GÜNCEL KARARLAR VE SON GELİŞMELER IŞIĞINDA ICSID TAHKİMİNDE HAKEMİN REDDİ

Tahkimde hakemlerin bağımsızlığını ve tarafsızlığını temin edecek düzenlemelerin başında hakemlerin ifşa yükümlülükleri ve hakemin reddi düzenlemesi gelmektedir. Bu kapsamda ise Uluslararası Yatırım Uyuşmazlıkları Çözüm Merkezi (ICSID) Tahkim Kurallarının diğer tahkim kurallarından birçok açıdan farklı olduğu göze çarpmaktadır. ICSID sistemindeki bu farklılıklar temelde hakemlerin ifşa yükümlerinin çok geniş olduğu ama buna karşı hakemin reddi standardının çok yüksek olduğu; bunlara bağlı olarak ret talep oranının yüksek, ret talebi kabul oranının ise çok düşük olduğu bir sonuç meydana getirmiştir. Ortaya çıkan bu durum ICSID tahkimindeki hakemin reddi mekanizmasının işlevselliğinin sorgulanmasına yol açmıştır. Buradan hareketle yapılan bu çalışmada ICSID tahkiminde hakemin reddi konusu diğer tahkim kurallarıyla karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmış, ICSID sistemindeki eksiklikler ortaya konulmaya ve çözüm önerileri getirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Varılan en önemli sonuçlardan birisi ret standartlarının 2013 yılından günümüzde değin istikrarlı bir şekilde kolaylaştırıldığı ve diğer tahkim normlarıyla uyumlulaştırıldığıdır. Ancak bu iyileşme ICSID sisteminde hakemin reddi mekanizmasını tek başına işlevsel hale getirmeye yeterli olmayıp; ret talebini değerlendirme usulünün de değiştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Ayrıca ret sebebi olarak sıklıkla ileri sürülen ‘hakemin bir tarafça birden fazla kez atanması’ veya ‘hakemin uyuşmazlık konusunda akademik yayın yapması’ gibi konularda ICSID yatırım tahkimi sisteminin ticari tahkimden farklı dinamikleri olduğu gözetilerek hakemin reddi konusunda buna göre karar verilmesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Yatırım Tahkimi, Hakemin Reddi, ICSID, Ret Prosedürleri, IBA Kılavuzu, UNCITRAL Tahkim Kuralları

Disqualification of Arbitrators in ICSID Arbitration in Light of Recent Decisons and Developments

Disclose obligations of arbitrators and disqualification of arbitrators are key issues in international arbitration. It is easily noticed that ICSID Arbitraiton Rules are different from other arbitration rules in very aspects regarding these issues. These differences basically brought low standards for disclose obligation but high threshold for disqualification; high challenge rates of arbitrator but low success rates at those challenges. This situation caused ICSID arbitrator challenge mechanism’s functionality to be questioned. Bearing in mind this situation, challenge of arbitrators issue in ICSID comparatively studied in this article and shortcomings and suggestions provided discusssed. Of the important results is that disqualification standards are being lowered from the 2013 consistently but this improvement is not sufficient to make ICSID challenge mechanism functional because there is also need to revise deciding authority where two unchallenged arbitrator decide on challenge issue. Besides, issues of “multiple appointments of arbitrator” or “issuing a publication regarding legal issue”, which are frequently used by parties as disqualification reason, should be assessed considering the different dynamics of ICSID investment arbitration from commercial arbitration and decisions should regard those differences.

Keywords:

Investment Arbitration, Disqualification of Arbitrator, ICSID, Challenge Procedures, IBA Guidelines, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules,

