Introduction Introduction Tony is an internationally-recognised expert in international and domestic arbitration, cross-border commerce and international investment law. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a member of the New York Bar, and is on the European Parliament’s List of Legal Experts. In 2015 he advised the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee on arbitration, with a view to possible new legislation being developed by the Parliament. He has more than 10 years’ experience as an arbitrator and advocate in international and complex commercial arbitrations, including through affiliation with law firms in New York City and Geneva. While he has worked in a range of fields, he has particular experience in commercial, transportation (aviation/maritime), construction, education and financial disputes, and has twice been appointed as an appellate arbitrator. He is currently Reader in International Arbitration and Investment Law at the University of Leicester. Prior to Leicester he taught at Brunel University London, where he founded and led Brunel's Centre for the Study of Arbitration and Cross-Border Investment. Prior to this he taught at the University of Warwick, and before entering academia worked in international arbitration and litigation at White & Case in New York City. He is on the list or panel of a range of leading arbitral institutions worldwide, including the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC), the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA), and the British Virgin Islands International Arbitration Centre (BVI IAC). He is regularly invited to speak on arbitration at conferences internationally. Tony has started a project blog, to accompany his research into the Social and Psychological Underpinnings of Commercial Arbitration in Europe. Tony's current academic work is focused on a 5-year £1m ESRC-funded project on commercial arbitration across Europe, and while the research will produce academic publications, the blog is 'designed to provide some ongoing updates on information the project has (or at least seems to have) developed'. In other words, the blog is 'designed to give “provisional” thoughts, based on work so far.' An introduction to the blog can be read here, and the blog can be read here. Arbitration & Mediation Arbitration & Mediation • Decision-maker in numerous disputes arising out of commercial and consumer transactions covering a range of fields, but particularly commercial, transportation (aviation/maritime), construction, education and financial disputes.• Counsel and decision-maker in contract-based commercial disputes involving parties from Russia, Ukraine, Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Turkey and other jurisdictions.• Counsel in securities-based disputes, including a multi-billion-dollar securities litigation arising out of the collapse of the Enron Corporation.• Counsel for both union and employer in labor and employment disputes.• Decision-maker in disputes relating to the provision of sub-university-level education in the United Kingdom.• Decision-marker in disputes relating to building construction, surveying and utilities. Qualifications Qualifications The University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA: Juris Doctor, cum laude, 2004 St. John’s College, Annapolis, MD, USA: Bachelor of Arts (Liberal Arts), 1997 Publications Publications Books Understanding International Arbitration (with Pietro Ortolani) (2019) The Roles of Psychology in International Arbitration (editor) (2017) The Structure of Investment Arbitration (2013) Articles and Chapters (selected) “Arbitration in Its Psychological Context: A Contextual Behavioural Account of Arbitral Decision-Making,” The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration (Thomas Schultz and Federico Ortino eds.) (lead author with Pietro Ortolani and Sean Wright) (2019) “The Legitimacy of Online Arbitration in Europe,”, The Brave New World of Arbitration: The Role of Technology and the Internet in International Arbitration (Christian Aschauer and Maud Piers eds.) (with Pablo Cortés) (2018) (2016) “Arbitration in Southern Europe: Insights from a Large-Scale Empirical Study,” American Review of International Arbitration (lead author with Pietro Ortolani and Barbara Warwas) (2015) “The Boundaries of Most Favored Nation Treatment in International Investment Law,” Michigan Journal of International Law (2012) “Authority and Contemporary International Arbitration,” Louisiana Law Review (2010) “Commercial Arbitration in Japan: Contributions to the Debate on Japanese ‘Non-Litigiousness,’” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (2007) Studies Arbitration in the Americas (2018) (with Pietro Ortolani, Pinar Karacan and Stephanie Cardoso) [Study supported by the Organization of American States and by the Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce] Legal Instruments and Practice of Arbitration in the EU (2015) (with Ilias Bantekas, Christine Riefa, Federico