The Duty of Disclosure: An Overview

  • Katia Fach Gómez


The duty of disclosure that falls to investment arbitrators currently presents a significant number of contentious aspects. Many ICSID challenges have addressed issues such as the formal aspects and content of the statement of impartiality and independence, as well as the scope of this duty and the applicable disclosure standards. A detailed analysis of the decisions resulting from these challenges leads to the conclusion that the unchallenged co-arbitrators, who are in most cases responsible for settling challenges brought by parties, may have sometimes erred on the side of leniency when judging their colleagues’ actions or omissions in connection with the duty of disclosure. In practice, the very wording of ICSID provisions and a sense of endogamy among the somewhat limited group of arbitrators are two factors that have prevented breaches of this duty from being sanctioned with disqualification. This chapter sets out and argues for a series of regulatory reforms that seek a firmer reshaping of the profile of the duty of disclosure within the context of investment arbitration (e.g., improving formal aspects of the statement of impartiality and independence and making changes to the drafting of ICSID Rule 6(2)b, as well as various suggestions concerning the timing, celerity and addressees of the duty of disclosure). The chapter also contains detailed reflections on two closely connected issues: the importance of having access to a reliable CV for each investment arbitrator and the arbitrators’ duty to investigate. A recurrent underlying theme is the role that traditional arbitral institutions or new stakeholders such as the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) should adopt vis-à-vis the adjudicators’ duty of disclosure in the investment milieu.


