The independence and impartiality of arbitrators as a key element of the investor-state dispute settlement system: statement of challenges

   Introduction. The proliferation of bilateral investment treaties in the late 20^th century has led to a proportional increase in the number of disputes between investors and host states.

   Materials and methods. Based on traditional methods of system analysis, deduction and induction, scientific analysis, but also system analysis of various international acts, decisions of investment arbitrations and national courts, the author forms the vectors of research of the complex and sometimes contradictory practice of implementing the procedural principles of independence and impartiality in the field of investment arbitration.

   Discussion. According to the standard provisions of investment treaties, disputes between states and investors arising from them were subject to referral to ad hoc arbitration, created on the model of international commercial arbitration. However, the overwhelming majority of claims filed by investors concerned not violations of investment contracts, but rather challenges to general measures taken by states to regulate their economies. Traditionally, such measures were challenged in national courts, but the practice of considering them in investment arbitrations quickly revealed a number of problems directly related to the specifics of the formation of such arbitration tribunals. As a result of the emerging practice, investment arbitration found itself in a deep crisis of legitimacy for the reasons set out in the study. The ways out of the crisis necessitated identifying its causes and making attempts to resolve them.

   The main results. The issues of independence and impartiality of arbitrators in resolving investment disputes are a legitimate concern for states that have allowed, in their international treaties, disputes between investors and the state to be considered not in national courts but in special ad hoc arbitration. This problem has become particularly acute in light of the obvious tendency of investors to refer disputes related to the adoption by states of general measures taken for public purposes and aimed at regulating the economy to arbitration. States have approached the issue of resolving the problems that have arisen in different ways. The nearest future will show the real impact of the adopted Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in Resolving International Investment Disputes on the perception of the parties to the dispute as to what level of impartiality the arbitrators should have and on the tendency to increase the disqualification of arbitrators on the grounds of their bias.

1. Ispolinov А.S. International investment arbitration as a sphere of international public and constitutional law. Zakon, 2023, no. 12, pp. 108–122. DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-12-108-122. (In Russ.).

2. Franck S.D. The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions. Fordham Law Review, 2005, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 1521–1625.

3. Ispolinov А.S. Where is the present investment arbitration heading toward?. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal = Russian juridical journal, 2015, no. 3 (102), pp. 80–96. (In Russ.).

4. Kahale III G. The Inaugural Brooklyn Lecture on International Business Law: “ISDS: The Wild, Wild West of International Practice”. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 2018, vol. 44, iss. 1, pp. 1–10.

5. Vargiu P. Down the Rabbit Hole of Investment Arbitration and Ethics. International Investment Law Journal, 2024, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 137–153. DOI: 10.62768/IILJ/2024/4/2/02.

6. Langford M., Behn D., Malaguti M.C. The Quadrilemma: Appointing Adjudicators in Future Investor–State Dispute Settlement. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2023, vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 149–175. DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idad006.

7. Cleis M.N. The independence and impartiality of ICSID arbitrators. Current Case Law, Alternative Approaches, and Improvement Suggestions. Leiden, Boston, Brill Publ., Nijhoff Publ., 2017. xii + 292 p. DOI: 10.1163/9789004341487.

8. Schacherer S. Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators. A Rule of Law Analysis, Seminar Paper. January 2018. iii + 27 p. Available at: https://deicl.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_deicl/VR/VR_Personal/Reinisch/Internetpublikationen/Schacherer.pdf (accessed: April 15, 2025).

9. Popova I.C., Polebaum J.L Emerging Expectations for Arbitrators: “Issue Conflict” in Investor-State Arbitration and Beyond. Fordham International Law Journal, 2018, vol. 41, iss. 4, pp. 937–952.

10. Fanou M. The independence and impartiality of the hybrid CETA Investment Court System: Reflections in the aftermath of Opinion 1/17. Europe and the World: A Law Review, 2020, vol. 4, iss. 1, art. 8. DOI: 10.14324/111.444.ewlj.2020.26.

11. Langford M., Behn D., Lie R.H. The Revolving Door in International Investment Arbitration. Journal of International Economic Law, 2017, vol. 20, iss. 2, pp. 301–332. DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgx018.

12. Sands P. Conflict of Interest for Arbitrators and/or Counsel’, in: Kinnear M., Fischer G., Almeida J.M., Torres L.F., Bidegain M.U. (eds.). Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID, Kluwer Law International Publ., 2016, pp. 655–668.

13. Giorgetti С. The Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor–State Dispute Settlement: A Low-hanging Fruit in the ISDS Reform Process. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2023, vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 176–191. DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idab032.

14. Savranskiy M.Yu. New Cross-Border Standards of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Arbitration. Lex Russica, 2024, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 140–150. DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2024.211.6.140-150. (In Russ.).

15. Schreuer C.H., Malintoppi L., Reinisch A., Sinclair A. The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2^nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009. 1596 p.