Ferretti, Barbara Warwas and Pietro Ortolani) [Study funded by the European Parliament to provide advice with a view to possible European Union legislation on arbitration] Seminars Seminars Invited Presentations (recent) “Dublin International Arbitration Day”; Arbitration Ireland; Dublin, Ireland; 2018 Spoke on cognitive bias in arbitral decision-making “V International Arbitration Readings”; International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Kiev, Ukraine; 2018 Spoke on legal limits to arbitration of disputes “Modern Times in Arbitration: Initiatives and Perspectives”; Permanent court of Arbitration attached to the Economic chamber of Macedonia; Skopje, Macedonia; 2018 Spoke on legal limits to arbitration of disputes “Second Annual Meridian-180 Global Summit: Responding to the Rise of Inward-Looking Societies: New Models of Cooperation”, Brussels, Belgium; 2017 “Guerilla Tactics in Arbitration: Views from Southeast Asia to the Atlantic”; Asia-Pacific Forum for International Arbitration; Dublin, Ireland; 2016 Chair of panel and spoke on guerrilla tactics in arbitration “Arbitration Futures: The Next 10 Years”; Arbitration Centre of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Lisbon, Portugal; 2016 Keynote speech to under-40 session; panel member discussing the future of arbitration “International Dispute Resolution: Diversity Towards Convergence?”; International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce; Krakow, Poland; 2015 Chair of panel; spoke on arbitration as a field of practice Participant in the UNCTAD Expert Meeting on “The Transformation of the International Investment Agreement Regime”, Geneva, Switzerland; 2015 Presentation to the JURI Committee of the European Parliament: “Legal Instruments and Practice of Arbitration in the EU”, Brussels, Belgium; 2015 Presented to the Committee on arbitration and investment arbitration; answered questions from MEPs “Towards a Theory of Arbitration: A Decentering Approach to Globalization”; Chinese University of Hong Kong; Hong Kong, China; 2014 Spoke on cultural influences on arbitration practice “International Arbitration: The Role of Law”; Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce; Stockholm, Sweden; 2014 Spoke on cross-cultural differences in arbitration practice Teaching Experience Teaching Experience Relevant Teaching Experience Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 2018-19, Leicester Law School [convenor, course developer] Analysing the English Legal System, 2017, Leicester Law School [convenor, course developer] International Commercial Arbitration, 2016, Leicester Law School [convenor] Contemporary Legal Problems of World Trade, 2016-17, Leicester Law School [convenor] International Sales, 2016, Leicester Law School [convenor] International Investment Law, 2016-2017, Leicester Law School [convenor] Civil Dispute Resolution Methods, 2016, Leicester Law School [convenor] International Sales Law and Arbitration, 2013-15, Brunel Law School [convenor, course developer] Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 2013-15, Brunel Law School [convenor, course developer] Principles of International Commercial Arbitration, 2013-15, Brunel Law School [convenor] Contract Law, 2011-14, Brunel Law School [convenor in 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16] International Trade Law [i.e. International Business Transactions], 2012-14 [convenor] Public International Law, 2011-14, Brunel Law School [co-convenor in 2011-12; convenor in 2012-14] International Commercial Arbitration, 2011-13, Brunel Law School [convenor] International Commercial Arbitration, May 2012, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London [taught half of week-long practitioner training programme] International Law, 2011-12, Brunel Law School International Arbitration: Foreign Investment Disputes, September 2011, Mekelle University (Ethiopia) [two-week intensive course for LLM students] International Arbitration: Foreign Investment Disputes, 2009-11, University of Warwick Law School [convenor, course developer] International Economic Law, 2009-11, University of Warwick Law School Law and the International Business Environment, 2007-11, University of Warwick Law School [co-taught with faculty from Warwick Business School] [convenor] The Law of Mediation in Europe, August 2010, European Mediator Certificate course [course developer; one-day course as part of practitioner training programme] International Law, 2008, University of Warwick Law School U.S. Securities Regulation, 2008, University of Warwick Law School [convenor, course developer] PhD Research Supervised Anna Liza Kyprianou, Breaking the Habit of a Lifetime: Applying Legal Theory to the Theory of Arbitration [ongoing] Valentina Dimitriou, Towards a Systematic Reform of the International Investment Treaty Law Regime Aiming at the Realisation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development [ongoing] Harry Meliniotis, Introducing Construction Statutory Adjudication