Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration

Eroglu, Erman

Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration

Erman EROĞLU (Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi, Hukuk Fakültesi, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi

10 0

Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 295 - 320 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 07-08-2023

Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration

Öz:

Arbitration is mostly a fair trial; nevertheless, it may accommodate malfunctioning. Arbitrator self-interest is one of the most important malfunctions incorporated into arbitration. It is defined as arbitrator’s act of abusing their power, which is originally rendered to them to be used in fair arbitration only, to almost force the parties to engage in actions to arbitrator’s liking or to gain unfair profit. Arbitrator self-interest is evaluated under three major categories in this study; namely, arbitrators’ failure to disclose, unreasonable fee increases, and delayed award. After elucidating self- interested arbitrator in detail, suggestions, sanctions targeting arbitrator’s reputation and arbitrators’ civil liability, are proposed for dealing with these problems.

Anahtar Kelime: Arbitrator Ethics Self-Interest in Arbitration Self-Interested Arbitrator The Power of Arbitrators Arbitrators’ Liability

Hakemin Tarafsızlığı: Uluslararası Ticari Tahkimde Sorumsuz Hakem

Öz:

Tahkim yargılaması alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemleri içerisinde etkin kullanılan bir yargılama biçimidir. Ancak gelişmekte olan tahkim çeşitli sorunlar ihtiva etmektedir. Tahkim yargılamasını yürütmekle görevli olan hakemlerin, tarafların iradelerinin hilafına, şahsi menfaati doğrultusunda işlemlerde bulunması bu sorunlardan birisini oluşturmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, hakemin şahsi menfaatleri üç ana kategoride değerlendirilmektedir. Bu kategoriler; hakemin tarafsızlığını etki edecek durumları açıklamaması, makul olmayan hakem ücreti artışları ve geciktirilmiş hakem kararıdır. Bu makalede, sorumsuz hakem kavramı irdelendikten sonra bu kavramdan kaynaklanan sorunların çözümü için hakemin itibarına ilişkin yaptırımlar ve hakemin hukuki sorumluluğu esas alınarak çözüm önerilerinde bulunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelime: Tahkimde Etik Sorumsuz Hakem Hakemin Tarafsızlığı Hakemin Yetkisi Hakemin Hukuki Sorumluluğu