  1. Bottini G (2009) Should arbitrators live on Mars? Challenge of arbitrators in investment arbitration. Suffolk Transnational Law Rev 32:341–365Google Scholar
  2. Brekoulakis S (2013) Systemic bias and the Institution of International Arbitration: a new approach to arbitral decision-making. J Int Dispute Settlement 4(3):553–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brower CN (2010) Keynote address: the ethics of arbitration: perspectives from a practicing international arbitrator. Berkeley J Int Law Publicist 5:1–31Google Scholar
  4. Campolieti F, Lawn N (2010) Perenco v. Ecuador: was there a valid arbitrator challenge under the ICSID Convention? In: Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  5. Cárdenas E, Rivkin DW (2005) A growing challenge for ethics in international arbitration. In: Aksen G et al (eds) Global reflections on international law commerce and Dispute Resolution. Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner. ICC, Paris, pp 191–200Google Scholar
  6. Chan LS (2007) Arbitrators’ conflicts of interest: bias by any name. Singapore Acad Law J 19:245–266Google Scholar
  7. Cinelli Moreira NF (2014) The arbitrator’s duty of disclosure analyzed through case-law: are the IBA guidelines on conflict of interest in international arbitration enough to create consistency? Revista de Arbitragem e Mediaçao 40:115–150Google Scholar
  8. Crivellaro A (2014) Does the arbitrators failure to disclose conflict of interest fatally lead to annulment of the award? The approach of the European state courts. Arbitr Brief 4(1):121–141Google Scholar
  9. Daele K (2012) Challenge and disqualification of arbitrators in international arbitration. Kluwer, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  10. Daly B, Goriatcheva E, Meighen HA (2014) A guide to the PCA Arbitration Rules. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis BG (2014) American diversity in international arbitration. In: University of Toledo Legal Studies Research Paper.
  12. Debevoise & Plimpton (2017) Proposed amendments to 2006 ICSID rules. In: Public comments to amendment of ICSID’s rules and regulations.
  13. Derains Y, Schwartz EA (2005) A guide to the ICC rules of arbitration, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  14. Dimotropoulos G (2016) Constructing the independence of international investment arbitrators: past, present and future. Northwest J Int Law Bus 36(2):371–434Google Scholar
  15. Dotseth KA (2012) Disqualifying arbitrators for failure to make complete disclosures after Scandinavian Re v. St. Paul Re: What is “Evident Partially”. In: International Association of Defense Counsel Committee Newsletter.
  16. EC (2016) The multilateral investment court project.
  17. Fach Gómez K, Titi C (2016) UNASUR Centre for the settlement of investment disputes: comments on the draft constitutive agreement. In: Investment Treaty News 7(3).
  18. Fernández Rozas JC (2013) Contenido ético del deber de revelación del árbitro y consecuencias de su trasgresión. Revista de arbitraje comercial y de inversiones 6(3):799–839Google Scholar
  19. Fouchard C (2016) Tecnimont Saga: Episode V-The Paris court strikes back. In: Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  20. Geisinger E (2015) “Soft Law” and hard questions: ASA’s initiative in the debate on counsel ethics in international arbitration. In: Favalli D (ed) Sense and non-sense of guidelines, rules and other para-regulatory texts in international arbitration. Juris, Huntington, pp 17–32Google Scholar
  21. Greenberg S (2010) Tackling guerrilla challenges against arbitrators: institutional perspective. Transnational Dispute Manag 7(2):1–12Google Scholar
  22. Greenwood L (2015) Could “Blind” appointments open our eyes to the lack of diversity in international arbitration? Transnational Dispute Manag 12(4):1–9Google Scholar
  23. Hacking D (2006) Arbitration challenges: theirs is to reason why. Glob Arbitr Rev 6(1):26–30Google Scholar
  24. Hanke P (2017) Computers with law degrees? The role of artificial intelligence in transnational dispute resolution and its implications for the legal profession. Transnational Dispute Manag 14(2):1–11Google Scholar
  25. Hascher D (2012) Independence and impartiality of arbitrators: 3 issues. Am Univ Int Law Rev 27(4):789–806Google Scholar
  26. Holbein JR, Greenidge AD (1995) NAFTA code of conduct provides international guidelines for ethical behavior. Law Bus Rev Americas 1:50–68Google Scholar
  27. IBA Subcommittee on Investment Treaty Arbitration (2016) Report on the Subcommittee’s investment treaty arbitration survey.
  28. ICSID (2004) Discussion paper on possible improvements of the framework for ICSID arbitration.
  29. ICSID (2016) Work launched on updating ICSID rules and regulations.
  30. Investor-State Mediation Task Force (2017) Response to ICSID on its invitation to file suggestions for rule amendments, Annex 2, Appendix A of Annex C.
  31. Kinnear M, Nitschke F (2015) Disqualification of arbitrators under the ICSID convention and rules. In: Giorgetti C (ed) Challenges and recusals of judges and arbitrators in international courts and tribunals. Brill, Leiden, pp 34–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larson DA (2008) Conflicts of interest and disclosures: are we making a mountain out of a Molehill? South Texas Law Rev 49:880–919Google Scholar
  33. Luttrell J (2009) Bias challenges in international commercial arbitration. The need for a real danger test. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  34. Luttrell S (2016) Testing the ICSID framework for arbitrator challenges. ICSID Rev 31(3):597–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maeda Y, Bloomenthal JM (2018) Japanese Supreme Court’s first decision on arbitrator’s non-disclosure. In: Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  36. Mann H (2005) The Emperor’s clothes come off: a comment on Republic of Ghana v. Telekom Malasya Berhard, and the problem of arbitrator conflict of interest. Transnational Dispute Manag 2(1):1–7Google Scholar
  37. Mantilla-Serrano F, Pinsolle P (2013) La independencia del árbitro y su obligación de revelación, in Arbitraje internacional: pasado, presente y futuro. In: Libro homenaje a Bernardo Cremades e Yves Derains. Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje, Peru, pp 879–899Google Scholar
  38. Matheus López CA (2015) Reflexiones sobre el deber de revelación del árbitro. Revista Vasca de Derecho Procesal y Arbitraje 27(2):267–273Google Scholar
  39. Matthews J (2005) Consumer arbitration: is it working now and will it work in the future? Florida Bar J 79(4):22–27Google Scholar
  40. Mourre A (2009) Conflicts of interest: towards greater transparency and uniform standards of disclosure. In: Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  41. N.A. (2017) Suggested changes to the ICSID rules and regulations. In: Public comments to amendment of ICSID’s rules and regulations.
  42. Nathan KVSK (2006) The independence of arbitrators. Amicus Curiae 68:18–22Google Scholar
  43. Newsham J (2016) No need for Global Arbitration Ethics Council. In: Law360.
  44. O’Brien WT, Nandivanda SN (2014) Arbitrator challenges: warranted or abuse? Mealey’s Int Arbitr Rep 29(10):1–5Google Scholar
  45. Park W (2011) The four musketeers of arbitral duty. Status. Powers and role of the arbitrators. ICC Dossiers 8:27Google Scholar
  46. Paulsson J (2012) Foreword. In: Daele K (ed) Challenge and disqualification of arbitrators in international arbitration. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, p xixGoogle Scholar
  47. Paulsson J (2013) The idea of arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rogers CA (2014) Ethics in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose A (2017) Is there a substitute for experience. Global Arbitration Review.
  50. Rubins N, Lauterburg B (2010) Independence, impartiality and duty of disclosure in investment arbitration. In: Knahr C, Koller C, Rechberger W, Reinisch A (eds) Investment and commercial arbitration - similarities and divergences. Eleven International Publishing, Den Haag, pp 153–180Google Scholar
  51. Secretariat UNCITRAL (2018) Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Submissions from International Intergovernmental Organizations and additional information: appointment of arbitrators.
  52. Sousa Uva P (2009) A comparative reflection on challenge of arbitral awards though the lens of the arbitrator’s duty of impartiality and independence. Am Rev Int Arbitr 20(4):480–511Google Scholar
  53. Stanic A (2009) Challenging arbitrators and the importance of disclosure: recent cases and reflections. Croatian Arbitr Yearb 16:205–235Google Scholar
  54. Vasani BS, Palmer SA (2015) Challenge and disqualification of arbitrators at ICSID: a new dawn. ICSID Rev 30(1):194–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. White&Case (2018) International arbitration survey: the evolution of international arbitration.
  56. Whitesell AM (2007) Independence in ICC Arbitration: ICC court practice concerning the appointment, confirmation, challenge and replacement of arbitrators. ICC Int Court Arbitr Bull, special supplement 18:7–49Google Scholar
  57. Windsor KA (2009) Defining arbitrator evident partiality: the catch-22 of commercial litigation disputes. Seton Hall Circuit Rev 6:191–217Google Scholar
  58. Yong L (2016) Imposter arbitrator’s award set aside in California. Global Arbitration ReviewGoogle Scholar

