INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY OF ARBITRATORS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

Pojma neodvisnost in nepristranskost se zdita skoraj enaka, vendar med njima obstajajo pomembne razlike. Pri neodvisnosti gre za objektivno merilo, ki določi, kateri osebni, socialni in finančni odnosi med arbitrom in stranko ali njenim zagovornikom, so sporni. Nepristranskost je za razliko od neodvisnosti subjektivna in abstraktna. Stranka nikdar ne sme imenovati arbitra, za katerega obstaja dvom o njegovi nepristranskosti in neodvisnosti, saj je nepristranskost in neodvisnost senata ter posameznih arbitrov eno izmed temeljnih načel mednarodne gospodarske arbitraže. V primeru, da se pojavi konflikt interesov, ima nasprotna stranka na voljo zahtevek za izločitev spornega člana senata Vprašanje, katere okoliščine povzročajo takšen konflikt interesov, da arbiter ne more ohraniti zahtevane neodvisnosti in nepristranskosti, je kompleksno. Kadar je konflikt resen in očiten, arbiter ne sme sprejeti funkcije, če pa obstaja potencialen konflikt, pa naj bi okoliščine, ki ga povzročajo, razkril strankam, da lahko te podajo zahtevo za izločitev. Dilemo o spornih situacijah precej natančno razrešujejo Smernice o konfliktu interesov, sprejete s strani Mednarodne odvetniške zbornice, na katere se, kljub njihovi nezavezujoči naravi, odločbe mednarodne gospodarske arbitraže velikokrat opirajo. Pri institutu izločitve arbitra lahko pride do zlorab. Stranke, ki tekom postopka morda niso zadovoljne z izbranim arbitrom, lahko naknadno pooblastijo zagovornika, ki povzroči konflikt interesov zaradi svojega razmerja s članom senata, in s tem dosežejo izločitev arbitra. V pravilih načeloma ni varoval, ki bi take zlorabe preprečile. Vprašanje pa je, ali se lahko s tako situacijo soočimo na drug način, torej da iz postopka izločimo zagovornika stranke. V praksi se najdeta dva primera, v katerih so se stranke postavljene pred dejstvo, da njihov senat zaradi novih okoliščin ne izpolnjuje več zahtevane nepristranskosti in neodvisnosti, odločile zaprositi za izločitev odvetnikov. Obe arbitražni odločbi, izdani pod okriljem Centra za razreševanje investicijskih sporov in tudi njihovih arbitražnih pravil, zelo nazorno razdelata pristojnosti senatov odločati o vprašanjih izločitve odvetnikov in razloge za in proti takšni rešitvi. Potrebo po reševanju tega vprašanja so začutili tudi v Mednarodni odvetniški zbornici in tako so maja letos sprejeli Smernice o zastopanju strank v mednarodni gospodarski arbitraži. Ključna novost teh je, da kot prvi dokument izrecno govorijo o možnosti senata, da izključi odvetnika, ki zastopa stranko, kadar je odvetnik sprejel sodelovanje v pozni fazi postopka in ustvarja konflikt interesov.The concepts of independence and impartiality seem to be almost identical, but there are important differences between the two terms. Independence is an objective criterion that determines which personal, social and financial relations between the arbitrator and the party or its counsel represents a conflict of interest. Impartiality, on the other hand, is subjective and abstract criteria. The party should not appoint an arbitrator, if doubts as to his impartiality and independence exist since the impartiality and independence of the tribunal is one of the fundamental principles of international commercial arbitration. If a conflict of interest arises, the opposing party has the right to challenge the controversial member of the tribunal. The question which circumstances give rise to a conflict of interest that the arbitrator is unable to maintain the required independence and impartiality, is complex. If an obvious and serious conflict of interest exists, an arbitrator should not accept his nomination. However, in the case of potential conflict an arbitrator should disclose all the relevant facts and the circumstances that can cause bias, so the opposing party has the opportunity to submit a request for exclusion. The dilemma which situations rise justifiable doubts to arbitrators impartiality and independence is quite thoroughly resolved in the Guidelines on conflicts of interest in international arbitration, adopted by the International Bar Association. Despite their non-binding nature, many decisions made by the international commercial arbitration tribunals rely on the Guidelines. The problem arises because the institute of challenge to an arbitrator can be abused. Parties, who may not be satisfied with the course of the on-going arbitration, can subsequently add a counsel to their legal team, that will cause a conflict of interest, and thus achieve the exclusion of an arbitrator. There are no rules, which would prevent such abuse. The question arises whether such situations can be dealt with in any other way then excluding an arbitrator. Is there a possibility to challenge the counsel despite the lack of relevant provisions? There are two ICSID cases in international arbitration practise where parties have made the challenge to a counsel since tribunals did no longer meet the required impartiality and independence, due to the present of subsequently added representatives. In both cases the issued awards deal with the challenge to counsel, the issue of competence in that the matter and the reasons for and against such a solution. The need to address this issue arose also in International Bar Association and the results of it are the Guidelines on party representation in international arbitration, issued in May 2013. The key novelty of these is that they are the first document specifically talking about the possibility of the tribunal to exclude a counsel if he was added in a late stage of the proceedings and creates a conflict of interest