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik

AKINCI, Ziya, Milletlerarası Tahkim, B.4, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul 2016.
American Jurisprudence 2d: Alternative Dispute Resolution §156 (1995).
ANGOURA, Stavroula, The Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrators in International Commercial Arbitration, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh & Co. Baden-Baden 2022.
AT&T Corp v Saudi Cable Co [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 625 (15 May 2000).
BALES, Richard A/IRION, Sue, How Congress Can Make a More Equitable Federal Arbitration Act, 113(4) Penn State Law Review, C.113, 1081-1102.
BALKAR BOZKURT, Süheyla, Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Hakemlerin Bağımsızlık Yükümlülüğü, Onikilevha Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2016.
BELOHLAVEK, Alexander J, Tunde, Procedural Irregularities and Arbitrator Misconduct during Proceedings, (Editör: DIMATTEO, Larry A/INFANTINO, Marta/POTIN, Nathalie M-P, The Cambridge Handbook of Judicial Control of Arbitral Awards, Cambridge 2020, s. 54-70.
BLACKABY, Nigel/PARTASIDES, Constantine/REDFERN, Alan/HUNTER, Martin J, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, B. 6, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015.
BISHOP, Doak/REED, Lucy, Practical Guidelines for Interviewing, Selecting and Challenging Party-appointed Arbitrators in International Commercial Arbitration, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998.
BORN, Gary B, International Commercial Arbitration, Aspen Publishing, Boston 2011.
BRESLIN, Philip H./ZIRKEL, Perry A., Arbitrator Impartiality and the Burden of Proof, Labor Law Journal, C.44, Sa.6, 381-384.
BROWN, Jenny, Expansion of Arbitral Immunity: Is Absolute Immunity a Foregone Conclusion, The, Journal of Dispute Resolution, C.2009, Sa.1, s.225-238.
BURGER, John D/WALTERS, Stephen J K, Arbitrator Bias and Self-Interest: Lessons from the Baseball Labor Market, Journal of Labor Research, C.26, Sa.2, 267-280.
BYRNE, David, Payment of Advances on Fees to Arbitrators in ICC Proceedings, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, C.7, Sa.2, 84-87.
CARBONNEAU, Thomas E. Cases and Materials on Arbitration Law and Practice, B.5, Minnesota 2009.
ÇELİKEL, Aysel/ERDEM, B. Bahadır, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, B.16, Beta Basım Yayım, İstanbul 2020.
CEVC, Agata, Civil Liability of Arbitrators, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenged Series, C.3, Sa.1, 405-422.
CHOI, Stephen/FISCH, Jill E/PRITCHARD, Adam C, The Influence of Arbitrator Background and Representation on Arbitration Outcomes, Virginia Law and Business Review, C.9, Sa.1, 43-90.
COLE, Tony, Authority and Contemporary International Arbitration, Los Angeles Law Review, C.70, Sa.3, 801-854.
COMMISSION, Jeffrey P, How Much Does an ICSID Arbitration Cost? A Snapshot of the Last Five Years, Kluwer Arbitration, (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration. com/2016/02/29/how-much-does-an-icsid-arbitration-cost-a-snapshot-of-the-last-five-years, erişim tarihi 10 Nisan 2022).
Commonwealth Coatings Corp.v. Continental Casualty Co. 393 U.S. 145, 149 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968).
DE VIETRI, Raphaël/DHARMANANDA, Kanaga, Impartiality and the Issue of Repeat Arbitrators a Reply to Slaoui, Journal of International Arbitration, C.28, Sa.3, 187-200.
DONEFF, Andrea/ORDOVER, Abraham, Alternatives to Litigation: Mediation, Arbitration, and the Art of Dispute Resolution, B.3, National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Colorado 2014).
DOTSETH, Keith A, Disqualifying Arbitrators for Failure to Make Complete Disclosures After Scandinavian Re v. St. Paul Re: What is ‘Evident Partiality’?, Defense Counsel Journal, C.79, Sa.3, 347-354.
DOUGHTY, Robert A, Pyrrhic Victory: French Strategies and Operations in the Great War, Belknap Press, Cambridge 2005.
EKŞİ, Nuray, Milletlerarası Ticaret Hukuku, Beta Basım Yayım, İstanbul 2015.
EL-KOSHERI, S/YOUSSEF, Karim Y, The Independence of International Arbitrators: An Arbitrator’s Perspective, Special Supplement 43-75.
Flock v. Beattie, 2010 ABQB 193.
FRANCK, Susan D, The Liability of International Arbitrators: A Comparative Analysis and Proposal for Qualified Immunity’ (2000) 20(1) New York Law School Journal of International Law and Comparative Law, C.20, Sa.1, 1-59.
GABRIEL, Henry, Ethics for Commercial Arbitrators: Basic Principles and Emerging Standards, Wyoming Law Review, C.5, Sa.2, 453-470.
