Dispute Resolution International (DRI)

Tuesday 12 December 2023

About Dispute Resolution International (DRI)

Dispute Resolution International is the journal of the IBA's Dispute Resolution Section. It provides in-depth discussion of current developments and topical issues in all areas of dispute resolution, including litigation, arbitration, mediation and other areas of alternative dispute resolution, as well as negligence and damages.

Dispute Resolution International is edited by Kim Rooney, an independent arbitrator and barrister at Rede Chambers, Hong Kong. Kim is assisted by an Editorial Board comprising leading practitioners from around the world.

Dispute Resolution International is distributed to all members of the IBA Dispute Resolution Section, giving it a readership of approximately 4,000. It is published twice a year and was launched in May 2007.

If you are interested in contributing to Dispute Resolution International, please contact Kim Rooney at: kim.rooney@redechambers.com and Chloe Woodhall at chloe.woodhall@int-bar.org.

If you are not a member of the IBA, you can find out more about how to join here.

If you are interested in advertising in Dispute Resolution International, please email Andrew.Webster-Dunn@int-bar.org

Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.

ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £80 per issue
£161 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscription

Latest Issue - Vol 17 No 2 November 2023

Editorial
– Kim M Rooney

Read this article online

A Brief Discussion on the Implications, Regulation and Prospects of AI in Dispute Resolution Practice with a Focus on China
– Mingchao Fan and Gary Gao

Current laws and regulations in China have provided an open and welcoming environment for the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial fields, especially for dispute resolution practice. Since 2016, the Supreme Court and the Cyberspace Administration of China have posted several documents promoting and supporting the development and integration of AI and its applications. For example, courts of multiple provinces in China have implemented AI-based systems to improve their efficiency when handling cases. This trend has been followed by arbitration institutions, an increasing number of which are starting to use AI assistants. Aside from the application and development of AI, some concerns still remain about this cutting-edge technology. For example, the bias and ‘black box’ of algorithms may have the potential to impair judicial credibility and judicial power. The authors share in this article their insights for the reasons underlying those concerns and suggest possible solutions.

Read this article online

Challenges and Opportunities in Addressing Investors’ Environmental Contractual Obligations Through State Counterclaims in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
– Kieran John McCarthy

In the era of what United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, describes as ‘global boiling’, environmental regulation in pursuit of climate action policy is at the forefront of many governmental agendas. As major inward investment projects become subject to greater environmental regulatory obligations, including through increasingly complex investment contracts between states and investors, there will be inevitable grounds for claims by investors alleging related violations of applicable international investment agreements (IIA). Environment-related measures already form the basis of several investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitrations to date. There is a growing question as to the equities of such claims in circumstances where states are, historically, unable to advance counterclaims in ISDS arbitrations under relevant IIAs, which typically ascribe state obligations and investor rights. However, some ISDS tribunals have demonstrated a willingness, albeit in a limited manner, to grant jurisdiction over state counterclaims, including on the basis of several innovative applications of longstanding IIA provisions, such as those pertaining to the scope of dispute resolution, applicable law and so-called ‘umbrella clauses’, which are broadly intended to guarantee non-treaty/contractual commitments relevant to the investment. This article examines the difficulties and possibilities associated with using these IIA provisions and the growing body of relevant case law to advance environment-related counterclaims by the state and enforce investor non-compliance with domestic environmental law. Finally, it also considers new treaty mechanisms intended to potentially level the playing field for states.

Read this article online

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct: Judges as Arbitrators
– Bwalya Lumbwe

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), although not binding on states, are widely supported as a means of promoting judicial integrity. Diverse jurisdictions with different traditions have relied on the principles as a template in codifying judges’ conduct. The article explores practices across 67 jurisdictions with regard to whether active or serving judges are permitted to act as arbitrators. The article investigates reasons why judges should not act as arbitrators and the effect of active judges acting as arbitrators on setting aside proceedings, prevalent in many jurisdictions, and on appeals on a point of law found in restricted jurisdictions. It also analyses sample judicial codes of conduct and relates this to whether active judges should act as arbitrators. In addition to the different jurisdictions, the article looks briefly at the practice at the International Court of Justice.

Read this article online

The Power of Arbitrators to Remove Counsel – One Step Too Far?
– Utku Cosar

This article discusses the power of arbitral tribunals to remove legal counsel from arbitration proceedings under two scenarios: conflicts of interest and counsel misconduct. Many leading arbitration institutions have amended their arbitration rules to explicitly grant arbitral tribunals authority to remove counsel based on conflicts of interest. Investment arbitration tribunals have also established that tribunals possess this authority when conflicts arise between counsel and the tribunal or opposing parties. In the case of counsel misconduct, apart from the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules and the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration, the current arbitration rules of the major institutions do not expressly empower a tribunal to sanction, let alone remove, counsel based on misconduct. Although there is growing demand for institutions to adopt rules regulating counsel misconduct, criticisms exist, raising the question of whether this is one step too far.

Read this article online

Previous issues

Open access articles

The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Year

While the pandemic disruption has extended for far longer than initially expected, courts (after the first wave), arbitral institutions and stakeholders in commercial dispute resolution have largely continued operations, increasingly supported by innovative digital technology, flexible scheduling and flexible cost structures, among other tools.

Released on Jun 02, 2021

The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Seven Months

In 2020, most of the world’s countries have had to respond to the severe disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which emerged in late December 2019 (the ‘pandemic’). The pandemic poses enormous health and socio-economic challenges. As of September 2020, it is not known when the pandemic will end; some countries are already experiencing further waves of infection. Globally, judiciaries and arbitral institutions have been under great pressure to continue operating during the pandemic [...]

How to order

Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.

ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £80 per issue
£161 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscriptions

Guidelines for authors

Copyright and Disclaimer

Copyright: The IBA holds copyright in all articles, newsletters and papers published by them. If you wish to reproduce or distribute any IBA publication or any part of an IBA publication, permission must be requested in writing from the Managing Editor at editor@int-bar.org, and due acknowledgment given.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in journals, newsletters and papers are those of the contributors, and not necessarily those of the International Bar Association.