The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators. / Tufte-Kristensen, Johan.

I: Arbitration International, Bind 32, Nr. 3, 29.07.2016, s. 483-503.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Tufte-Kristensen, J 2016, 'The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators', Arbitration International, bind 32, nr. 3, s. 483-503. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiw024

APA

Tufte-Kristensen, J. (2016). The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators. Arbitration International, 32(3), 483-503. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiw024

Vancouver

Tufte-Kristensen J. The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators. Arbitration International. 2016 jul. 29;32(3):483-503. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiw024

Author

Tufte-Kristensen, Johan. / The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators. I: Arbitration International. 2016 ; Bind 32, Nr. 3. s. 483-503.

Bibtex

@article{d2e900606835488a8a6f8b337f6cc0f1,
title = "The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators",
abstract = "Contractual practices and the applicable law on the composition of three-member tribunals normally provide for each party to select a co-arbitrator unilaterally. This procedure may make the co-arbitrators appear partial and may lead to improper dissenting opinions and premature resignations, which may ultimately threaten the confidence in arbitration and arbitral awards, but the procedure does not remain common for nothing. The arbitration community therefore needs to reconsider the appointment procedure on a solid and deliberate basis, and such a basis is what the article provides. A number of experienced arbitration practitioners have advocated against the procedure for some of the reasons above, whereas other experienced arbitration practitioners have defended the procedure because of its practical advantages and underlying rationales. Each of the previous contributions to the debate sheds light on some important aspects of the procedure but leaves certain aspects and arguments unconsidered.The article approaches the appointment procedure from a neutral position. It identifies and considers the relevant rules, practices, and arguments in order to discuss the procedure{\textquoteright}s implications and the possible legal and contractual adjustments that may change these implications. The article thus provides a theoretical contribution of practical relevance to the arbitration community.",
author = "Johan Tufte-Kristensen",
year = "2016",
month = jul,
day = "29",
doi = "10.1093/arbint/aiw024",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "483--503",
journal = "Arbitration International",
issn = "0957-0411",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The unilateral appointment of co-arbitrators

AU - Tufte-Kristensen, Johan

PY - 2016/7/29

Y1 - 2016/7/29

N2 - Contractual practices and the applicable law on the composition of three-member tribunals normally provide for each party to select a co-arbitrator unilaterally. This procedure may make the co-arbitrators appear partial and may lead to improper dissenting opinions and premature resignations, which may ultimately threaten the confidence in arbitration and arbitral awards, but the procedure does not remain common for nothing. The arbitration community therefore needs to reconsider the appointment procedure on a solid and deliberate basis, and such a basis is what the article provides. A number of experienced arbitration practitioners have advocated against the procedure for some of the reasons above, whereas other experienced arbitration practitioners have defended the procedure because of its practical advantages and underlying rationales. Each of the previous contributions to the debate sheds light on some important aspects of the procedure but leaves certain aspects and arguments unconsidered.The article approaches the appointment procedure from a neutral position. It identifies and considers the relevant rules, practices, and arguments in order to discuss the procedure’s implications and the possible legal and contractual adjustments that may change these implications. The article thus provides a theoretical contribution of practical relevance to the arbitration community.

AB - Contractual practices and the applicable law on the composition of three-member tribunals normally provide for each party to select a co-arbitrator unilaterally. This procedure may make the co-arbitrators appear partial and may lead to improper dissenting opinions and premature resignations, which may ultimately threaten the confidence in arbitration and arbitral awards, but the procedure does not remain common for nothing. The arbitration community therefore needs to reconsider the appointment procedure on a solid and deliberate basis, and such a basis is what the article provides. A number of experienced arbitration practitioners have advocated against the procedure for some of the reasons above, whereas other experienced arbitration practitioners have defended the procedure because of its practical advantages and underlying rationales. Each of the previous contributions to the debate sheds light on some important aspects of the procedure but leaves certain aspects and arguments unconsidered.The article approaches the appointment procedure from a neutral position. It identifies and considers the relevant rules, practices, and arguments in order to discuss the procedure’s implications and the possible legal and contractual adjustments that may change these implications. The article thus provides a theoretical contribution of practical relevance to the arbitration community.

UR - http://arbitration.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/25/arbint.aiw024

U2 - 10.1093/arbint/aiw024

DO - 10.1093/arbint/aiw024

M3 - Journal article

VL - 32

SP - 483

EP - 503

JO - Arbitration International

JF - Arbitration International

SN - 0957-0411

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 170742763