X hits on this document

96 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

16 / 36

There may even be an almost total dissent, in which the arbitrator

makes clear his or her disagreement with much of the reasoning of his or

her colleagues, but is nevertheless prepared to concur in their conclusion

as a matter of realism and good sense. For example, in the Iran/US

Claims Tribunal, in the case of Ultrasystems Inc.v. The Islamic Republic

of Iran25, Judge Mosk said:

“I concur in the Tribunal’s Partial Award. I do

so in order to form a majority, so that an award

can be rendered.”

(He also added a footnote: “As Professor Pieter Sanders has

written, “arbitrators are forced to continue their deliberations until a

majority, and probably a compromise solution, has been reached”.26)

Again in the Iran/US Claims Tribunal, in the case of Economy

Forms Corp.v. The Islamic Republic of Iran27, Judge Howard Holtzman

considered that the damages awarded were only half of what they should

have been. He said:

25 26 2 Iran-US CTR 100. Sanders “Commentary on UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules” Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, 1977, 172 at p.208.

27 For a discussion of these and other cases, including the important decision of the International Court of Justice in the “Case Concerning the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989” see Schwebel, “The Majority Vote of an International Arbitral Tribunal”. (The American Review of International Arbitration), Vol. 2, No.4 1991 at p.402.

  • -

    16-

X:\DAR\DANGEROUS DISSENTS

Document info
Document views96
Page views96
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 06:40:14 UTC 2016
Pages36
Paragraphs848
Words7635

Comments