X hits on this document

83 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 36

“Why then do I concur in this inadequate

award, rather than dissenting from it? The

answer is based on the realistic old saying that

there are circumstances in which “something is

better than nothing.”

The advantage of these “good” dissents is that they permit an

arbitrator to express his or her views, without what may be seen as a

show of conceit – or petulance – and without imperilling the authority of

the award.

As an example of what might be called a “bad” dissent – although

the arbitrator concerned no doubt thought that it was at least “justifiable”

  • we might consider what happened when a Finnish judge, Judge Bengt

Broms, entered a dissenting opinion in a case before the US/Iran Claims

Tribunal. In a very unusual move, the United States government sought

his removal as an arbitrator. The United States claimed that there were

justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality, based on his

alleged breach of the secrecy of the Tribunal’s deliberations by his

concurring and dissenting opinion of 19 December 2000.

  • -

    17-

X:\DAR\DANGEROUS DISSENTS

Document info
Document views83
Page views83
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 18:51:16 UTC 2016
Pages36
Paragraphs848
Words7635

Comments