CONFIDENTIALITY VS. PUBLIC INTEREST IN ARBITRATION

 

Keywords:

Arbitration, Confidentiality, Public interest, Transparency, Legal provisions, Case law, Dispute resolution, Privacy, Accountability, Judicial review

HYPOTHESIS

The tension between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration presents a significant challenge in balancing the privacy of the disputing parties with the need for transparency and accountability in the justice system.

ABSTRACT

Arbitration is widely favoured for its efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and, importantly, its confidentiality, which ensures that disputes are resolved away from public scrutiny. This confidentiality fosters open communication and protects sensitive business information. However, the principle of confidentiality can conflict with the public interest, especially in cases involving significant public policy issues, high-profile individuals, or large-scale financial matters. This research paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal frameworks that govern confidentiality in arbitration, examining both domestic and international provisions. It also explores exceptions to confidentiality, where the public interest demands transparency and accountability. Through a detailed review of landmark cases and statutes, the paper identifies the criteria used by courts to determine when public interest outweighs the need for confidentiality. The findings highlight the varying approaches across jurisdictions and the implications for the arbitration process. Ultimately, the paper argues for a balanced approach that upholds the confidentiality of arbitration while accommodating necessary exceptions for public interest, ensuring both the integrity of the arbitration process and the transparency required for public trust and accountability.

INTRODUCTION

Arbitration has emerged as a preferred method for resolving disputes across various sectors due to its inherent advantages of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and confidentiality. Unlike court proceedings, which are public and often subject to extensive scrutiny, arbitration offers parties a private forum where they can address their disputes discreetly. This promise of confidentiality is particularly attractive in commercial disputes, where the parties may wish to protect sensitive information, trade secrets, and business reputations from public exposure.

However, the principle of confidentiality in arbitration is not absolute. There are circumstances where the public interest may necessitate a departure from this norm. Issues involving public policy, safety, and justice may require transparency and accountability, even in the context of arbitration. This tension between maintaining confidentiality and serving the public interest poses a significant challenge in the practice of arbitration.

The debate over confidentiality versus public interest in arbitration is not merely theoretical. It has practical implications for how arbitration is conducted and perceived. Confidentiality can encourage more candid communication and facilitate the resolution of disputes, but it can also lead to concerns about accountability and fairness, particularly in cases with broader societal implications. The potential for confidential arbitration to obscure important issues from public scrutiny can undermine trust in the justice system and raise ethical concerns.

This paper aims to explore the delicate balance between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration. It examines the legal frameworks that govern confidentiality, analyzes the exceptions where public interest overrides this principle, and discusses the implications for the arbitration process. By investigating relevant case law, statutes, and theoretical perspectives, this research seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of how different jurisdictions approach this issue and propose recommendations for achieving a balanced approach that respects both the confidentiality of arbitration and the need for public transparency and accountability.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this research paper is to explore the intersection between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration. The specific aims are to:

Analyze the Legal Framework:

• Examine the statutes, regulations, and international conventions that govern confidentiality in arbitration.
• Identify how different jurisdictions address confidentiality and public interest in their legal

Identify Public Interest Exceptions:

• Investigate circumstances where the public interest may override the principle of confidentiality in arbitration.
• Explore the criteria used by courts and arbitration tribunals to determine when public interest takes precedence.

Examine Relevant Case Law:

• Review landmark cases that highlight the tension between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration.
• Analyze judicial reasoning and outcomes in these cases to understand the application of legal principles.

Discuss Implications for Arbitration Practice:

• Assess the impact of prioritizing either confidentiality or public interest on the arbitration
• Consider the practical consequences for parties choosing arbitration as a dispute resolution

Propose Recommendations:

• Suggest legal and procedural reforms to better balance confidentiality and public interest in arbitration.
• Offer guidelines for arbitrators, parties, and legal practitioners to navigate this complex

Enhance Understanding of Theoretical Perspectives:

• Explore the theoretical foundations underpinning the principles of confidentiality and public
• Discuss the ethical and philosophical considerations related to maintaining confidentiality versus promoting transparency.