to European Countries other than the UK: Can the Current State of Affairs Be Improved Whilst Complying with all Legal Rights of the Parties? [ongoing] Ying-Jun Lin, The Convergence and Divergence of International Economic Law on Social Regulations: How Multiple (or Conflicting) Obligations of WTO Agreements and BITs Shape the Boundary of Regulatory Power [ongoing] Siavash Rad, Legal Obstacles to Foreign Investment in Emerging Market States [ongoing] Onyema Onyeani, Full Protection and Security of Foreign Investments in Developing States: Nigeria as a Case Study [supervised while teaching at Brunel University; supervision ended when I left Brunel] Yazan Haddadin, International Arbitration in the Middle East [successfully completed 2012] Rao Hashim, The Role of International Economic Institutions in Bringing the Economic Cycle towards Stability, [successfully completed 2012] Rumana Islam, “Fair and Equitable Treatment” and Developing Countries [Commonwealth Scholar; supervised while teaching at the University of Warwick; formal supervision ended when I left Warwick, although informal guidance continued; successfully completed 2015] Rami Hindieh, International Investment Law and State Contracts [supervised while teaching at the University of Warwick; supervision ended when I left Warwick] Joy Ogaji, The Viability of Mediation in the Resolution of the Niger Delta Resource Control Conflict [supervised while teaching at the University of Warwick; supervision ended when I left Warwick; successfully completed] Professional Admissions Professional Admissions New York Memberships Memberships Panels and Lists of Arbitral Institutions Arbitration Department and Mediation Centre of the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2018-19) Asia International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI) British Virgin Islands International Arbitration Centre Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Business Arbitration Scheme) Delos Dispute Resolution Finland Arbitration Institute International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC) (2018-2023) Istanbul Arbitration Centre Kosovo Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia Permanent Court of Arbitration attached to the Economic Chamber of Macedonia Scottish Arbitration Centre Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) Editorial Boards Associate Editorial Board, Transnational Dispute Management Journal Peer Reviewing Civil Justice Quarterly Columbia FDI Perspectives Journal of International Dispute Settlement Journal of International Economic Law Leiden Journal of International Law Oxford Bibliographies Online Political Studies Book Proposal Peer Reviewing Kluwer Law International Oxford University Press Palgrave Macmillan Routledge-Cavendish Practice Practice Arbitrator Style and Preferences Questionnaire 1. Delegation: do you believe it is acceptable for an arbitrator to delegate work to a junior lawyer who is not a member of the tribunal? 5 (never): Parties hire me because of my personal abilities, and have a right to receive those abilities. My experience is that even apparently mundane activities such as drafting the procedural or factual sections of an award are important in fully understanding a case and reaching the correct decision. 2. Tribunal secretaries: do you believe that it is acceptable for a tribunal to appoint a secretary to assist it with the administrative tasks relating to the proceedings? 3 (it depends): A tribunal secretary who performs purely administrative tasks can enhance the efficiency of an arbitration. However, a tribunal secretary should never undertake substantive tasks, even of a minor nature. 3. Preliminary or early decisions: do you believe it is appropriate for tribunals to attempt to identify and decide potentially dispositive issues early in a case, even if one of the parties does not consent to this? 1 (always): I have a responsibility to maximise the effectiveness of an arbitration. If both parties oppose early decisions, then they are never appropriate. However, if only one party opposes them, that party should be given the opportunity to make their case against such decisions being made, but as arbitrator my responsibility is to ensure that the interests of both parties are protected. 4. Settlement facilitation: do you believe arbitral tribunals should offer to assist parties in reaching a settlement, and actively look for opportunities to do so? 5 (never): I believe that I should be aware of the possibility of settlement, and should encourage parties to pursue settlement where appropriate. However, it would compromise my role as arbitrator to personally participate in settlement discussions. 5. Early views of strengths and weaknesses of claims and defenses: do you believe arbitrators should provide parties with their preliminary views of the strengths and weaknesses of their claims and defenses? 