Safa Chohan
Pronouns: She/Her
Research Mentor(s): Katherine Simpson
Research Mentor School/College/Department: Ray Corollary Initiative / NonUM
Program: UROPF
Session: Session 4 (1:40pm – 2:30pm)
Authors:
Abstract
In an increasingly globalized economy, the rising occurrence of investor state disputes necessitates further investigation into the mechanics behind the conflict resolution method preferred in such situations – international arbitration. Drawing on data from the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) database, and background and qualifications of the arbitrators involved in such ICSID cases, this study seeks to identify factors influencing the ultimate case outcome and relative awards allocation between the parties involved in such conflict. Our research’s hypothesis focuses on identifying potential biases in the evaluation of cost agreements. We specifically searched for indications of tribunal cost awards connected to appointment bias, arbitrator demographic information(age, gender, nationality), arbitrator educational background(law (including civil law vs. common law), economics, business, politics). Analysis enabled us to identify other elements that contributed to case length and ultimately the tribunal’s outcome. These included case bifurcation and the concurrent employment as an arbitrator and legal counsel on separate cases (commonly referred to as “double hattingâ€). Through an informed understanding of the inner workings of such tribunals our analysis led us to the downstream effects of legal costs which compose a non-insignificant portion of the aggregate costs ultimately awarded by international tribunals. We utilized an advanced coding system to track the data in an organized and quantitative manner – transforming qualitative data collected from the ICSID database, Arbitrator CVs(Curricula Vitae), and University of Michigan Law Library Database. Our research holds greater implications for the development of International Arbitration as a discipline and the drive for equality in the selection of arbitrations.This relatively new and rapidly growing field will rely on research like this project to shape future tribunal policy, promote diversity, and mitigate biases in the investor-state dispute resolution process.