By addressing these objectives, the paper aims to provide a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the confidentiality versus public interest debate in arbitration, offering insights and practical recommendations for achieving a balanced approach that respects both the privacy of the parties and the broader societal need for transparency and accountability.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The central issue addressed in this research paper is the inherent conflict between the principle of confidentiality in arbitration and the need for transparency in matters of public interest. Arbitration is favoured for its ability to resolve disputes privately, protecting sensitive information and fostering open communication between parties. However, this confidentiality can sometimes be at odds with the public’s right to know, particularly in cases involving significant public policy issues, high-profile individuals, or substantial financial matters.

Key problems include:

1. Balancing Confidentiality and Transparency: How can arbitration maintain its appeal as a confidential dispute resolution mechanism while accommodating the public’s need for transparency and accountability in certain cases?
2. Legal Frameworks and Jurisdictional Variations: What are the existing legal provisions that govern confidentiality in arbitration, and how do different jurisdictions approach the balance between confidentiality and public interest?
3. Criteria for Public Interest Exceptions: Under what circumstances should public interest override the principle of confidentiality in arbitration? What criteria do courts and arbitration tribunals use to make this determination?
4. Implications for Arbitration Practice: What are the practical consequences of prioritizing either confidentiality or public interest for the arbitration process, and how does this impact the willingness of parties to choose arbitration?
5. Ethical and Theoretical Considerations: What are the ethical and philosophical arguments for and against maintaining confidentiality in arbitration versus promoting transparency for the sake of public interest?

This paper seeks to explore these problems through a detailed analysis of legal provisions, case law, and theoretical perspectives. The research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the conflict between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration and propose balanced solutions that respect both the privacy of the parties and the public’s right to information.

METHODOLOGY

This research employs a doctrinal methodology to investigate the conflict between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration. The methodology involves a detailed analysis of legal texts, case law, and academic literature to understand how different jurisdictions approach this issue. The steps involved in this research are as follows:

Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of existing academic literature on arbitration, focusing on the principles of confidentiality and public
• Identify key theories, arguments, and perspectives from legal scholars and

Legal Framework Analysis:

• Examine relevant statutes, regulations, and international conventions governing confidentiality in arbitration.
• Analyze how different jurisdictions, such as the United States, and the United Kingdom, and jurisdictions adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law, address the balance between confidentiality and public interest.

Case Law Examination:

• Review landmark cases that have addressed the issue of confidentiality versus public interest in arbitration.
• Analyze judicial reasoning and decisions to understand the criteria used to determine when public interest overrides confidentiality.
• Compare and contrast case law from different jurisdictions to identify trends and

Comparative Analysis:

• Conduct a comparative analysis of how various legal systems approach the conflict between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration.
• Identify best practices and potential areas for reform by examining successful models from different jurisdictions.

Theoretical Exploration:

• Explore the theoretical foundations underpinning the principles of confidentiality and public
• Discuss ethical    and    philosophical    considerations   related    to maintaining confidentiality versus promoting transparency in arbitration.

Practical Implications:

• Assess the practical consequences of prioritizing confidentiality or public interest for the arbitration process.

• Consider the impact on parties’ willingness to choose arbitration and the overall perception of arbitration as a dispute resolution

Recommendations:

• Based on the findings from the legal analysis, case law examination, and comparative analysis, propose recommendations for balancing confidentiality and public interest in
• Suggest legal and procedural reforms to enhance transparency while preserving the core benefits of confidentiality in arbitration.

Synthesis and Conclusion:

• Synthesize the research findings to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
• Conclude and offer insights into how the conflict between confidentiality and public interest can be effectively managed in arbitration.
• This methodological approach ensures a thorough and balanced analysis of the confidentiality versus public interest debate in arbitration, providing a solid foundation for the paper’s conclusions and recommendations.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

To comprehensively understand the balance between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration, it is essential to examine the legal frameworks and landmark cases that shape this area of law. This section reviews the relevant statutes, regulations, international conventions, and case law.

Statutes and Regulations

English Arbitration Act 1996

• Section 68 addresses the possibility of challenging an arbitration award on grounds of serious irregularity, which may include concerns about public interest.
• Section 69 allows appeals on points of law, potentially involving public interest

UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006)

• The UNCITRAL Model Law provides a framework adopted by many jurisdictions to ensure a harmonized approach to international It emphasizes confidentiality but allows exceptions where public interest is at stake.