1 (always): I will not indicate strengths and weaknesses to parties in order to help them improve their case. However, it is important to be clear with parties as to what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of their case, to ensure that they have an opportunity to address my perceptions. Otherwise parties may lose simply because they failed to address a concern I had about their case, even though they had the ability to do so. Allowing that to happen would be inconsistent with my responsibility to the parties. 6. IBA Rules of Evidence: do you believe international tribunals should apply the rules in proceedings even if one of the parties objects to their application? 5 (never): The IBA Rules are not binding, and are only applicable on the agreement of the parties. 7. Document disclosure: do you believe it is appropriate for international tribunals to grant a party's request for e-discovery? 2 (sometimes): While the appropriate scope of discovery will vary between cases, properly-directed discovery is an important tool for the correct resolution of disputes. 8. Skeleton arguments: do you prefer for parties to provide a summary of their arguments to the tribunal before the hearing? 1 (always): Parties should retain the flexibility to depart from their skeleton if they wish to do so, but properly prepared skeleton arguments from both parties facilitates the efficiency of a hearing. 9. Chair nominations: do you believe co-arbitrators should consult with the parties who appointed them before proposing names for a chair to the other co-arbitrator? 1 (always): It is appropriate to consult with a nominating party, as the arbitration fundamentally belongs to the parties. However, this must be done openly and by both party-nominated arbitrators. I am not bound by any views the nominating party may express. 10. Arbitrator interviews: are you available to be interviewed by the parties before being appointed (in accordance, for example, with the Guidelines for Arbitrator Interviews published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators)? 1 (always): Selecting an arbitrator is the most important decision parties will make in an arbitration, and they must be able to make an informed choice. However, interviews should be recorded, and made available to the opposing party, or undertaken with the other party present. 11. Arbitrator interviews: if you are appointed as a co-arbitrator, do you think parties should interview a prospective chair that you and the other co-arbitrator have identified, before agreeing the appointment? 1 (always): As just explained, parties must be able to make informed decisions regarding the arbitrators in their dispute. Even if the chair is to be selected by the party-nominated arbitrators, the parties should be given the chance to develop informed views on a proposed chair, and to express those views. 12. Counsel misconduct: for a counsel that has engaged in misconduct, do you generally take steps while the proceedings are underway, or include consideration of the misconduct in a subsequent award of costs, or do you believe it is not within the responsibility of the arbitral tribunal? (choose only one) (b) Discipline both during proceedings and in subsequent award on costs: Misconduct must be dealt with at the time it occurs, to protect the arbitral proceedings. However, the most effective control is often the imposition of sanctions through an award on costs. 13. Costs: do you believe it is appropriate for a party to recover all of its reasonable costs (including counsel fees) if it has prevailed on its claims or defenses? 3 (it depends): If the parties are able to agree on an approach to costs, I will follow the agreed approach. If they are not, I believe that each party bearing its own costs is appropriate, absent unusual circumstances (e.g. a party bringing a claim with no plausible foundation, or failing to offer a legally plausible defence). The “costs follow the event” rule is based on an artificial view of legal decision-making, in which the fact that a party has won an issue is treated as proof that the other party’s arguments were entirely invalid. However, I will approach such determinations on an issue by issue basis, and may award a parties costs on a particular issue, even if not for the entire arbitration. 14. Costs: do you believe it is appropriate for a party to recover the reasonable costs of any in-house counsel who conducted or assisted the party's conduct of the arbitration? 2 (sometimes): When in-house counsel perform legal work for an arbitration, the costs of that work should be treated the same as the cost of legal work performed by external counsel. 15. Do you view yourself as conducting proceedings more in the style of the common law, the civil law, or no preference/depends on situation? 1 (common law): While I am unquestionably common law in style, this should not be confused with taking a purely “adversarial” approach. While the parties have the responsibility of developing and arguing their own case, I will actively indicate issues that I feel need to be explored, both factual and legal.