Originally from: Annulment of ICSID Awards

Preview Page

It is difficult to write about a case in which the author has acted as counsel for one of the parties.  This is particularly true where the decision is, albeit only in part, contrary to the position defended therein.  The situation becomes even more complicated if the author was, and still is, firmly convinced that the position that he was defending is the right one; both from a systemic point of view insofar as the efficiency and integrity of arbitration as a dispute settlement mechanism are concerned, as well as with respect to the specific issues of due process and legitimacy raised in the case.

Of course, being aware of the terms of the request for annulment, the different presentations by the parties and the discussions before the ad hoc Committee allows for a more thorough critical approach than that of those who only know the wording of the decision.  However, such awareness can also be a distraction, diverting attention away from the systemic aspects referred to above to the more particular and immediate concerns about how the decision reflects the actual conduct of the proceeding.