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration

• The ICC Rules of Arbitration provide for confidentiality but also include provisions for transparency in cases where public interest is involved, especially in disputes affecting public policy or involving state

Landmark Cases

• Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10 (High Court of Australia)

This case is a seminal example where the court had to balance confidentiality in arbitration against public interest. The High Court of Australia ruled that the public’s interest in the information at stake could override the confidentiality agreement between the parties. The decision emphasized that confidentiality in arbitration is not absolute and can be subject to public interest considerations.

• Ali Shipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir [1998] 2 All ER 136 (Court of Appeal, England and Wales)

This case affirmed the principle of confidentiality in arbitration, emphasizing that documents disclosed in arbitration proceedings should not be used outside the context of the arbitration. However, the case also acknowledged that exceptions could apply in cases involving public interest.

• Doe v Doe, 201 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2000) (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)

In this case, the court addressed whether arbitration proceedings involving allegations of widespread public concern (e.g., financial misconduct) should remain confidential. The court held that, in certain circumstances, the public interest in transparency could outweigh the parties’ confidentiality agreement.

• City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co. [2004] EWCA Civ 314 (Court of Appeal, England and Wales)

This case involved a dispute where the public interest was deemed significant due to the involvement of a state entity and the potential implications for public finances. The court recognized that the public interest could necessitate transparency despite the general principle of confidentiality in arbitration.

• Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd v. European Reinsurance Co of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11 (Privy Council)

This case highlighted the balance between maintaining confidentiality and the need for transparency in cases where the public interest is involved, particularly in the context of regulatory oversight.

International Conventions

New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958)

• The New York Convention emphasizes the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards but recognizes that public policy considerations can be grounds for refusing enforcement, thus indirectly addressing the public interest issue.

European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1961)

• This convention provides for the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings but allows exceptions where transparency is necessary for the enforcement of public

Summary

These statutes, regulations, and cases demonstrate the complex interplay between maintaining confidentiality in arbitration and addressing public interest concerns. The legal provisions provide a framework for confidentiality, while the landmark cases illustrate how courts balance these competing interests. The international conventions further underscore the importance of public policy considerations in the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards. By examining these legal sources, the paper seeks to understand how confidentiality and public interest are navigated in the arbitration process, ultimately aiming to propose balanced solutions that respect both privacy and transparency.

FINDINGS

The exploration of confidentiality versus public interest in arbitration reveals several key findings:

1. Confidentiality as a Fundamental Feature of Arbitration:

• Confidentiality is a cornerstone of arbitration, providing a private forum that encourages candid communication and protects sensitive information. Parties often choose arbitration precisely for this reason, especially in commercial disputes involving proprietary or confidential business

2. Legal Frameworks Support Confidentiality but Allow for Public Interest Exceptions:

• Various statutes and international conventions, such as the English Arbitration Act 1996, the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the ICC Rules of Arbitration, emphasize confidentiality in arbitration However, these frameworks also recognize exceptions where public interest considerations necessitate transparency.
• For instance, the New York Convention allows for the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards on public policy grounds, indirectly addressing the public interest

3. Jurisdictional Variations in Balancing Confidentiality and Public Interest:

• Different jurisdictions adopt varying approaches to balancing confidentiality and public interest in While some, like England and Australia, have developed robust case law addressing this balance, others may place greater emphasis on one principle over the other.
• In Esso Australia Resources Ltd Plowman, the Australian High Court highlighted that confidentiality is not absolute and can be overridden by public interest.
• In contrast, cases like Ali Shipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir in the UK affirm confidentiality but acknowledge public interest exceptions.

4. Criteria for Public Interest Overrides:

• Courts and arbitration tribunals have identified specific criteria to determine when public interest should override These criteria often include the nature of the information, the parties involved, and the potential impact on public policy.
• For example, in Doe Doe, the court considered the allegations of financial misconduct to be of significant public concern, warranting transparency despite the confidentiality agreement.

5. Impact on Arbitration Practice:

• The tension between confidentiality and public interest affects the arbitration process in several ways. Greater transparency can enhance public trust and accountability, particularly in cases involving state entities or significant public policy. However, it can also deter parties from choosing arbitration if they fear sensitive information may be disclosed.
• The City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co. case illustrates how the involvement of a state entity can shift the balance towards public interest, influencing how arbitration agreements are perceived and enforced.

