became indebted. The currency regulations were not aimed at disallowing a creditor-debtor relation as such; but concerned the making of payments cross the borders.

The parties’ claim and debt under the Loan Agreement could not be deemed subject to mandatory legislation in such way that this undertaking was not amenable to settlement. Hence, the parties could reach a settlement regarding this. The issue tried in the award was the debt undertaking; not how any payment should be made. The dispute was thus arbitrable.

Since the mandatory currency regulations did not mean that a non-arbitrable issue was tried in the award the arbitration agreement was valid and binding. This is regardless of whether said currency regulations may entail that parts of the Loan Agreement were invalid.

The ruling of the Svea Court of Appeal seems quite arbitration friendly and is in line with the international trend to maximize the scope of application of an arbitration agreement. The restrictions in the previous currency control regulations in Sweden were narrowly interpreted and the doctrine of separability was firmly adhered to. The currency regulations in the former Soviet Union were not analyzed at all by the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal seemed convinced that the issue in dispute – whether there is a payment liability under a loan agreement – was not subject to any mandatory currency regulations. Further, the Court of Appeal did not expressly address whether the Swedish law test for arbitrability – that the dispute must be amenable to settlement – should be determined under Swedish substantive law or the lex causae. It has been suggested in Swedish legal doctrine that the question whether the parties are capable of settling the dispute should normally be assessed under the law governing the main contract. If the governing law is foreign law the outcome of that test under foreign law is decisive for the question of arbitrability. In this case it is unclear whether lex causae was Swedish law or any foreign law. The reason why this was not dealt with by the Court of Appeal might be that it had no relevance here as the previous currency regulations, both in Sweden and Russia, did not prohibit debt undertakings per se.

Leave to appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal² and the Russian Borrower has appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court.

Although the Tribunal’s finding that it can hear mass claim has garnered the most interest, various aspects of the Decision have sparked debate.  The Tribunal held that the Claimants’ security entitlements in Argentinean bonds are investments for the purposes of Article 25, ICSID Convention and protected under the Argentina-Italy BIT.  Another controversy arises from the fact that the Decision was issued by the majority of the Tribunal without the simultaneous release of the dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion, which the Decision states is “Forthcoming”, has yet to be released.

On 15 September 2011, the Argentine Republic filed a request for the disqualification of the majority of the Tribunal (Professors Pierre Tercier (President) and Albert Jan van den Berg), alleging that the two arbitrators could not be relied on to exercise independent judgment.   The disqualification request criticizes the two arbitrators in particularly strident language, arguing that the transmission of the Decision: “(a) without the dissenting opinion of the other arbitrator, (b) without his consent, and (c) without even waiting for a draft of said opinion” together with the majority’s rejection of Argentina’s request for provisional measures “is a manifestation of an absolutely inappropriate conduct” (para. 20).

Although the Decision raises a series of interesting issues (for example, see Sarah Ganz‘s post on the Decision’s treatment of the 18-month litigation requirement in the BIT), in this post I focus on the majority’s distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility, a subject of one of my previous posts.  In its Decision, the majority of the Tribunal (the Tribunal) states that it is appropriate and necessary to distinguish issues relating to jurisdiction and admissibility (para. 248) and that the “guiding thought of the Tribunal for distinguishing issues of jurisdiction from issues of admissibility has been the following cornerstone consideration:

 If there was only one Claimant, what would be the requirements for ICSID’s jurisdiction over its claim? If the issue raised relates to such requirements, it is a matter of jurisdiction. If the issue raised relates to another aspect of the proceedings, which would not apply if there was just one Claimant, then it must be considered a matter of admissibility and not of jurisdiction.” (para. 249)

The Tribunal’s analysis thus takes a two-fold approach.  First, it analyzes the mass claims issue within the context of the Parties’ consent to arbitration (a question of jurisdiction) and second, it analyzes the admissibility of mass claims.

The Decision is perhaps the clearest example of an investment treaty tribunal distinguishing between jurisdiction and admissibility.  The Tribunal highlights at para. 247 that:

 (i)            While a lack of jurisdiction stricto sensu means that the claim cannot at all be brought in front of the body called upon, a lack of admissibility means that the claim was neither fit nor mature for judicial treatment;

(ii)            Whereby a decision refusing a case based on a lack of arbitral jurisdiction is usually subject to review by another body, a decision refusing a case based on a lack of admissibility can usually not be subject to review by another body;

(iii)            Whereby a final refusal based on a lack of jurisdiction will prevent the parties from successfully re-submitting the same claim to the same body, a refusal based on admissibility will, in principle, not prevent the claimant from resubmitting its claim, provided it cures the previous flaw causing the inadmissibility.

