The Ethics and Empirics of Double Hatting

Langford, Malcolm; Behn, Daniel; Lie, Runar

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3008643

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…El profesor Philippe Sands resume el dilema del doublehatting en la siguiente pregunta: "¿Puede un abogado que "pasa una mañana redactando un laudo arbitral que aborda una cuestión jurídica" divorciarse de su papel en el tratamiento de la misma cuestión jurídica o similar en la "tarde" como abogado en un caso diferente? 21 ".…”

Section: El Double-hatting En El Arbitraje Internacionalunclassified

¿Uno o dos sombreros?: Lineamientos para una regulación del double-hatting en arbitrajes de inversión

Chumbes

Tsuha

2021

Forseti Rev. Derecho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El fenómeno del double-hatting; esto es, el ejercicio de múltiples roles por parte de los profesionales vinculados al arbitraje, puede tener un importante impacto en las necesarias cualidades de independencia e imparcialidad que todo árbitro debe tener. La regulación de este fenómeno vuelve a poner sobre la mesa la recurrente discusión sobre los conflictos de interés derivados de la inevitable interacción en el grupo de profesionales que se dedican a arbitrajes de inversión. La inclusión de artículos que abordan expresamente este fenómeno en recientes tratados internacionales y la discusión que se viene sosteniendo por su expresa regulación en el "Proyecto de Código de Conducta para adjudicadores en solución de controversias inversionista-Estado" preparado por las Secretarías del CIADI y UNCITRAL, nos lleva a proponer algunos lineamientos para dicha regulación.

show abstract

Section: El Double-hatting En El Arbitraje Internacionalunclassified

¿Uno o dos sombreros?: Lineamientos para una regulación del double-hatting en arbitrajes de inversión

Chumbes

Tsuha

2021

Forseti Rev. Derecho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…61 Further, the results of the empirical study referred to above undermine somewhat this premise, as the authors note that the practice of double-hatting is dominated by a small group of arbitrators (all men) with numerous arbitral appointments. 62 Except for a few individuals in the top twenty-five of their "double hatting index," these are not counsel who could be transitioning to a fulltime arbitration practice but, rather, experienced arbitrators who continue their simultaneous legal counsel work. 63 Nonetheless, proposals to allow a transition period for counsel to move into full-time arbitration work 64 have not been especially well received as a matter of principle as well as of practicality.…”

Section: Double-hatting: Concerns and Prevalence In Isdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…62 Except for a few individuals in the top twenty-five of their "double hatting index," these are not counsel who could be transitioning to a fulltime arbitration practice but, rather, experienced arbitrators who continue their simultaneous legal counsel work. 63 Nonetheless, proposals to allow a transition period for counsel to move into full-time arbitration work 64 have not been especially well received as a matter of principle as well as of practicality. 65 Again, the difference between a MIC and ad hoc ISDS arbitration resurfaces.…”

Section: Double-hatting: Concerns and Prevalence In Isdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canada’s Pro-Ban Stance on Double-Hatting: Playing the Long Game in ISDS Reform?

Lévesque¹

2021

Can. yearb. int. law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of arbitrators and counsel in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases simultaneously playing both roles — known as “double-hatting” — has been the subject of much controversy in recent debates on ISDS reform, notably, at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL) Working Group III where a Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in International Investment Disputes is under discussion. While Canada has been less than consistent in its approaches to ISDS in recent international investment agreements (IIAs), its position against double-hatting has been rather constant. This article explores whether this stance reveals a commitment on the part of Canada towards increased judicialization of ISDS or reflects a “flavour of the month” reform likely to change with differing IIAs and negotiating partners. Analysis of Canada’s recent IIA practices, including its model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, released in May 2021, and the positions it has taken at UNCITRAL’s Working Group III, lead the author to conclude that Canada appears committed to increased judicialization of ISDS in the long run.

show abstract

“…248 Well-known jurists, such as Phillipe Sands, also believe that legitimacy concerns often arise because of 'unacceptable' 249 double hatting in 'similar issue' cases, as one role is bound to be, or at least it will appear to be, coloured by another. 250 Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify that previous advocacy in 'similar issues' cases should not be a ground for prohibiting double hatting and for disqualifying an arbitrator. Indeed, legal professionals 'inevitably encounter and form views on particular issues in the course of their work.'…”

Section: Grounding the Proposal In Isds Jurisprudencementioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the Inadequacies: A New Multi-Faceted Solution to Double Hatting in ISDS

Tanwar

2021

LSELR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), ‘double hatting’, or the playing of multiple roles by arbitrators in different ISDS proceedings as counsels, expert witnesses, or tribunal secretaries, is a problematic phenomenon. This deplorable practice results in the monopolization of power and builds up suspicions regarding such arbitrators’ impartiality which, in turn, threatens the legitimacy of the whole ISDS regime itself. Therefore, to sustain the current ISDS system as a viable dispute resolution option for investors and states, there is a need to regulate double hatting at the earliest. To that end, numerous solutions to this problem have been forwarded by scholars and international bodies alike. The recently proposed Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in ISDS is a significant development in this field. However, all of these solutions are either unviable or inadequate as they fail to account for the variations in the forms and intensities of double hatting. To remedy this lacuna, this article analyses the existing proposals, including the Draft Code of Conduct, and, thereafter, develops a more comprehensive solution by inculcating measures such as compulsory disclosure requirements and temporal bans. Further, it adapts these measures to regulate, and minimize, concurrent and successive double hatting across different classes of arbitral proceedings. By doing so, this article adopts a novel, multi-faceted approach to overcome the problem on a case-by-case basis, serving its aim of bringing to the table a viable and effective solution—one that ticks the maximum boxes—to resolve the menace of double hatting.

show abstract

The Ethics and Empirics of Double Hatting

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

¿Uno o dos sombreros?: Lineamientos para una regulación del double-hatting en arbitrajes de inversión

¿Uno o dos sombreros?: Lineamientos para una regulación del double-hatting en arbitrajes de inversión

Canada’s Pro-Ban Stance on Double-Hatting: Playing the Long Game in ISDS Reform?

Addressing the Inadequacies: A New Multi-Faceted Solution to Double Hatting in ISDS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About