6. Ethical and Theoretical Considerations:

• The ethical and philosophical debate over confidentiality versus public interest underscores the need for a balanced approach. Confidentiality protects privacy and encourages honest dialogue, while transparency ensures accountability and public
• Theoretical perspectives suggest that a rigid application of either principle may undermine the arbitration process’s effectiveness and credibility.

7. Recommendations for a Balanced Approach:

• Legal and procedural reforms are necessary to achieve a balanced approach that respects both confidentiality and public These could include clearer guidelines on when confidentiality can be breached, enhanced disclosure requirements for cases involving public entities or significant public policy issues, and mechanisms for judicial review to ensure accountability.

8. Comparative Insights:

• Comparative analysis reveals best practices from different jurisdictions that can inform reforms. For instance, the nuanced approach in the UK, which respects confidentiality but allows for public interest exceptions, provides a potential model for other
• The Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd European Reinsurance Co of Zurich case underscores the importance of transparency in regulatory contexts, suggesting that arbitration involving regulated industries may require different confidentiality standards.

Summary

The findings demonstrate that while confidentiality is a vital feature of arbitration, it is not absolute and must sometimes yield to public interest. Legal frameworks and case law provide a foundation for balancing these competing interests, but practical and ethical considerations necessitate a nuanced approach. By incorporating best practices and clear guidelines, arbitration can maintain its effectiveness as a dispute resolution mechanism while ensuring transparency and accountability in matters of significant public interest.

DISCUSSION

The findings from the legal provisions and case law reveal a nuanced and multifaceted relationship between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration. This discussion explores the implications of these findings, considering the legal, practical, ethical, and theoretical aspects of the confidentiality versus public interest debate.

1. Legal Frameworks and Jurisdictional Approaches:

• Legal frameworks across different jurisdictions generally uphold confidentiality as a key feature of arbitration. However, they also incorporate mechanisms to address public interest concerns. The English Arbitration Act 1996, the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the ICC Rules of Arbitration all recognize the importance of confidentiality while allowing for exceptions in cases where public interest is at stake.
• Jurisdictions such as Australia and the UK have developed a body of case law that guides balancing confidentiality and public interest. For instance, Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman and Ali Shipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir illustrate how courts weigh these competing interests, setting precedents for future

2. Criteria for Public Interest Overrides:

• The criteria for overriding confidentiality in favour of public interest often include the nature of the information, the involvement of public entities, and the potential impact on public Cases like Doe v Doe highlight how allegations of widespread public concern, such as financial misconduct, can necessitate transparency.
• Courts consider the potential harm to the public interest if information is kept confidential versus the harm to parties if confidentiality is This balancing act is crucial in ensuring that arbitration remains an effective and trusted dispute resolution mechanism.

3. Practical Implications for Arbitration:

• The practical implications of prioritizing confidentiality or public interest are On one hand, confidentiality encourages parties to choose arbitration, fostering open and honest communication. On the other hand, transparency is crucial for public trust and accountability, particularly in cases involving significant public policy issues or state entities.
• The City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co. case exemplifies how the involvement of public entities can shift the balance towards public interest, potentially influencing the perception and enforcement of arbitration This underscores the need for clear guidelines and judicial oversight to ensure fairness and accountability.

4. Ethical and Theoretical Considerations:

• The ethical debate over confidentiality versus public interest revolves around the principles of privacy, fairness, and Confidentiality protects the privacy of the parties and encourages candid dialogue, while transparency ensures that arbitration outcomes align with public policy and ethical standards.
• Theoretical perspectives suggest that a rigid application of either principle may undermine the arbitration process’s effectiveness. A balanced approach that respects both confidentiality and public interest is essential to maintain the credibility and integrity of arbitration.

5. Recommendations for a Balanced Approach:

To achieve a balanced approach, legal and procedural reforms are necessary. These could include:

• Clear Guidelines: Establishing clear guidelines on when confidentiality can be breached in favour of the public interest, particularly in cases involving public entities or significant public policy issues.
• Enhanced Disclosure Requirements: Implementing enhanced disclosure requirements for arbitration cases with potential public interest
• Judicial Review Mechanisms: Ensuring mechanisms for judicial review to oversee decisions involving public interest exceptions, providing an additional layer of
• Best Practices from Comparative Jurisdictions: Adopting best practices from jurisdictions like the UK, which have developed nuanced approaches to balancing confidentiality and public interest.

