Allegations or hints of corruption arise in commercial and treaty-based arbitrations, confronting attorneys and arbitrators with a number of important legal and policy issues and questions about which there appears to be relatively little guidance or consensus on approach. These questions include:
What is the burden and standard of proof necessary to establish that there has been corruption?
What are the tools available to parties and tribunals to deal with evidentiary issues relating to corruption?
Is there a public policy role or requirement for arbitrators and/or counsel to raise corruption issues outside the scope of the arbitration and, if so, at what point do allegations become concrete enough to trigger this role?
What are the implications for parties’ claims and defenses of successfully proving corruption? Are those implications different in the investment treaty context than they are in the commercial context?
To address these issues, the Center for International Commercial and Investment Arbitration (CICIA) and the Center hosted a debate with Sophie Nappert and Mark Beckett. The debate was moderated by Rahim Moloo.
The views expressed during the debate do not reflect the personal opinions of the participants or their respective institutions or clients. Rather, in organizing the debate, we sought to highlight and juxtapose different positions to illustrate the complex issues and the lively discussions they trigger.