IJ №1 (37) 2021
Bona fide problem in the activity of international judges

Abstract

The article examines the forms of bad faith of international judges, the possibilities of counteracting manifestations of bad faith and the factors that stimulate bad faith. Among the first, there are forms related to the appointment of arbitrators (moonlighting, revolving door, issue conflict, etc.), and forms related to the process itself (ex parte communication, pressure on other judges, involving an assistant to perform the work of a judge, etc.). The article provides specific examples of bad faith and analyzes the positions of the courts and doctrine. The focus is on manifestations of bad faith in international investment arbitration, the reform of which is now on the UNCITRAL agenda. The author describes institutional, organizational, procedural and conceptual measures to counteract bad faith of international judges; special attention is paid to the latter, which imply the consolidation of new procedural and substantive concepts, for example, the concept of the presumption of guilt of judges, the concept of the international judicial decision as a sui generis agreement, etc. The author also calls for debates about philosophical, sociological, political, historical and economic aspects of international justice based on the recognition of the fact that it is not a static institution, but, on the contrary, is undergoing profound transformations (like the world as a whole). In conclusion, the author fixes the factors that stimulate bad faith: related to the general shortcomings of international law; associated with its dependence on the political environment; concerning the processes taking place within the judicial corporation; and, finally, concerning the transition of our civilization to the stage of postmodernity, which presupposes distrust in relation to metanarratives. The latter tendency is defined as general, objective and natural; the crisis of international justice in this regard is only one aspect of the general crisis of law and, at the same time, one of its evidence.

About the author:
Vladislav Tolstykh — Doctor of Sciences in Law, Scientific Director of the Higher School of Law of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University, leading researcher at the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Citation: Tolstykh V. (2021) Problema bona fide v deyatel’nosti mezhdunarodnykh sudey [Bona fide problem in the activity of international judges]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.11, no.1, pp.57–80. (In Russian).

References

Alvik I. (2020) The Justification of Privilege in International Investment Law: Preferential Treatment of Foreign Investors as a Problem of Legitimacy. European Journal of International Law, vol.31, no.1, pp.289–312.

Bernasconi-Osterwalder N., Brauch M.D. (2017) Is “Moonlighting” a Problem? The Role of ICJ Judges in ISDS. Available at: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/icj-judges-isds-commentary.pdf (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Bjorklund A.K., Behn D., Franck S.D., Giorgetti C. (2020) The Diversity Deficit in International Investment Arbitration. Journal of World Investment & Trade, vol.21, no.2–3, pp.410–440.

Carty A. (2007) Philosophy of International Law, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

De Arechaga E.J. (1983) Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe pravo [El derecho internacional contemporaneo], Yu.I.Papchenko (transl.), Moscow: Progress. (In Russian).

Dunoff J., Giorgetti C., Hamamoto S., Nottage L., Ratner S., Schill S., Waibel M. (2019) Lack of Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators. Available at: https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=927ebed6-954f-4b2d-b753-61b29e9c60cc (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Fahner J. (2020) A New Hope for the Yukos Shareholders — PCA Awards Revived by the Hague Court of Appeal. EJIL: Talk! 4 March. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-new-hope-for-the-yukos-shareholders-pca-awards-revived-by-the-hague-court-of-appeal/ (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Giorgetti C. (2020) The Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: An Important Step Forward in the Reform Process? EJIL: Talk! 13 August. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-draft-code-of-conduct-for-adjudicators-in-investor-state-dispute-settlement-an-important-step-forward-in-the-reform-process/ (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Giorgetti C., Ratner S., Dunoff J., Hamamoto S., Nottage L., Schill S., Waibel M. (2020) Independence and Impartiality in Investment Dispute Settlement: Assessing Challenges and Reform Options. Available at: https://www.jus.uio.no/pluricourts/english/projects/leginvest/academic-forum/papers/2020/6-independence.pdf (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Ispolinov A. (2017) Reshenie Suda EAES po sporu Rossiyskaya Federatsiya protiv Respubliki Belarus’: pravosudie posredi politicheskogo konflikta [Decision of the EAEU Court on the dispute between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus: justice in the midst of a political conflict]. Zakon.ru, 17 March. Available at: https://zakon.ru/blog/2017/3/17/reshenie_suda_eaes_po_sporu_rossijskaya_federaciya_protiv_respubliki_belarus_pravosudie_posredi_poli (accessed: 22.02.2021). (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2018) Osobye mneniya v mezhdunarodnykh sudakh: doktrina i praktika [Dissenting opinions at international courts: doctrine and practice]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no.1, pp.218–233. (In Russian).