PDF

___

ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3 Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. & Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic DECISION ON THE CHALLENGE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE [2001]
ICSID CASE No. ARB/00/9 GENERATION UKRAINE, INC., and UKRAINE [2003] Award
ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16 ALPHA PROJEKTHOLDING GMBH and UKRAINE [2010] Decision on Respondent’sProposal to Disqualify Arbitrator Dr. Yoram Turbowicz
ICSID Case No ARB/10/5 Tidewater Inc v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [2010] DECISION ON CLAIMANTS’ PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY PROFESSOR BRIGITTE STERN
ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26 URB ASER S.A.and Argentine Republic [2010] Decision on Proposal to Disqualify Professor Campbell MacLachlan
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/19 Nations Energy Corporation v Republic of Panama [2011] Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify Dr. Stanimir A. Alexandrov
ICSID Case No. ARB/10/14 OPIC Karimum Corporation v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [2011] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY PROFESSOR PHILIPPE SANDS
ICSID Case No. ARB 11/29 GETMA INTERNATIONAL and others v Republic of Guinea [2012] Decision on the Proposal for Disqualification of Arbitrator Bernardo M. Cremades
ICSID Case No. ARB 07/30 ConocoPhilips and others v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [2012] Decision on the Proposal for Disqualify L.Yves Forther
ICSID Case No. ARB/12/20 BLUE BANK INTERNATIONAL & TRUST (BARBADOS) LTD. and BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA [2013] DECISION ON THE PARTIES’ PROPOSALS TO DISQUALIFY A MAJORITY OF THE TRIBUNAL
ICSID Case No. No. ARB/12/38 Repsol SA v Republic of Argentina [2013] Decision on the Proposal for Disqualification of Arbitrators Francisco Orrego Vicuna and Claus von Wobeser
ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 BURLINGTON RESOURCES, INC. and REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR [2013] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF PROFESSOR FRANCISCO ORREGO VICUÑA
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13 Caratube International Oil Company LLP v. Republic of Kazakhstan [2014] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF Mr. Bruno Boesch
ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5 ABACLAT AND OTHERS and ARGENTINE REPUBLIC [2014] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY A MAJORITY OF THE TRIBUNAL
ICSID Case No. ARB/17/34 RAIFFEISEN BANK INTERNATIONAL AG and REPUBLIC OF CROATIA [2018] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY STANIMIR ALEXANDROV
ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4 CANEPA GREEN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES I, S.Á R.L. AND CANEPA GREEN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES II, S.Á R.L. CLAIMANTS and KINGDOM OF SPAIN [2019] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL T DISQUALIFY MR. PETER REES QC
ICSID Case No. ARB/19/20 AYAT NIZAR RAJA SUMRAIN and STATE OF KUWAIT [2020] DECISION ON THE CLAIMANTS’ PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY PROF. ZACHARY DOUGLAS AND MR. V. V. VEEDER
ICSID Case No. ARB/17/5 EUGENE KAZMIN and REPUBLIC OF LATVIA [2020] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY ALL MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL
ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45 LANDESBANK BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG ET AL. and KINGDOM OF SPAIN [2020] DECISION ON THE SECOND PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY ALL MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36 EISER INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ENERGÍA SOLAR LUXEMBOURG S.À R.L. Claimants and KINGDOM OF SPAIN [2020] DECISION ON THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN’S APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT
ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25 KS INVEST GMBH and KINGDOM OF SPAIN [2020] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY PROF. KAJ HOBÉR
ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45 LANDESBANK BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG ET AL. and KINGDOM OF SPAIN [2020] DECISION ON THE SECOND PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY ALL MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL
ICSID Case No. ARB/19/30 VM SOLAR JEREZ GMBH and KINGDOM OF SPAIN [2020] DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL TO DISQUALIFY PROF. DR. GUIDO SANTIAGO TAWIL
PCA CASE No 2013-09 CC/DEVAS (MAURITIUS) LTD and THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA [2013] Decision on the Respondent’s Challenge to the Hon. Marc Lalonde as Presiding Arbitrator and Prof. Francisco Orrego Vicuna as Co Arbitrator
Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce [2017]
Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim (5.Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık 2020)
Born B G, International Commercial Arbitration (3. Baskı, Wolters Kluwer 2020)
Croft C, Kee C ve Waincymer J, A Guide to UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Cambridge University Press 2013)
Cleis N M, The Independence and Impartiality of ICSID Arbitrators: Current Case Law, Alternative Approaches, and Improvement Suggestions (Brill 2017)
Kayalı D, Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Hakemlerin Bağımsızlığı ve Tarafsızlığı (Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dali 2015)
Scheurer H C ve diğerleri, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2. Baskı, Cambridge University Press 2009)
Bishop D ve Reed L, ‘Practical Guidelines for Interviewing, Selecting and Challenging Party-Appointed Arbitrators in International Commercial Arbitration (1998) 14(4) ARBITRATION INTERNATIONAL 395
Bottini G, ‘Should Arbitrator Live on Mars- Challenge of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration’ (2009) 32 Suffolk Transnat’l L Rev 341
Daele K, Challenge and Disqualification of Arbitrators in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2012)
Daele K, ‘Saint Gobain v Venezuela and Blue Bank v Venezuela: The Standard for Disqualifying Arbitrators Finally Settled and Lowered’ (2014) 29(2) ICSID Review 296
Fry D J ve Stampalija I J, ‘Forged Independence and Impartiality: Conflicts of Interest of International Arbitrators in Investment Disputes’ (2014) 30(2) Arbitration International 189
Giorgetti C, ‘Challenges of International Investment Arbitrators: How Does It Work, and Does It Work?’ (2013) 7(2) World Arbitration & Mediation Review 303
Hwang M ve Lim K, ‘Issue Conflict in ICSID Arbitrations’ (2011) 8(5) Transnational Dispute Management
Karaca A H,, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkimde Hakemin Reddi Sebebi Olarak Hakemin Tarafsızlığını ve Bağımsızlığını Ortadan Kaldıran Haller’ (2015) 21(1) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 205
Kinnear M, ‘Challenge of Arbitrators at ICSID—An Overview’ (2014) 108 The Effectiveness of International Law 412
Lalonde M, ‘Chapter 46: Quo Vadis Disqualification?’, in Meg Kinnear ve diğerleri. (eds), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID, (Kluwer Law International 2015)
Landolt P, ‘The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration: An Overview’ (2005) 22(5) 409
Malintoppi L ve Yap A, ‘Challenges of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration: Still Work in Progress?’ in Katia Yannaca Small (ed), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to Key Issues (2. Baskı Oxford University Press 2018)
Özbek S M, ‘Tahkim Yargılamasında Hakemin Reddi’ (2021) 8(1) Türkiye Noterler Birliği Hukuk Dergisi 35
Sheppard A, ‘Arbitrator Independence in ICSID Arbitration’ in Christina Binder, Ursula Kriebaum, August Reinisch ve Stephan Wittich, International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press 2009)
Şahin A ve Özsu G, ‘Yatırımcı Devlet Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Sistemi’nin (ISDS) Reformu Bakımından Önemli Bir Adım: Taslak Etik Kurallar’ (2021) 12(46) Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi 477
Walsh W T ve Teitelbauma R, ‘The LCIA Court Decisions on Challenges to Arbitrators: An Introduction’ (2011) 27(3) Arbitration International 283