The interim awards in the multibillion-dollar arbitrations brought by Yukos shareholders against the Russian Federation have sparked a debate in some sectors about whether international arbitration can survive what one commentator has described as “a post-crisis vogue for stability and greater financial transparency” in which “companies will opt once more for the public courts”.
This situation seems somewhat ironic given that the Yukos awards, like many others, are freely and fully accessible on the internet and provide a full account of the arbitration proceedings. Underlying the growing complaints of lack of transparency, however, are broader concerns: namely whether, and in what circumstances, it is appropriate for privately-appointed arbitrators to decide cases in which public interests are fundamentally at stake; the extent of the powers of international arbitral tribunals; and the lack of any form of binding precedent, with different arbitral tribunals reaching very different conclusions on the meaning and effect of the same treaty provisions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