Janeba E. (2019) Regulatory Chill and the Effect of Investor State Dispute Settlements. Review of International Economics, vol.27, no.4, pp.1172–1198.

Khvaley V. (2020) O korruptsii v arbitrazhe i nezavisimosti arbitrazhnykh institutsiy [On corruption in arbitration and the independence of arbitration institutions]. Zakon.ru, 10 April. Available at: https://zakon.ru/blog/2020/04/10/o_korrupcii_v_arbitrazhe_i_nezavisimosti_arbitrazhnyh_institucij (accessed: 22.02.2021). (In Russian).

Koskenniemi M. (2004) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, 4th ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Langford M., Behn D., Lie R. (2017) The Ethics and Empirics of Double Hatting. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008643 (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Langford M., Behn D., Létourneau-Tremblay L. (2019) Empirical Perspectives on Investment Arbitration: What Do We Know? Does It Matter? Available at: https://www.cids.ch/images/Documents/Academic-Forum/7_Empirical_perspectives_-_WG7.pdf (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Lillich R.B., White G.E. (1976) The Deliberative Process of the International Court of Justice: A Preliminary Critique and Some Possible Reforms. American Journal of International Law, vol.70, no.1, pp.28–40.

Lyotard J.-F. (1998) Sostoyanie postmoderna [La condition postmoderne], N.A.Shmatko (transl.), Moscow: Institut eksperemental’noy sotsiologii; Saint Petersburg: Aleteyya. (In Russian).

Neshataeva T.N. (2016) Sud EAES v deystvii: Interv’yu [EAEU court in action: an interview]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, vol.100, no.9, pp.11–14. (In Russian).

Newcombe A. (2011) Disqualification Based on Multiple Appointments — Divergence in Recent ICSID Decisions? Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 23 June. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2011/06/23/disqualification-based-on-multiple-appointments-divergence-in-recent-icsid-decisions/ (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Popova I.C., Polebaum J.L. (2018) Emerging Expectations for Arbitrators: “Issue Conflict” in Investor-State Arbitration and Beyond. Fordham International Law Journal, vol.41, no.4, pp.937–952.

Roberts A. (2017) A Possible Approach to Transitional Double Hatting in Investor-State Arbitration. EJIL: Talk! 31 July. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-possible-approach-to-transitional-double-hatting-in-investor-state-arbitration/ (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Roberts A., Bouraoui Z. (2018) UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: Concerns About Arbitral Appointments, Incentives and Legitimacy. EJIL: Talk! 6 June. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isds-reforms-concerns-about-arbitral-appointments-incentives-and-legitimacy/ (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Runjić L. (2019) Consequences of the Ex Parte Communications in the Arbitration Between Croatia and Slovenia. Pécs Journal of International and European Law, no.1–2, pp.6–28.

Sands Ph. (2015) 2015 ESIL Annual Conference Final Lecture: Developments in Geopolitics — The End(s) of Judicialization. EJIL: Talk! 12 October. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/2015-esil-annual-conference-final-lecture-developments-in-geopolitics-the-ends-of-judicialization/ (accessed: 22.02.2021).

Smbatyan A.S. (2012) Resheniya organov mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya v sisteme mezhduna­rodnogo publichnogo prava [Decisions of organs of international justice in the system of public international law], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).

Tolstykh V. (2018) Nekotorye obshchie problemy deyatel’nosti Suda Evraziyskogo ehkonomicheskogo soyuza [From apology to apology: some general problems arising from the activity of the Eurasian Economic Union Court]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.3, pp.66–7(In Russian).

Tolstykh V.L. (2019) Mezhdunarodnyy arbitrazh protiv morskogo prava (analiz resheniy po delam Arctic Sunrise, o Yuzhno-Kitayskom more i sporu mezhdu Khorvatiey i Sloveniey) [International arbitration against maritime law (analysis of arbitration courts ruling in Arctic Sunrise case, South Chinese sea case and on border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia)]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no.3, pp.128–140. (In Russian).

Issue articles