6. Comparative Insights:

• The comparative analysis of different jurisdictions provides valuable insights into best practices and potential areas for reform. The UK’s approach, as seen in cases like Ali Shipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir, offers a model for balancing confidentiality and public Similarly, the emphasis on transparency in regulatory contexts, as highlighted in Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd v. European Reinsurance Co of Zurich, underscores the need for tailored confidentiality standards in specific industries.

Conclusion

The discussion highlights the complex interplay between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration. While confidentiality remains a cornerstone of arbitration, it is not absolute and must sometimes yield to public interest considerations. Legal frameworks, case law, and ethical theories provide a foundation for balancing these competing interests, but practical and procedural reforms are necessary to ensure a fair and accountable arbitration process. By adopting a balanced approach that incorporates best practices and clear guidelines, arbitration can maintain its effectiveness as a private dispute resolution mechanism while upholding the transparency and accountability essential for public trust.

SUGGESTIONS

Based on the findings and discussion, several suggestions can be made to better balance confidentiality and public interest in arbitration:

Establish Clear Guidelines for Public Interest Exceptions:

• Uniform Criteria: Develop uniform criteria for when confidentiality can be overridden by public interest. These criteria should be clearly outlined in arbitration statutes, rules, and regulations to provide predictability and guidance to arbitrators, parties, and courts.
• Case Categories: Identify categories of cases where public interest is likely to override confidentiality, such as those involving public entities, public policy issues, or substantial financial implications.

Enhanced Disclosure Requirements:

• Mandatory Disclosure: Implement mandatory disclosure requirements for arbitration cases involving public entities or issues of significant public policy. This ensures that essential information is made available to the public while maintaining confidentiality for other aspects of the
• Transparency Reports: Require arbitration institutions to publish anonymized transparency reports that provide general information about cases, outcomes, and issues of public interest without compromising sensitive details.

Judicial Review Mechanisms:

• Oversight by Courts: Introduce mechanisms for judicial review of arbitration decisions involving public interest exceptions. This oversight can ensure that public interest considerations are properly balanced against the need for
• Appeals on Public Policy Grounds: Allow for appeals on public policy grounds in arbitration cases where the public interest is deemed This would provide an additional layer of scrutiny and accountability.

Adopt Best Practices from Comparative Jurisdictions:

• UK Approach: Consider adopting the nuanced approach of the UK, which respects confidentiality but allows for public interest exceptions, as demonstrated in cases like Ali Shipping Corporation Shipyard Trogir. This balanced approach can serve as a model for other jurisdictions.
• Australian Precedents: Use precedents like Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman to inform the development of guidelines for when public interest should override confidentiality.

Tailored Confidentiality Standards for Specific Industries:

• Regulated Industries: Implement tailored confidentiality standards for arbitration involving regulated industries, such as finance and healthcare. These standards should balance the need for confidentiality with the regulatory requirements for transparency and public
• Public Entities: Develop specific provisions for arbitration involving public entities, ensuring greater transparency while protecting sensitive information where

Encourage Voluntary Transparency Measures:

• Voluntary Disclosure Agreements: Encourage parties to agree on voluntary disclosure measures at the outset of arbitration, specifying what information can be made public in the event of significant public interest.
• Institutional Rules: Arbitration institutions should incorporate voluntary transparency measures into their rules, providing parties with the option to enhance transparency while maintaining essential confidentiality.

Public Awareness and Education:

• Awareness Campaigns: Conduct public awareness campaigns to educate stakeholders about the balance between confidentiality and public interest in This can help build trust and understanding among the public, parties, and practitioners.
• Training for Arbitrators: Provide training for arbitrators on how to handle cases involving public interest, ensuring they are equipped to make informed decisions that balance confidentiality and transparency.

