International arbitration is routinely—and rightly—celebrated for two of its best-known attributes—the autonomy of the parties and its flexibility. Yet these same attributes also leave it open to abuse: parties can use it as a surreptitious vehicle to “launder” and legally enforce corrupt deals. In only 18 months, the Paris Court of Appeal, one of the most arbitration-friendly jurisdictions in the world, set aside and refused exequatur of three international arbitration awards from prominent tribunals, in all instances by virtue of corruption and bribery of foreign public officials in deals worth hundreds of millions of euros. To do so, it examined in detail all evidence shedding light on the question of corruption and bribery, even ordering the production of new evidence. By contrast, confronted with the same scenario, the Swiss Supreme Court and the English High Court let the award be enforced. Did the French court go too far? Or did the Swiss and English courts not go far enough? This essay looks at the judgments of the Paris Court of Appeal and then examines these questions.

 Imagine this situation. You are waiting to be interviewed by two senior lawyers from a major city law firm. This may well be it. The career breakthrough you have been waiting for. After years of diligent legal training and professional experience, publishing articles, building a network, and speaking at conferences, you are well on track to securing this highly coveted legal job.

The interview starts. The senior lawyers ask open-ended questions about your background. The atmosphere is congenial, even jovial at times. Then they zero in on some legal views you have expressed in the past. The questions become more specific. They test your knowledge of arbitration law and procedure. The tone remains cordial. After some back and forth, the senior lawyers look at each other, excuse themselves and withdraw from the room…

ICC’s annual Miami conference provides an indispensable update on developments in the region and is the most important gathering for the Latin American arbitration community, attended by over 600 participants representing around 40 countries. The following reports cover the ICC Institute Advanced Level Training Programme and reports of the wide range of panel discussions on latest developments in international arbitration and Latin America. 

This essay explores the unresolved question of parallel proceedings in investment treaty arbitration. This question brings into focus one of the ongoing ‘fault lines’ with the current system for the settlement of investment treaty disputes. It raises theoretical questions of consent and (in recent jurisprudence) good faith, but also nuts-and-bolts practical questions about how to grapple procedurally with parallel proceedings.