Getma International and others v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/29.
GOMEZ, Katia Fach/RODRIGUEZ, Ana Mercedes Rodriguez, 60 Years of the New York Convention: Key Issues and Future Challenges, Wolters Kluwer, New York 2019.
GÜNGÖR, Gülin, Türk Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2021.
HABEGGER, Philipp, The Arbitrator’s Duty of Efficiency: A Call for Increased Utilization of Arbitral Powers, The Powers and Duties of an Arbitrator: Liber Amicorum Pierre A. Karrer, (Editör: SHAUGHNESSY, Patricia/TUNG, Sherlin), Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aaa den Rijn 2017 123-135.
HASCHER, Dominique, Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators: 3 Issues, American University International Law Review, C.27, Sa.4, 789-806.
HAUSMANINGER, Christian, Civil Liability of Arbitrators - Comparative Analysis and Proposals for Reform, Journal of International Arbitration, C.7, Sa.4, 7-48.
HENN, John H, Where Should You Litigate Your Business Dispute?: In an Arbitration? Or through the Courts?, AAA Handbook on Arbitration Practice, B.3, Jurisnet, New York 2016, 1-14.
International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflict of Interest, (https://www.ibanet.org, erişim tarihi 10 Mayıs 2022).
International Ins. Co. v. Schrager, 593 So. 2d 1196, 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).
Jivraj v. Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40.
John Street Leasehold LLC v. Brunjes, 650 N.Y.S.2d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996).
Jones v. Brown, 54 Iowa 74 (1880).
KING, D Brian King/MOLOO, Rahim, International Arbitrators as Lawmakers, New York University Journal International Law and Politics, C.46, Sa.3, 875-908.
L&H Airco Inc. v. Rapistan Corp., 446 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1989).
Laker Airways Incorporated v FLS Aerospace Limited [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
LEW, Julian D M/ MISTELIS, Loukas A/ KRÖLL, Stefan, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, Londra 2003.
London Court of International Arbitration, Costs and Duration: 2013-2016, (Report) 8, 3 October 2017, (https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-releases-updated-costs-and-duration-analysis.aspx, erişim 13 Mayıs 2022).
KAYALI, Didem, Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Hakemlerin Bağımsızlığı ve Tarafsızlığı, Seçkin Yayınevi, Ankara 2021.
KONURALP, Orhan Emre, Hakemlerin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, T.C. İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi Ekonomi ve Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, [Danışman: Prof. Dr. Murat Atalı], Ankara 2018.
MALINTOPPI, Loretta, Remarks on Arbitrators’ Independence, Impartiality and Duty to Disclose in Investment Arbitration, The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, C.7, Sa.3, 351-356.
MOSES, Margaret L, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
MULLERAT, Ramon/BLANCH, Juliet, The Liability of Arbitrators: A Survey of Current Practice, Dispute Resolution International, C.1, Sa.1, 99-123.
MURPHY, Elizabeth A, Standards of Arbitrators Impartiality: How Impartial Must They Be? - Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., (1996) 1996(2) Journal of Dispute Resolution, C. 1996, Sa.2, 463-476.
MUYANJA, Jimmy M, A Note on Arbitration and Criminal Liability in Uganda, Journal of International Arbitration, C.16, Sa.3, 119-126.
NOMER, Ergin/EKŞİ, Nuray/ÖZTEKİN GELGEL, Günseli, Milletlerarası Tahkim Hukuku, Beta Basım Yayım, İstanbul 2013.
O’REILLY, Michael, Practical Guides Costs in Arbitration Proceedings, B. 2, Routledge, Oxfordshire 2013.
PARK, William W, Arbitrators and Accuracy, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, C.1, Sa.1 25-53.
PARK, William W, Arbitrator Integrity: The Transient and the Permanent, San Diego Law Review, C.46, Sa.1, 629-649.
PAULSSON, Jan, Moral Hazard in International Dispute Resolution, (2010) 25(2) ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Review, C.25, Sa.2, 339-356.
PAULSSON, Jan the Idea of Arbitration, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
Portman Building Society v Dusangh [2000] 2 All ER 625 (Comm).
POTIN, Nathalie/OGUNSEITAN, Tunde, Exploring the Parameters of Conflicts of Interest, (Editör: DIMATTEO, Larry A/INFANTINO, Marta/POTIN, Nathalie M-P, The Cambridge Handbook of Judicial Control of Arbitral Awards, Cambridge 2020, s.29-53.
RAU, Alan Scott, On Integrity in Private Judging, Arbitrator International, C.14, Sa.2, 115- 156.