With respect to consent, the Tribunal rightly held that if, in principle, it had jurisdiction over one claimant, “it is difficult to conceive why and how the Tribunal could loose such jurisdiction where the number of Claimants outgrows a certain threshold.” Further, it highlighted that “the collective nature of the present proceeding derives primarily from the nature of the investment made.”:

The ICSID Convention aims at promoting and protecting investments, without however further defining the concept of investment and leaving this task to the parties through relevant instruments such as BITs … Thus, where the BIT covers investments, such as bonds, which are susceptible of involving in the context of the same investment a high number of investors, and where such investments require a collective relief in order to provide effective protection to such investment, it would be contrary to the purpose of the BIT and to the spirit of ICSID, to require in addition to the consent to ICSID arbitration in general, a supplementary express consent to the form of such arbitration. In such cases, consent to ICSID arbitration must be considered to cover the form of arbitration necessary to give efficient protection and remedy to the investors and their investments, including arbitration in the form of collective proceedings.  (para. 490).

In conclusion, the Tribunal, rightly held that “the “mass” aspect of proceedings relates to the modalities and implementation of the ICSID proceedings and not to the question whether Respondent consented to ICSID arbitration. Therefore, it relates to the question of admissibility and not to the question of jurisdiction.” (para. 492).

The Tribunal took a purposive approach to the interpretation of the ICSID Convention’s “silence” as to mass claims, holding that it would be “contrary to the purpose of the BIT and to the spirit of ICSID to interpret this silence as a “qualified silence” categorically prohibiting collective proceedings, just because it was not mentioned in the ICSID Convention” (para. 519).

With respect to the adaptations, the Tribunal identified the need to adopt mechanisms to allow a simplified verification of evidentiary materials with respect to each individual claim (para 531) and the manner of the representation of the claimants (paras. 531-532).  In finding that it had the power to adapt procedures to address the “mass claims” aspect of the case, the Tribunal states that adaptations must consider the principle of due process and a must seek a balance between the procedural rights and interests of each party (para. 519).  In assessing that balance the Tribunal considered: (i) under what conditions is it acceptable to change the method of examination from individual to group treatment; (ii) to what extent are Argentina‘s defense rights affected in comparison to 60,000 separate proceedings; and (iii) is it admissible to deprive Claimants of certain procedural rights (para. 539).

Argentina’s had argued that there are strong policy reasons why ICSID is an inappropriate forum to address issues with respect to sovereign debt restructuring.   The Tribunal flatly rejected this argument, rightly stating that “Policy reasons are for States to take into account when negotiating BITs and consenting to ICSID jurisdiction in general, not for the Tribunal to take into account in order to repair an inappropriately negotiated or drafted BIT.”

It its disqualification request, Argentina suggests that the procedural mechanisms set out in the Decision are an unjustifiable limit on Argentina’s right of defence and further evidence of the Tribunal’s alleged lack of independent and impartial judgment (paras. 25 et seq.).   Although Argentina has characterized the majority’s Decision as “egregious” and various Tribunal statements as “shocking” and “absurd”, this hyperbole should seen for what is—a regrettable attempt to appeal a tribunal decision through the guise of a disqualification request.  The majority of the Tribunal’s approach to mass claims is correct in principle and practical, objective and fair-minded in practice.  International arbitration can be an effective and efficient system of dispute resolution because of its ability to adopt flexible procedures to address myriad claims and issues.  The majority’s Decision reflects this approach and will stand the test of time.

Up to now, it was disputed by scholars whether the requirements for witness testimony in state court proceedings also applied in arbitration.

The Court referred to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s case law according to which the validity of a witness testimony is governed by the applicable procedural laws. In the absence of specific provisions, it is not required that the transcripts/minutes be read to the witness after his testimony and that the witness signs the transcripts, both of which are requirements for witness testimony before state courts.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the decision:

(i) The witness must be reminded of his/her duty to tell the truth;

(ii) The witness must be made aware of any privileges and of his/her possible right to refuse testimony;

(iii) The witness must be informed of the criminal consequences of perjury.

It is therefore recommended to clearly indicate in a procedural order that witness and expert testimonies or statements by translators and interpreters shall be recorded by court reporters and that the transcripts will be submitted to the parties, but that the transcripts will not be read to nor signed by the witnesses, etc.

(Decision of the Zurich High Court published in ZR 110 (2011) Nr. 27, p. 78 – 84)

Georg von Segesser