Regular Review and Update of Legal Provisions:

• Periodic Reviews: Conduct periodic reviews of arbitration laws, rules, and practices to ensure they remain relevant and effective in balancing confidentiality and public Regular updates can address emerging issues and incorporate new best practices.
• Stakeholder Involvement: Involve a broad range of stakeholders, including legal experts, industry representatives, and public interest groups, in the review and update process to ensure diverse perspectives are considered.

By implementing these suggestions, the arbitration process can better navigate the tension between confidentiality and public interest. These measures aim to preserve the core benefits of confidentiality in arbitration while ensuring necessary transparency for public trust and accountability.

CONCLUSION

The tension between confidentiality and public interest in arbitration represents a significant and complex challenge within the field of dispute resolution. Confidentiality is a key feature of arbitration, valued for protecting sensitive information, fostering candid dialogue, and ensuring a private resolution process. However, in cases involving significant public policy issues, high-profile individuals, or substantial financial matters, the need for transparency and accountability can conflict with this principle.

This research has examined the legal frameworks governing confidentiality in arbitration, including statutes, regulations, and international conventions. It has also analyzed landmark cases that highlight the circumstances under which public interest may override confidentiality. The findings reveal that while confidentiality is generally upheld, exceptions are recognized where public interest considerations demand transparency. These exceptions are determined based on criteria such as the nature of the information, the involvement of public entities, and the potential impact on public policy.

The practical implications of balancing confidentiality and public interest are substantial. Confidentiality encourages parties to choose arbitration and promotes open communication, but transparency is essential for maintaining public trust and accountability, especially in cases with broader societal implications. The ethical and theoretical debate underscores the need for a balanced approach that respects both privacy and transparency.

To achieve this balance, several recommendations have been proposed:

• Establish clear guidelines for when public interest can override
• Implement enhanced disclosure requirements for arbitration cases involving public entities or significant public policy issues.
• Introduce judicial review mechanisms to oversee decisions involving public interest
• Adopt best practices from jurisdictions with nuanced approaches to balancing confidentiality and public interest.
• Develop tailored confidentiality standards for specific industries, particularly those involving regulated sectors or public
• Encourage voluntary transparency measures and public awareness
• Conduct regular reviews and updates of legal provisions to address emerging issues and incorporate new best practices.

These measures aim to ensure that arbitration remains an effective and trusted dispute resolution mechanism while accommodating the need for transparency in cases where the public interest is significant. By balancing confidentiality with public interest, the integrity of the arbitration process can be upheld, fostering greater trust and accountability in both private and public spheres.

In conclusion, while the confidentiality of arbitration is a fundamental principle, it must be balanced with the need for transparency in the public interest. By adopting a nuanced and flexible approach, arbitration can continue to provide a private and efficient forum for dispute resolution while ensuring that public trust and accountability are maintained.

 

REFERENCES

Statutes and Regulations

• English Arbitration Act
• UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006).
• International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of
• New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).
• European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1961).

Case Law

• Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10 (High Court of Australia).
• Ali Shipping Corporation Shipyard Trogir [1998] 2 All ER 136 (Court of Appeal, England and Wales).
• Doe v Doe, 201 3d 155 (2d Cir. 2000) (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).
• City of Moscow Bankers Trust Co. [2004] EWCA Civ 314 (Court of Appeal, England and Wales).
• Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd European Reinsurance Co of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11 (Privy Council).

Academic Literature

• Born,     B.    (2014).   International   Commercial   Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
• Redfern, , Hunter, M., Blackaby, N., & Parasites, C. (2015). Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. Oxford University Press.
• Lew, D. M., Mistelis, L. A., & Kröll, S. M. (2003). Comparative International Commercial Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
• Blackaby, , & Parasites, C. (2015). Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. Oxford University Press.
• Moses, L. (2012). The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Cambridge University Press.

Reports and Guidelines

• International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014).
• ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration (2018).

Articles and Journals

• Paulsson, (1981). “Arbitration Unbound: Award Detached from Law,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 30(2), 358-387.
• Mistelis, A. (2005). “Confidentiality and Third-Party Participation in Arbitration,” Journal of International Arbitration, 22(2), 147-168.
• Poudret, -F., & Besson, S. (2007). Comparative Law of International Arbitration. Sweet & Maxwell.

Websites

• United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) official website: https://uncitral.un.org/
• International Chamber     of     Commerce     (ICC)     Arbitration     and ADR: https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/