Originally from Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law - Volume 18

Preview Page

PANEL 2

DR. TODD J. WEILER: Hi everybody. Welcome back. I’m not going to say very much other than to thank Tim for being one of the longest running supporters of this endeavor that we’ve had, and I will just leave it to Tim to talk about our second panel and introduce them. Thanks, Tim. 

MR. TIMOTHY G. NELSON: This panel is dealing with an issue of vital importance to investment treaty arbitration, but also arbitration generally—the standards by which, at least in the UK and the United States, an award may vacated (per U.S.-speak)/annulled (per international-speak). Occasionally at conferences amongst the arbitration community, whenever there’s a recent decision of any court vacating any arbitral award, there may be a ritual denunciation of this interloper-judge who had the gall to set aside an award.  I take a somewhat different view. I still believe in the fundamental accountability of everyone before the law. Voltaire once reminded us that in the British Navy, it was the custom to shoot an admiral from time to time to encourage the others. And I like to think that it is some encouragement for arbitrators and for counsel to know that if things go truly off-piste, there will be someone else looking in on your work to watch over you. 

We have a panel ready to discuss all of this. We have our authors, Karan Joseph from the Shardul Amarchand firm in India, and Trisha Mitra Veber from Reed Smith in London. They will be sharing their views on whether the UK “appeal on a point of law” is a better vehicle than the U.S. “manifest disregard doctrine” (such as it is).