REISMAN, Michael W. Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration Breakdown and Repair, Duke University Press Books, Durham 1992.
ROGERS, Catherine A, Arbitrator Intelligence: The Basics, Kluwer Arbitration, (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/02/27/ai-3, erişim tarihi 15 Mayıs 2022).
ROGERS, Catherine A, Arbitrator Intelligence: The Pilot Project and Beyond, Kluwer Arbitration, (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2015/01/20/arbitrator- intelligence-the-pilot-project-and-beyond, erişim tarihi 15 Mayıs 2022).
ROGERS, Catherine A, Ethics in International Arbitration, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014.
ROGERS, Catherine A, When Arbitrators and Institutions Clash, or the Strange Case of Getma v. Guinea, Kluwer Arbitration, (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration. com/2016/05/12/when-arbitrators-and-institutions-clash-or-the-strange-case-of-getma-v-guinea, erişim tarihi 10 Mayıs 2022).
ROGERS, Catherine A/JENG, Jeffrey C, The Ethics of International Arbitrators, (Editör: NEWMAN, Lawrence W/HILL, Richard D), The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration, B.3, JurisNet, New York 2014 175-207.
ROGERS, Catherine A., The Vocation of International Arbitrators, American University International Law Review, C. 20, s. 957-1020.
SAVAGE, John/GAILLARD, Emmanuel, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, New York 1999.
SAYED, Abdulhay, Corruption in International Trade and Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer International Law, New York 2004.
Schedule of Fees, (https://icsid.worldbank.org/services/content/schedule-fees, erişim tarihi 10 Nisan 2022).
STIPANOWICH, Thomas J, The Arbitration Fairness Index: Using a Public Rating System to Skirt the Legal Logjam and Promote Fairer and More Effective Arbitration of Employment and Consumer Disputes, University of Kansas Law Review, C.60, Sa.4, 986-1043.
Sutcliffe v. Thackrah and others, [1974] A.C. 727 et seq.
SÜRAL, Ceyda, Hakemin Hukuki Sorumluluğu, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 10, Sa.2, s. 229-254.
ŞANLI, Cemal, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları, Beta Basım Yayım, İstanbul 2019.
TARMAN, Zehra Derya, Yabancı Mahkeme ve Hakem Kararlarının Türkiye’de Tenfizinde Karşılaşılan Sorunlara İlişkin Bazı Tespitler, Public and Private Law Bulletin, C.37, Sa.2, s. 798-820.
THOMSON, Douglas, GAR Arbitrator Research Tool Gets London Grilling
Global Arbitration Review (https://globalarbitrationreview.com/gar-arbitrator-research-tool-gets-london-grilling, erişim tarihi 24 Mayıs 2022).
TRAKMAN, Leon, The Reform of Commercial Arbitration in Australia: Recent and Prospective Developments, The Developing World of Arbitration: A comparative Study of Arbitration Reform in the Asia Pacific, (Editör: REYES, Anselmo/GU, Weixia), Hart Publishing, Oxford 2018, 251-278.
WILSKE, Stephan, Legal Challenges to Delayed Arbitral Awards, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, C.6, Sa.2, 153-192.

APA	Eroglu E (2022). Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. , 295 - 320.
Chicago	Eroglu Erman Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. (2022): 295 - 320.
MLA	Eroglu Erman Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. , 2022, ss.295 - 320.
AMA	Eroglu E Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. . 2022; 295 - 320.
Vancouver	Eroglu E Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. . 2022; 295 - 320.
IEEE	Eroglu E "Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration." , ss.295 - 320, 2022.
ISNAD	Eroglu, Erman. "Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration". (2022), 295-320.

APA	Eroglu E (2022). Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 295 - 320.
Chicago	Eroglu Erman Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 8, no.2 (2022): 295 - 320.
MLA	Eroglu Erman Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.8, no.2, 2022, ss.295 - 320.
AMA	Eroglu E Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022; 8(2): 295 - 320.
Vancouver	Eroglu E Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration. Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022; 8(2): 295 - 320.
IEEE	Eroglu E "Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration." Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 8, ss.295 - 320, 2022.
ISNAD	Eroglu, Erman. "Arbitrator Integrity: Self-Interested Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration". Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 8/2 (2022), 295-320.