Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Adverse Inferences as Sanctions in International Arbitration

  • Received : 2023.07.29
  • Accepted : 2023.09.01
  • Published : 2023.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

International arbitration is a widely preferred alternative dispute resolution mechanism for many desirable characteristics, such as, party autonomy, procedural flexibility, ability of parties to select their arbitrators, as well as, finality of arbitral awards, among others. However, because arbitral tribunals derive their authority and jurisdiction from the parties' agreement(s) to arbitrate their dispute(s), arbitral tribunals lack coercive powers that national courts have. At times, arbitral tribunals have to deal with circumstances of non-production and/or spoliation of evidence, and due to the lack of coercive authority, it may be challenging to compel such recalcitrant parties to produce the relevant evidence and/or witnesses. Therefore, adverse inferences drawn against the recalcitrant parties may be the most effective sanctions. This article explores the sources of authority for arbitral tribunals to make such adverse inferences and argues for a precise set of rules or standard to be consistently applied by the arbitral tribunals in order to increase predictability in arbitral proceedings. Additionally, some of the critical issues when considering adverse inferences as sanctions are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Amaral, Guilherme Rizzo, "Burden of Proof and Adverse Inferences in International Arbitration: Proposal for an Inference Chart." Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2018): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2018001
  2. Bedrosyan, Alexander Sevan, "Adverse Inferences in International Arbitration: Toothless or Terrifying?" University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 38, Iss. 1 (2016): 241-273.
  3. Blavi, Francisco and Vial, Gonzalo, "The Burden of Proof in International Commercial Arbitration: Are We Allowed to Adjust the Scales?" Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2016): 41-80.
  4. Facciola, John M., Laporte, Elizabeth D., Preska, Loretta A., and Scheindlin, Shira A., The Philip D. Reed Lecture Series Panel Discussion: Sanctions in Electronic Discovery Cases: View from the Judges, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 78, Iss. 1 (2009): 1-36.
  5. Greenberg, Simon and Lautenschlager, Felix, "Adverse Inferences in International Arbitral Practice," ICC International Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2011): 43-56.
  6. Jun, Jung Won, "Judicial Assistance in Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration," Commercial Cases Review, Vol. 32, No. 2 (2019): 297-326.
  7. Jun, Jung Won, "The U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Scope of Judicial Assistance in Private International Arbitral Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 in its Recent Decision of ZF Auto. US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. ___ (2022)," Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 32, Iss. 3 (2022): 29-46.
  8. Jun, Jung Won and Ihm, Rockyoun, "The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and Achieving Uniformity of Case Law on Sanctions for ESI Spoliation: Focusing on the 'Intent to Deprive' Culpability under Rule 37(e)(2)," Catholic University Law Review, Vol. 70, Iss. 2 (2021): 177-200.
  9. Polkinghorne, Michael and Rosenberg, Charles B., "The Adverse Inference in ICSID Practice," ICSID Review, Vol. 30, No. 3 (2015): 741-751. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siv023
  10. Scheindlin, Shira A., and Orr, Natalie M., "The Adverse Inference Instruction After Revised Rule 37(E): An Evidence-Based Proposal," Fordham Law Review, Vol. 83, Iss. 3 (2014): 1299-1315.
  11. Sharpe, Jeremy K., "Drawing Adverse Inferences from the Non-production of Evidence," Arbitration International, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2006): 549-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/22.4.549
  12. Swanson, Kimberly D., "Amended Rule 37(e): Problem Solver or Problem Maker?" Ave Maria Law Review, Vol. 17 (2019): 81-100. 
  13. Greenberg, Simon and Lautenschlager, Felix, "Adverse Inferences in International Arbitral Practice," International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy Convergence and Evolution 180 (Eric E. Bergsten & Stefan Kroll eds, Kluwer Law International 2011).
  14. Schlaepfer, Anne V., "The Burden of Proof in International Arbitration," Legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges 127 (Albert Jan van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International 2015). 
  15. American Arbitration Association Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (2013).
  16. Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Expedited Arbitration Rules (2021).
  17. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2015).
  18. Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Administered Arbitration Rules (2018).
  19. International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2021).
  20. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006).
  21. International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration Rules (2021).
  22. Rules the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (2018).
  23. Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules (2016).
  24. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (2021).
  25. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2006).
  26. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).
  27. Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1997).
  28. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002).
  29. West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 1999). 
  30. Haney, Caitlin, "Spoliation of Electronic Data Results in Severe Sanctions," Litig. News (November 5, 2013), https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/110513-spoliation-electronic-data.html.
  31. "International Arbitration: Can Adverse Inference Fill the Gap Created by Missing Evidence?" Lexology, July 25, 2022.