Legal and Arbitration References

    International Conventions

    1. ICSID (1966) Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States.
    2. UNCITRAL (2014) UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration.

    Arbitration Acts, Institutional Arbitration Rules, and Codes of Conduct

    1. ABA, AAA, CPR Institute (2004) Code of ethics for arbitrators in commercial disputes.
    2. Arbitration Centre of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2005) Criterion 1.2.e) e).
    3. CAM (last accessed in June 2018) Declaration of Acceptance and Statement of Independence of the Arbitrator.
    4. CAM (2015) Reglamento de la Corte de Arbitraje de Madrid.
    5. CEA (n.a.) Recommendations of the Spanish Arbitration Club concerning arbitrator independence and impartiality.
    6. CJEU (2016) Code of Conduct for Members and former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
    7. FINRA (2007) Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
    8. ICC (2017a) Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the conduct of the arbitration under the ICC rules of arbitration.
    9. ICC (last accessed in June 2018b) Statement of Acceptance, Independence and Impartiality. Uncitral Appointment.
    10. ICDR (2014) International dispute resolution procedures.
    11. ICSID (last accessed in June 2018b) Arbitrators, conciliators and Ad Hoc Committee Members.
    12. PCA (last accessed in June 2018) Model Statements of Impartiality and Independence.
    13. SIAC (2015) Code of Ethics for an Arbitrator.
    14. SIAC (2017) Investment Arbitration Rules.
    15. SIAC (last accessed in June 2018) Disclosure Sheet.
    16. WTO (1996a) Rules of conduct for the understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes. WT/DSB/RC/1 (96-5267).

    Legal Documents

    1. AAA (last accessed in June 2018) Find a mediator.
    2. AAA/ICDR (last accessed in June 2018) AAA arbitrator select.
    3. CEDCA (last accessed in June 2018). List of arbitrators.
    4. CIArb (last accessed in June 2018) How CIArb investigates complaints of misconduct against its members.
    5. CPR (last accessed in June 2018) Neutral administrative fees.
    6. EC (last accessed in June 2018) Research & innovation. Participant portal.
    7. ECHR (2009) Nomination of candidates and election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights.
    8. ECJ (last accessed in June 2018) Presentation of the members.
    9. JAM (last accessed in June 2018) All neutrals.
    10. LCIA (last accessed in June 2018) Frequently asked questions.
    11. SIAC (last accessed in June 2018) Application form for admission to SIAC Panel/SIAC IP Panel.
    12. The Diplomatic (last accessed in June 2018) “PSOE considers asking for revocation of Elósegui’s election to ECHR”,
    13. US (1994) Communication on rules of ethical conduct for the settlement of disputes.
    14. UNCITRAL (last accessed in June 2018) Model statements of independence pursuant to article 11 of the Rules.
    15. VIAC (last accessed in June 2018) List of practitioners in international arbitration.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katia Fach Gómez
    • 1
  1. 1.Tenured Professor (Profesora Titular) at the Law SchoolUniversity of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations