Article - Czech & Central European Yearbook of Arbitration

Czech (& Central European)
Yearbook of Arbitration®
Czech (& Central European)
Yearbook of Arbitration®
Volume VI
2016
Rights and Duties of Parties in Arbitration
Editors
Alexander J. Bělohlávek Naděžda Rozehnalová

Professor Professor
at the VŠB TU at the Masaryk University
in Ostrava in Brno
Czech Republic Czech Republic
Questions About This Publication
www.czechyearbook.org; yearbook@ablegal.cz
COPYRIGHT © 2016
By Lex Lata BV
__________________
All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic
or mechanical means including information storage
and retrieval systems without permission
in writing from the publisher.
__________________
Printed in the EU.
ISBN/EAN: 978-90-824603-2-2
ISSN: 2157-9490
Lex Lata BV
Mauritskade 45-B
2514 HG – THE HAGUE
The Netherlands
__________________
The title Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
as well as the logo appearing on the cover are protected by EU
trademark law.
Typeset by Lex Lata BV.
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Advisory Board
Anton Baier Bohuslav Klein Stanislaw Soltysiński
Vienna, Austria Prague, Czech Republic Warsaw, Poland
Silvy Chernev Andrzej Kubas Jozef Suchoža

Sofia, Bulgaria Warsaw and Krakow, Košice, Slovak Republic
Poland
Sir Anthony Colman Nikolay Natov Vladimír Týč

London, UK Sofia, Bulgaria Brno, Czech Republic
Piotr Nowaczyk Evangelos Vassilakakis

Warsaw, Poland Thessaloniki, Greece
Editorial Board
Alena Bányaiová Marek Furtek Asko Pohla
Prague, Czech Republic Warsaw, Poland Talinn, Estonia
Radu Bogdan Bobei Wolfgang Hahnkamper Květoslav Růžička

Bucharest, Romania Vienna, Austria Pilsen/Prague,
Czech Republic
Viorel Mihai Ciobanu Vít Horáček Matthias Scherer

Bucharest, Romania Prague, Czech Republic Geneva, Switzerland
Marcin Czepelak Miluše Hrnčiříková Thomas Schultz

Krakow, Poland Olomouc, Geneva, Switzerland
Czech Republic
Filip Černý Lászlo Kecskes Jiří Valdhans

Prague, Czech Republic Budapest, Hungary Brno, Czech Republic
Ian I. Funk Vladimir Khvalei Kamil Zawicki

Minsk, Belarus Moscow, Russia Warsaw and Krakow,
Poland
Address for correspondence & manuscripts
Jana Zajíce 32, Praha 7, 170 00, Czech Republic

yearbook@ablegal.cz
Editorial support:
František Halfar, Jan Halfar, Lenka Němečková, Karel Nohava |v
Impressum
Institutions Participating in the CYArb® Project

Academic Institutions
University of West Bohemia in Pilsen, Czech Republic
Faculty of Law, Department of International Law & Department
of Constitutional Law
Západočeská univerzita v Plzni, Právnická fakulta
Katedra mezinárodního práva & Katedra ústavního práva
Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic

Faculty of Law, Department of International and European Law
Masarykova univerzita v Brně, Právnická fakulta
Katedra mezinárodního a evropského práva
Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Slovak Republic

Faculty of Law, Department of Commercial Law and Business Law
Právnická fakulta UPJŠ, Košice, Slovensko
Katedra obchodného a hospodárskeho práva
VŠB – TU Ostrava, Czech Republic

Faculty of Economics, Department of Law
VŠB – TU Ostrava, Ekonomická fakulta
Katedra práva
Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech

Republic, v.v.i.
Ústav státu a práva Akademie věd ČR, v.v.i. | vii
Non-academic Institutions Participating in the CYArb®

Project
International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic
Chamber
Wiener Internationaler Schiedsgericht (VIAC), Vienna
Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania
Curtea de Arbitraj Comercial Internaţional de pe lângă
Camera de Comerţ şi Industrie a României, Bucharest
Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of

Commerce and Industry
A Magyar Kereskedelmi és Iparkamara mellett szervezett
Választottbíróság, Budapest
Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech

Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic
Rozhodčí soud při Hospodářské komoře České republiky a
Agrární komoře České republiky, Prague
Arbitration Court attached to the Czech-Moravian Commodity

Exchange Kladno
Rozhodčí soud při Českomoravské komoditní burze Kladno
(Czech Republic)
ICC National Committee Czech Republic

ICC Národní výbor Česká republika
The Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce in

Warsaw
Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej w
Warszawie
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law, Slovak

Republic
Slovenská akadémia vied, Ústav štátu a práva. Bratislava,
Slovensko
│││
Proofreading and translation support provided by: Agentura

viii | SPĚVÁČEK, s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic, and Pamela Lewis, USA.
Contents
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................. xi
ARTICLES
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking
of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration ................................................. 3
Ondřej Čech
A Party‘s Right to Appoint an Arbitrator and its Limits
Issue Conflict in International Arbitration ............................................. 23
Petr Dobiáš
Rights and Duties of Parties in Insurance Arbitration .......................... 43
Cristina Ioana Florescu

The Contractual Legal Nature of the Relationship
Between the Major Participants in Arbitration ..................................... 69
Garðar V. Gunnarsson │ David Earnest

Raul Gallardo │ Tobiasz Kaczor
How to Sharpen the Sword of Efficiency
in International Arbitration? ................................................................. 101
Andrzej Kubas │ Maciej Durbas

Conditional Effectiveness of the Arbitration Agreement ..................... 125
Harald Sippel
Med-Arb: Recent Trends and an Outlook on the Future .................... 151
Antuen Skënderi │ Aulona Hazbiu │ Klotilda Bushka (Ferhati)

Legal Framework and Implementation Issues Concerning Parties’
Rights and Duties During the Arbitration Process:
An Albanian Case Study......................................................................... 177 | ix
Elena Zucconi Galli Fonseca │ Carlo Rasia

Third Parties Between Arbitration Agreements
and Review of Arbitral Awards.............................................................. 191
CASE LAW
Poland
Kuba Gąsiorowski │ Magdalena Matejczyk │ Kamil Zawicki
The Supreme Court Judgments ............................................................. 213
NEWS & REPORTS

Jan Iosifovich Funk │ Inna Vladimirovna Pererva
Settlement of Disputes by International Arbitration
Court at BelCCI ...................................................................................... 227
Asko Pohla
Validity of Arbitration Agreements in Estonian law............................ 247
BIBLIOGRAPHY, CURRENT EVENTS, CONFERENCES,

CYIL & CYArb® PRESENTATIONS, IMPORTANT WEB
SITES
Selected Bibliography for 2015 .............................................................. 271
Current Events ........................................................................................ 285
Past CYIL and CYArb® presentations .................................................. 301
Important Web Sites ............................................................................... 303
Index ......................................................................................................... 315
All contributions in this book are subject to academic review.
x|
List of Abbreviations
AA 1996 United Kingdom the English Arbitration

Act 1996
AAA Code of Ethics AAA The Code of Ethics for Arbitrators
in Commercial Disputes
AAA American Arbitration Association
AAR ARIAS (UK) Arbitration Rules, per the
wording in force as of 1 January 2014
(Third Edition)
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AFTAR ARIAS (UK) Fast Track Arbitration Rules
(2013)
AIIB Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
Albanian CCP Albanian Code of Civil Procedure
AMA Protocol Arb-Med-Arb Protocol
ARIAS U.S. AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance
Arbitration Society United States
ARIAS UK AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance
Arbitration Society United Kingdom
ARRUS ARIAS Rules for the Resolution of U. S.
Insurance and Reinsurance Disputes
ARRUS ARIAS Rules for the Resolution of U. S.
Insurance and Reinsurance Disputes
CEFAREA French Reinsurance and Insurance
Arbitration Center
CEFAREA Rules CEFAREA‘s 2013 Arbitration Rules
CEFAREA-ARIAS France The new rules of the French Reinsurance
and Insurance Arbitration Centre | xi
CIETAC China International Economic and Trade

Arbitration Commission
CLE BC Continuing Legal Education Society of
British Columbia
Directive EU’s Mediation Directive
EU European Union
HKIAC Hong Kong International Arbitration
Centre
IBA Rules International Bar Association’s Rules on
the Taking of Evidence in International
Commercial Arbitration
IBA International Bar Association
ICC Rules Rules of Arbitration of the ICC
International Court of Arbitration
ICC International Chamber of Commerce
(often used in terms International
Court of Arbitration attached to the
International Chamber of Commerce)
ICDR International Centre for Dispute
Resolution
ICSID Convention Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Disputes between States and
Nationals of Other States of March 18,
1965
ICSID International Center for Settlement of
Investment Disputes
JCAA Japan Commercial Arbitration
Association
KCAB Korea Commercial Arbitration Board
LCIA Rules LCIA Arbitration Rules – The London
Court of International Arbitration (see
also ‘LCIA’)
LCIA London Court of International
Arbitration (see also ‘LCIA Rules’)
MEDART Albanian Centre on Commercial
Mediation and Arbitration
Model Law UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Arbitration1
SCC Rules SCC Institute Arbitration Rules.
Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration
1
The template was approved on 21 June 1985 as UN Document A/40/17, Annex I, within the
xii | framework of the unification program of the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of
Commerce (see also SCC)
SCC Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. In
this book in the sense of the Arbitration
Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of
Commerce (see also ‘SCC Rules’)
SIAC Singapore International Arbitration
Centre
SIMC Singapore International Mediation Centre
UNCITRAL Rules UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules within the
meaning of the UN General Assembly
resolution 31/98 of 15 December 1976,2
as amended in 2010 by the UN General
Assembly resolution 65/223
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law4
VIAC Vienna International Arbitration Centre
2
Available online in English at: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules/
arb-rules.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2014). Also available in other UN languages.
3
Full text of the UNCITRAL Rules 2010 is available online in English at: http://www.uncitral.org/
pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-revised/arb-rules-revised-2010-e.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2014).
4
See www.uncitral.org. | xiii
Articles
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in
Investor-State Arbitration ....................................................................... 3
Ondřej Čech
A Party’s Right to Appoint an Arbitrator and its Limits .................... 23
Petr Dobiáš
Rights and Duties of Parties in Insurance Arbitration ....................... 43
Cristina Ioana Florescu

The Contractual Legal Nature of the Relationship
Between the Major Participants in Arbitration ................................. 69
Garðar V. Gunnarsson │ David Earnest

Raul Gallardo │ Tobiasz Kaczor
How to Sharpen the Sword of Efficiency
in International Arbitration ................................................................ 101
Andrzej Kubas │ Maciej Durbas

Conditional Effectiveness of the Arbitration Agreement ................ 125
Harald Sippel
Med-Arb: Recent Trends and an Outlook on the Future ................. 151
Antuen Skënderi │ Aulona Hazbiu │ Klotilda Bushka (Ferhati)

Legal Framework and Implementation Issues Concerning Parties’
Rights and Duties During the Arbitration Process:
An Albanian Case Study ...................................................................... 177
Elena Zucconi │ Galli Fonseca │ Carlo Rasia

Third Parties Between Arbitration Agreements and Review of Arbitral
Awards.................................................................................................... 191 |1
Key words:
Alexander J. Bělohlávek investor-state disputes │
taking of evidence │ burden
of proof │ discovery │
Rights and Duties of Parties expert report │ translation │
interpretation │ ICSID │
in Connection with Taking UNCITRAL Rules │
investor │ host country │
of Evidence in Investor-State Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal │
common law │ balance of
probability │ subjective
Arbitration element │ production of
documents │ procedural
rules │ international
arbitration │ International
Bar Association Rules on
the Taking of Evidence in
International Commercial
Arbitration │ e-discovery
Abstract │ International arbitration differs from Alexander J. Bělohlávek,

domestic court litigation with respect to evidence Univ. Professor, Prof.
zw., Dr. iur., Mgr., Dipl.
and the burden of proof, in that there are no formal Ing. oec (MB), prof.
rules as to the taking of evidence, nor with respect to hon., Dr. h. c. Lawyer
(Senior Partner of Law
the burden of proof. This article focuses on certain Offices Bělohlávek),
specific issues relating to the taking of evidence in Dept. of Law, Faculty
investor-state disputes connected with the rights of Economics, Ostrava,
Czech Republic; Faculty of
and duties of the parties. Law and Administration
The expression “burden of proof” refers not to WSM Warsaw (Poland),
Dept. of Int. and European
the degree of proof that is required in order for Law, Faculty of Law,
a fact to be deemed established, but rather to the Masaryk University,
Brno, Czech Republic
question of which party has the onus of proving the (visiting). Chairman
given allegation. The parties present a wide range of the Commission on
of facts to the arbitrators, and it is more or less Arbitration ICC National
Committee Czech
irrelevant who has the burden of proof. Insofar as Republic, Member of
these facts are disputed, the parties will present and the ICC International
Court of Arbitration in
the tribunal will take evidence. Only if a clear and Paris (France), Arbitrator
convincing answer to a factual question cannot be in Prague, Vienna,
Kiev, Vilnius, Warsaw,
found will the tribunal have regard to the duty to Moscow, Kijev, Minsk,
submit evidence and the burden of proof in order Almaty, Ljubljana, Sofia,
to decide to whose disadvantage such non liquet Kuala Lumpur etc.,
Arbitrator pursuant
situation has to be resolved. to UNCITRAL Rules.
Discovery in international arbitration is usually Member of ASA, DIS,
Austrian Arb. Association
limited to exchanges of certain documents and etc. Immediately past
has to be limited, because arbitration would president of the WJA – the
World Jurist Association,
otherwise be deprived of its fundamental functions Washington D.C./USA.
and advantages. This also applies to investor- E-mail: office@ablegal.cz
|3
state disputes, which are also often specific for a special interest in not
submitting or presenting, respectively, certain documents or facts due to a
qualified public element.
│││
I. Taking of Evidence and Burden of Proof

1.01. International arbitration differs from domestic court litigation
with respect to evidence and proof, in that “there are no formal
rules of evidence and no formal rules as to the burden of proof ”.1
This article focuses on certain specific issues relating to the taking
of evidence in investor-state disputes. We will first analyze the
issue of the burden of proof and the requirements for meeting
the burden of proof that apply in these types of proceedings. The
next part of the article will focus on the issues of the production
of documents, expert reports and translations.
II. Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof

1.02. The issues of the burden of proof and standards of proof rarely
arise in international arbitration. In this regard, arbitration rules
provide none or only negligible guidance. Consequently, it is
necessary to find the answers in legal theory and case law.
II.1. Burden of Proof

1.03. The expression “burden of proof ” refers not to the degree
of proof that is required in order for a fact to be deemed
established, but rather to the question of which party has the
onus of proving the given allegation. The question of the burden
of proof is, however, not one that tribunals are often called on
to examine. Böckstiegel describes the evidentiary practice in
international arbitration along the following lines: The parties
present a wide range of facts to the arbitrators, and it is more
or less irrelevant who has the burden of proof. Insofar as these
facts are disputed, the parties will present and the tribunal will
take evidence. Only if a clear and convincing answer to a factual
question cannot be found will the tribunal have regard to the
duty to submit evidence and the burden of proof in order to
1
Doak Bishop; James Crawford; W. Michael Reisman, Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases,
4| Materials and Commentary, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 15 (2005).
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
decide to whose disadvantage such non liquet situation has to

be resolved.2
1.04. The general principle that is applicable when dealing with the
burden of proof is the onus probandi rule, in other words the
rule stipulating that the party making an allegation bears the
burden of proving it.
1.05. Neither the ICSID Convention3 nor the ICSID Rules make
any mention of the burden of proof. Conversely, Article 24 of
the UNCITRAL Rules simply restates the onus probandi rule:
“each party shall have the burden of proving the facts relied on to
support their claim or defense”.
1.06. Despite the silence of the relevant ICSID texts, ICSID tribunals
have acknowledged that the rule incorporated in Article 24 of
the UNCITRAL Rules is a general principle of law.
1.07. In Middle East Cement v. Egypt, the tribunal called the rule a
“general principle of international procedure”,4 and cited Asian
Agricultural Products v. Sri Lanka in support of the conclusion.
In Asian Agricultural Products v. Sri Lanka, the tribunal had
similarly ruled that it was one of the “established international
law rules,”5 a conclusion also confirmed by the tribunal in
Salini v. Jordan.6 In Asian Agricultural Products v. Sri Lanka,
the tribunal went on to note that “a party having the burden of
proof must not only bring evidence in support of their allegations,
but must also convince the Tribunal of their truth, lest they be
disregarded for want, or insufficiency, of proof.”7
1.08. It is important to keep in mind that, depending on the
allegation, the burden of proof can fall on either the claimant or
the respondent in arbitration. Indeed, where a respondent State
asserts a defense such as necessity or force majeure, it will have
the burden of proving that the defense applies. This was notably
stated by the tribunal in Autopista v. Venezuela, which held that
2
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Presenting Evidence in International Arbitration, 1(16) ICSID Review – FILJ
(2001).
3
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of
March 18, 1965. Entered into force on October 14, 1966. ICSID = International Centre for Settlement of
Investment Disputes.
4
Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, April 12, 2002, 7
ICSID Reports 178, marg. 89.
5
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v. Republic of Sri Lanka (Award) 6 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 526 (1991 (ICSID,
1990, El-Kosheri P, Goldman & Asante), p. 549.
6
Salini v. Jordan, Award, 31 January 2006, marg. 70.
7
1990, El-Kosheri P, Goldman & Asante), p. 549. |5
“it is up to Venezuela, which relies upon the force majeure excuse,

to prove that the conditions of force majeure are met”.8
1.09. While Böckstiegel first describes how the burden of proof is
only resorted to by arbitral tribunals if an answer to a factual
question is not forthcoming from the evidence presented, and
he goes on to state that the burden of proof remains highly
relevant in deciding cases in international arbitration.9 This is
evident in Loewen v. United States, where the tribunal found
that the claimant had failed to present evidence on a matter on
which the onus of proof rested with the claimant. As a result, the
tribunal found that it was “simply left to speculate” on the matter,
and could only find that the claimant had failed to establish a
violation of international investment law.10
1.10. It should be noted that the burden of proof may be addressed
in the relevant bilateral investment treaty itself. For example,
the Canada-Costa Rica bilateral investment treaty provides that
the investor bears the burden of demonstrating that (1) it is an
investor as defined in the bilateral investment treaty, (2) that
the host State breached the bilateral investment treaty, and (3)
that the investor has incurred a loss or damage as a result of the
breach.11
II.2. Standard of Proof

1.11. The standard of proof refers to the level or degree of proof
required to satisfy the burden of proof upon a party. The standard
of proof is largely undefined in investment treaty arbitration. For
example, while Article 24(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules addresses
the burden of proof, it does not address the standard of proof. In
the context of proceedings before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal,
the procedural rules of which are based on the UNCITRAL
Rules, an author wrote that the concept of a quantum of proof
is elusive, if not illusory. The fact seems to be that, as stated
by a former president of the Tribunal, the standard of proof is
8
Autopista Concensionada de Venezuela v. Venezuela, Award, 23 September 2003, marg. 110. See also 10
ICSID Reports 309.
9
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, supra note 2.
10
Loewen v. United States, Decision on Jurisdiction, award, marg. 215–217.
11
Article XII(2) of the Canada-Costa Rica Bilateral Investment Treaty, online: on www. kluwerarbitration.
com. None of the bilateral investment treaties entered into by the Czech Republic, however, contain any
6| such clause.
that you have to convince me.12 The standard of proof changes

depending on the circumstances of the individual cases.13
1.12. What can be said is that, like in judicial proceedings, what is being
sought in the arbitral process is not absolute, unchallengeable
proof as a scientific matter. As a result, the “balance of
probability” standard, familiar to common law lawyers, may be
said to generally “reflect the arbitral practice and also to accord
with Article 24(1)”.14 The “balance of probability” standard,
strictly speaking, means that the party with the burden of proof
must show that it is more probable than not that their allegations
are true. If, theoretically, it is equally probable that a fact is true
or untrue, the party will have failed to satisfy their burden of
proof, and the party’s allegation will be dismissed. While the
standard appears straightforward, the inherent subjectivity in
its application raises questions as to its true utility. Nevertheless,
it is to be distinguished from more stringent standards, such as
the standard that a fact must be proved “beyond a reasonable
doubt”, or even the “clear and convincing standard”.
1.13. The balance of probabilities standard was notably applied by
the ICSID tribunal in Tokios Tokelès v. Ukraine.15 In its award,
the tribunal rejected the parties’ contentions that the standard
of proof with respect to the allegation of a concerted campaign
by State officials against the investor should be higher or lower
than the balance of probabilities. It first noted that the logic of
suggesting that the standard should be lower because direct
proof is hard to find against a person or body in high authority
“appears questionable”. “Indeed, its consequence is that the person
who makes the allegation may be entitled to succeed even if it is
less likely than not that the allegation is true.” The tribunal then
turned to the argument that allegations of gross misconduct
made against a highly placed person require a higher standard of
proof, noting that this argument also presented a “serious logical
problem”. It concluded by finding that the claimant “must show
that its assertion is more likely than not to be true”.16
1.14. A number of tribunals have set out the principle that the burden
of proof can, in certain circumstances, shift to the opposing
party, where the party making an allegation adduces evidence
sufficient prima facie to establish or raise a presumption that
12
Jamison M. Selby, Fact-Finding Before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: The View from the
Trenches, in Fact-Finding Before International Tribunals, American Society of International Law 144
(Richard B. Lillich ed., 1992).
13
David D. Caron; Lee Caplan; Matti Pellonpää, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A
Commentary, Oxford: OUP 570 (2006).
14
Ibid., at 572.
15
Tokios Tokelès v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, July 26, 2007, marg. 124.
16
Tokios Tokelès v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, July 26, 2007, marg. 124. |7
what is claimed is true. This was notably the case in Feldman

v. Mexico, in which the tribunal found that the claimant had
“established a presumption and a prima facie case” that the
respondent State had discriminated against it.17 It considered this
to shift the burden onto the respondent, which, however, failed
to rebut the presumption.18 The principle had also been applied
earlier by the tribunals in Asian Agricultural Products v. Sri
Lanka and Tradex v. Albania. The tribunal in Asian Agricultural
Products v. Sri Lanka set out that “in case a party adduces some
evidence that prima facie supports their allegation, the burden
of proof shifts to their opponent”.19 The tribunal in Tradex v.
Albania cited this statement, but found that the claimant had
not adduced sufficient evidence to support their allegation of
expropriation “in such a way that the burden of proof would have
shifted to Albania …” 20 The principle is, however, not applicable
to all cases. As David D. Caron et al. point out, there may be
certain categories of cases or circumstances in which prima facie
evidence is sufficient to shift the onus to the respondent. There
are others, however, in which the claimant may be required to
make more than just a prima facie showing.21 In the latter type
of cases, a standard closer to the “balance of probability” would
most likely apply.
1.15. Tribunals may require a higher standard of proof when the
allegations involve acts of a serious or criminal nature, such as
bribery, corruption or forgery.22 The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal
(applying rules of procedure based on the UNCITRAL Rules)
has, for example, required that “clear and convincing” evidence
or “beyond a reasonable doubt” standards be met in such cases.23
The application of such increased standards has, however,
been criticized,24 and was notably rejected in Tokios Tokelès v.
Ukraine in the context of an allegation of gross misconduct by
high-ranking State officials.25
17
Marvin Feldman v. Mexico, Award, December 16, 2002, marg. 177. See also 18 ICSID Review-FILJ 488
(2003).
18
Marvin Feldman v. Mexico, Award, December 16, 2002, marg. 177. See also 18 ICSID Review-FILJ 488
(2003).
19
1990, El-Kosheri P, Goldman & Asante), pp. 549-550.
20
Tradex Hellas S.A. v. Republic of Albania, Award, April 29, 1999, ICSID Case No. ARB/94/2, marg. 72,
162. See also 5 ICSID Reports.
21
David D. Caron; Lee Caplan; Matti Pellonpää, supra note 13, at 572.
22
Matthias Scherer, Circumstantial Evidence in Corruption Cases Before International Arbitral Tribunals,
5 International Arbitration Law Review 29–40 (2002).
23
David D. Caron; Lee Caplan; Matti Pellonpää, supra note 13, at 569.
24
Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, Corrupt Practices in the Foreign Investment Context: Contractual and
Procedural Aspects, in Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive
Legal Aspects 471, 496 (Norbert Horn; Stefan Kröll eds., 2004).
8| 25
Tokios Tokelès v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, July 26, 2007, marg. 124.
III. Production of Documents

III.1. Scope of Production of Documents in
Investment Arbitration
1.16. The production of documents is a process more familiar to
lawyers from common law jurisdictions than from civil law
jurisdictions. It is an expression of the right enjoyed by the
parties to the dispute to request the mutual production of
documents that may be relevant to the dispute. In the United
States, this practice is widespread and can be very intrusive,
giving parties in litigation broad access to large numbers of
documents in the possession of the opposing party. In certain
civil law jurisdictions, the practice is almost unheard of, and
the claimant is expected to construct its case on the basis of
the documents and other evidence that are in their possession.
International arbitral tribunals have taken an approach that is
between these two extremes, and generally allow the production
of documents, although in a restricted manner.
1.17. Discovery in international arbitration is usually limited to
exchanges of certain documents. U.S.-style discovery involving
voluminous broad-category document requests and oral
depositions are usually not permitted, unless the parties agree.26
Other authors have noted that, to put it bluntly, a claimant
investor cannot obtain the evidence necessary to prove its case
from the State respondent.27
III.2. ICSID and UNCITRAL Rules

1.18. Investment treaty tribunals find the authority to order the
production of documents in their applicable procedural rules.
Article 34(2) of the ICSID Rules reads as follows:
The Tribunal may, if it deems it necessary at any
stage of the proceedings:
call upon the parties to produce documents,
witnesses and experts…
1.19. The ICSID Rules are intended to further detail the general rules
of procedure set forth in the ICSID Convention, and they apply to
ICSID proceedings simultaneously with the ICSID Convention.
In the case of the production of documents, however, Article
34(2) of the ICSID Rules provides additional guidance to the
26
Doak Bishop; James Crawford; W. Michael Reisman, supra note 1, at 15.
27
Lucy Reed; Jan Paulsson; Nigel Blackaby, Guide To ICSID Arbitration, Kluwer Law
|9
International 85 (2004).
relevant rule of the ICSID Convention. Indeed, it reproduces

almost word for word Article 43 of the ICSID Convention,
which provides as follows:
Except as the parties agree otherwise, the Tribunal
may, if it deems it necessary at any stage of the
proceedings,
call upon the parties to produce documents or other
evidence…
1.20. The UNCITRAL Rules also set out the tribunal’s authority to
order the production of documents in almost identical terms:
At any time during the arbitral proceedings, the
arbitral tribunal may require the parties to produce
documents, exhibits or other evidence within such a
period of time as the tribunal shall determine.
1.21. Neither the ICSID nor the UNCITRAL Rules therefore provide
much guidance as to the extent of the production of documents
that could be imposed on the parties by a tribunal. In ADF v.
United States, the tribunal set out that there “are at least two
main aspects of ‘necessity’ in the context of a request for the
production of documents” pursuant to Article 41(2) of the
ICSID Rules. The first aspect relates to a substantive inquiry
into whether the documents requested are relevant to, and in
that sense necessary for, the purposes of the proceedings in
which the documents are expected to be used. An inquiry into
the relevancy of the documents requested needs to be done
on a category-by-category basis. The second aspect concerns
a procedural inquiry into the effective and equal availability of
the documents requested to both the requesting party and the
party requested. Where only one party has access to requested
documents relevant to the proceedings at hand, we consider that
the party with access should be required to make the documents
available to the other party. Where, however, the documents
requested are in the public domain and both parties have
equally effective means to obtain such documents, and their
opportunities to obtain the documents are balanced, we believe
that there is no exigent reason for requiring the other party to
physically produce and deliver the documents to the former
for inspection and copying. Where, however, the requesting
party shows it would sustain an undue burden or expense in
10 |
accessing the publicly available material, the other party should

be required to produce and deliver the documents.28
1.22. Therefore, the two factors to be considered in assessing a request
for the production of documents are (i) the relevance of the
requested documents, and (ii) the availability of the requested
documents. The tribunal added:
The appropriate assumption in every case is that,
both parties having proceeded to international
arbitration in good faith, neither would withhold
documents for their own benefit and that good faith
will render any practical problems of the production
of documents susceptible to prompt resolution
without undue hardship or expense on either party.29
III.3. Scope of Document Requests and Burden

Thereby Imposed on Opposing Party
1.23. The scope of the document requests and the burden that would
be thereby imposed on the opposing party also represent aspects
considered by the tribunals. In ADF v. United States, the tribunal
denied some of the document requests made by the parties,
because the documents sought were described in “‘overly broad
terms’ making their identification very problematic”, and because
they were not relevant to the subject matter of the case.30 The
tribunal in Railroad Development Corp. v. Guatemala found that
the breadth of the document production request was excessive,
and therefore concluded that it “would place an unfair burden”
on the opposing party.31
III.4. International Bar Association (IBA) Rules

1.24. As a result of the dearth of guidance on this question, tribunals
have also looked to instruments such as the International Bar
Association’s Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International
Commercial Arbitration (IBA Rules).32 The IBA Rules are non-
binding guidelines, but provide the most detailed provisions on
28
ADF Group Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1 (NAFTA), Award, January 9, 2003,
marg. 29.
29
marg. 30.
30
marg. 34-35.
31
Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23 (US CAFTA/
DR FTA), Decision on Provisional Measures, October 15, 2008, marg. 36.
32
Available online at: http://www.int-bar.org/images/downloads/IBA%20rules%20on%20the%20
taking%20of%20Evidence.pdf. | 11
the production of documents that can be found”.33 In certain

cases, the parties to arbitration have agreed either to apply the
IBA Rules, or at least use them as guidance for determining
the necessary criteria, particularly regarding the production of
documents.34 Indeed, as the tribunal in Railroad Development v.
Guatemala noted:
The IBA Rules are used widely by international
arbitral tribunals as a guide, even when not binding
upon them. Precedents and informal documents,
such as the IBA Rules, reflect the experience of
recognized professionals in the field, and draw their
strength from their intrinsic merit and persuasive
value, rather than from their binding character.35
1.25. This was notably the case in CME v. Czech Republic, in which
the tribunal, upon the proposal of the parties, decided to apply
the IBA Rules in accordance with its power under Article
15(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules to conduct the arbitration in
the manner it considers appropriate.36 The tribunal notably
dismissed a request for the production of documents as a
result of its non-conformity with the IBA Rules. It is also
necessary to point out that the importance of any IBA Rules
is very limited in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe,
primarily in commercial arbitration; the IBA Rules have almost
no importance in proceedings conducted by courts of general
jurisdiction. Indeed, certain provisions contained in the IBA
Rules (of whatever type) raise doubts as to whether the Rules
comply with the procedural ordre public.
1.26. The IBA Rules regulate the overall framework for the production
of documents. Firstly, they provide that “within the time ordered
by the Arbitral Tribunal, any Party may submit to the Arbitral
Tribunal a Request to Produce”.37 They also, among other
things, set out that such a request must identify a document
or a category of documents with sufficient specificity, as well
as explain why the documents requested are relevant and
material to the case.38 Article 9(2) of the IBA Rules sets out a list
of grounds on which the tribunal can exclude certain evidence
from the production of documents. One notable ground is
33
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, supra note 2.
34
Ibid.
35
Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23 (US CAFTA/
DR FTA), Decision on Provisional Measures, October 15, 2008, marg. 32.
36
CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, September 13, 2001, marg.
45–46.
37
Article 3(2) of the IBA Rules.
12 | 38
Article 3(3) of the IBA Rules.
where ordering the production of a document would impose

an unreasonable burden on the party requested to produce the
evidence. Another, especially relevant to states (as parties to
investor-state disputes), is that a document is subject to “special
political or institutional sensitivity (including evidence that has
been classified as secret by a government or a public international
institution)”.39
III.5. E-discovery
1.27. Document production obligations may also extend further than
hard-copy documents, to also cover electronic documents. The
process of electronic document production is often referred to
as “e-discovery”. Investment treaty tribunals have recognized
that electronic documents can be subject to requests for the
production of documents. For example, in the Biwater Gauff
v. Tanzania case, the tribunal ordered the respondent to
preserve, “for purposes of their possible presentation during
the proceedings”, a number of categories of documents, both in
electronic and hard copy.40
III.6. Adverse Inferences

1.28. If a party fails to comply with the tribunal’s order to produce
documents, the tribunal may draw an adverse inference from
the party’s refusal. “The potential that adverse inferences may be
drawn by the Tribunal is an effective tool in compelling parties
to produce evidence”.41 Such inferences have notably been used
by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. In one case, for
example, the Tribunal found for the claimant on an evidentiary
point when it learned that the respondent had falsely claimed
not to have a document that it had been ordered to produce.42
III.7. Assistance of U.S. Courts in Obtaining

Documents
1.29. Domestic United States discovery procedures may nevertheless
be available to parties in non-ICSID investment treaty arbitration
in certain limited cases. Federal Courts in the United States are
receptive to parties invoking 28 U.S.C. Code (United States
39
Article 9(2)(f ) of the IBA Rules.
40
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural
Order No. 1, March 31, 2006, marg. 88.
41
Charles N. Brower, Evidence Before International Tribunals: The Need for Some Standard Rules, 28 Int’l
Law 47 (1994).
42
Hidetomo Shinto v. Iran, 19 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep., p. 321 et seq., here pp. 325-29. | 13
Code) Section 1782 (“Assistance to foreign and international

tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals”) (“Section 1782”)
to procure evidence in aid of international arbitral proceedings
outside of the United States. A recent decision of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia in In re Roz Trading
notably granted an application for an order pursuant to Section
1782, compelling the respondent’s parent company to produce
documents for use in arbitration proceedings conducted before
the Vienna International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal
Economic Chamber, a private arbitral institution.43
1.30. However, Section 1782 may only be invoked in limited cases.
The person or company that is asked to produce documents
must reside or have its principal seat in the circuit of the district
court that is called upon to decide on the discovery.44 In addition,
Section 1782 may not be applied in the same way by all U.S.
courts, as the provision seems to leave room for discretion.45
Moreover, the powers of the U.S. judge may be limited by the
procedural rules (possibly including the abovementioned IBA
Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial
Arbitration) agreed upon between the arbitral tribunal and
the parties; the application for discovery before a U.S. court
by one party may be considered an inadmissible attempt to
circumvent these procedural rules and to make use of U.S. court
procedures to obtain a tactical advantage.46 The fact that U.S.
rules on discovery are broader in scope than certain rules on the
taking of evidence in many other jurisdictions apparently does
not prevent U.S. courts from granting such discovery.47 Finally,
it is unclear to what extent documents obtained on the basis
of Section 1782 discovery proceedings may then be used in
international investment arbitration proceedings, particularly
in case the application for discovery in the United States was
filed without the consent of the arbitral tribunal.48 In summary,
the use of U.S.-style discovery based on Section 1782 may be
an option, but with uncertain benefits and prospects of success.
43
In re Roz Trading, Ltd., 469 F Supp 2d 1221, 1224 et seq. (N.D. Ga. December 19, 2006). See also Jennifer
Sperling; Marc Suskin, Roz Trading: Expanding Federal Court Participation in Arbitral Discovery, 22(3)
Mealey’s International Arbitration Report 1–2 (March 2007).
44
See Markus Müller-Chen, Aus dem US-amerikanischen Discovery-Verfahren gewonnene Beweise im
internationalen Zivilprozess und Schiedsrecht in der Schweiz, in Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre
Tercier, Genève, Zurich: Schulthess Médias Juridiques SA 929 (2008).
45
Jennifer Sperling; Marc Suskin, supra note 43, at 1–2; Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 932.
46
See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 262 et seq., 124 S.Ct. 2466, 159 L.Ed. 2d 355
(2004). See also Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 934.
47
In re The Application of Servicio Pan Americano de Proteccion, C.A., 354 F. Supp. 2d 269, 274 (S.D. N.Y.
2004). Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 934.
14 | 48
Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 934.
IV. Experts
1.31. Arbitral tribunals often appoint experts to assist them with
specific issues arising in the case. There is no list of the types
of issues on which tribunals may seek the assistance of experts;
however, experts are often needed in arbitration with highly
technical subject matters, or for the purposes of valuation.
1.32. The relevant provisions in the UNCITRAL Rules (1976) can be
found in Article 27. Article 27(1) reads:
The arbitral tribunal may appoint one or more
experts to report to it, in writing, on specific issues to
be determined by the tribunal. A copy of the expert‘s
terms of reference, established by the arbitral
tribunal, shall be communicated to the parties.
1.33. Respectively in the UNCITRAL Rules (2010) the relevant
provision is contained in Article 29. Article 29(1) reads:
After consultation with the parties, the arbitral
tribunal may appoint one or more independent
experts to report to it, in writing, on specific issues
to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. A copy
of the expert’s terms of reference, established by
the arbitral tribunal, shall be communicated to the
parties.
1.34. The expert is mandated by the tribunal to prepare a written
report on the specific issue for which their assistance is sought.
In order for the expert to be able to accomplish their mandate,
the parties to the arbitration must comply with all of the expert’s
requests for “relevant documents or goods”.49 The tribunal must
provide the parties with a copy of the expert’s report, as well as
with the opportunity to comment on the report in writing.50
1.35. After delivery of the report, either party may request that the
expert be heard at a hearing, in which the parties can question
the expert and present their own expert witnesses to testify on
the points at issue.51
1.36. Neither the ICSID Rules nor the ICSID Convention explicitly
authorizes an arbitral tribunal to appoint an expert to assist
it. But ICSID tribunals nonetheless appoint experts for the
purpose of providing the necessary assistance. Indeed, the use
of tribunal-appointed experts by ICSID tribunals is “increasingly
common”.52 For example, in the CMS v. Argentina case, the
49
Article 27(2) of the UNCITRAL Rules.
50
51
52
Mark Kantor, Valuation for Arbitration: Compensation Standards, Valuation
Methods and Expert Evidence, Kluwer Law International 308 (2008). | 15
tribunal appointed two valuation experts. In its award, the

tribunal was careful to mention that the parties “were informed
of their appointment and given an opportunity to comment on
their analysis of the parties’ expert submissions”.53
1.37. Tribunals in investment treaty arbitration therefore often feel
the need to appoint their own expert, notably in complex and
technical cases. While the UNCITRAL Rules expressly allow for
such appointments, the ICSID Rules’ silence on the matter has
not prevented ICSID tribunals from making such appointments.
V. Translations
1.38. In international investment arbitration, documents used by the
parties as evidence are commonly in languages other than the
language of arbitration, and witnesses and experts may also only
be able to express themselves in another language. The parties
will generally be required to produce translations alongside the
originals of these documents, and arrangements for translation
and interpretation of witnesses and experts will generally be
made as part of the hearing preparation.
1.39. According to the UNCITRAL Rules, the language of arbitration
is determined by the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties agree
on a given language.54 Under the ICSID Rules, however, in the
absence of an agreement of the parties, each party may select
one of the official languages of the ICSID (English, French, or
Spanish).55 It should be noted that if the parties wish to agree
on a language other than English, French or Spanish, the official
languages of the ICSID, they must seek the approval of the
arbitral tribunal. If each party selects a different language, either
language may be used for all submissions and hearings.56
1.40. Article 17(2) of the UNCITRAL Rules authorizes the arbitral
tribunal to order that parties submit translations of all
documents that are not in the language of arbitration:
The arbitral tribunal may order that any documents
annexed to the statement of claim or statement of
defense, and any supplementary documents or
exhibits submitted in the course of the proceedings,
delivered in their original language, shall be
accompanied by a translation into the language or
53
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Final Award of
May 12, 2005, marg. 418.
54
55
Rule 22(1) of the ICSID Rules.
16 | 56
Rule 22(2) of the ICSID Rules.
languages agreed upon by the parties or determined

by the arbitral tribunal.
1.41. Furthermore, Article 25(3) of the UNCITRAL Rules deals with
the translation of oral statements made by witnesses at the
hearing:
The arbitral tribunal shall make arrangements for
the translation of oral statements made at a hearing
and for a record of the hearing if either is deemed
necessary by the tribunal under the circumstances
of the case, or if the parties have agreed thereto and
have communicated such agreement to the tribunal
at least fifteen days before the hearing.
1.42. No similar provisions are incorporated in the ICSID Rules.
However, the arbitral tribunal would have the authority under
its general power to “make the orders required for the conduct of
the proceeding”, provided for in Rule 19 of the ICSID Rules, to
require the parties to produce such translations, and to arrange
for interpretation of witnesses and experts at the hearings.
Indeed, the Rules already explicitly provide that in a two-
language ICSID arbitration, the tribunal may require translation
or interpretation.57
│││
Summaries
FRA [Les droits et obligations des parties se rapportant à
l’instruction dans une procédure d’arbitrage liée à la
protection d’investissements]
L’arbitrage international se distingue d’une instance nationale en
ce qui concerne l’instruction et la charge de la preuve, dans le
sens où il ne prévoit aucune règle formelle pour l’instruction et
la charge de la preuve. La présente contribution se penche sur
quelques questions spécifiques se rapportant à l’instruction dans
des contentieux portant sur la protection d’investissements, en
relation avec les droits et les obligations des parties.
L’expression « charge de la preuve » n’indique pas à quel point
les preuves doivent être convaincantes pour que les éléments
qu’elles apportent puissent être considérés comme démontrés
; ce qu’on entend par cette expression, c’est plutôt qu’une des
parties a la charge de prouver certaines affirmations. Les parties
57
Rule 22(2) of the ICSID Rules. | 17
présentent un certain nombre de faits à la connaissance des

arbitres, et la question de savoir qui a une obligation de preuve
n’a pratiquement aucune importance. Dans le cas où les faits
présentés sont contestables, les parties apporteront des preuves
et le tribunal les examinera. Ce n’est que dans le cas où il est
impossible d’apporter une réponse claire et convaincante à une
question factuelle que le tribunal prend en considération la
charge de la preuve, afin de décider au détriment de quelle partie
résoudre la situation.
La procédure de discovery est généralement limitée dans les
arbitrages internationaux à la communication de certaines
pièces au dossier, dont il est nécessaire de restreindre la liste,
car autrement l’arbitrage perdrait ses avantages et ses fonctions
essentielles. Cela vaut également pour les litiges en matière
d’investissement, où de plus, l’on rencontre souvent un intérêt
particulier à ce que certaines pièces et certains faits ne soient
pas communiqués, étant donné le caractère public de la
communication.
CZE [Práva a povinnosti stran v souvislosti s dokazováním
v rozhodčím řízení na ochranu investic]
Mezinárodní rozhodčí řízení se liší od vnitrostátního soudního
řízení v záležitostech dokazování a důkazního břemene v
tom směru, že nejsou stanovena žádná formální pravidla
dokazování a žádná formální pravidla týkající se důkazního
břemene. Předmětem tohoto příspěvku jsou některé specifické
otázky související s dokazováním ve sporech na ochranu investic
v návaznosti na práva a povinnosti stran.
Výraz „důkazní břemeno“ není výrazem označujícím to, jak
přesvědčivé musí být důkazy, aby bylo možno skutkovou okolnost
jimi prokazovanou označit za prokázanou, ale spíše se tím míní
to, která strana je zatížena povinností prokazovat určité tvrzení.
Strany předkládají rozhodcům řadu skutečností a je při tom
víceméně nerozhodné, kdo má důkazní povinnost. Pokud jsou
tyto skutečnosti sporné, strany budou předkládat důkazy a soud
je bude provádět. Pouze v případě, že se nedaří nalézt jasnou
a přesvědčivou odpověď na skutkovou otázku, zohlední soud
důkazní povinnost a důkazní břemeno, aby rozhodl, k tíži které
strany je nutno tuto nerozhodnou situaci vyřešit.
Proces discovery je v mezinárodním rozhodčím řízení obvykle
omezen na výměnu určitých listin a je zapotřebí jej omezovat.
Jinak by rozhodčí řízení ztrácelo na svých základních funkcích a
výhodách. To platí i pro investiční spory, kde navíc často existuje
18 |
zvláštní zájem na tom, že některé listiny a skutečnosti nebudou

prezentovány s ohledem na kvalifikovaný veřejný prvek.
│││
POL [Prawa i obowiązki stron w związku z przeprowadzaniem

dowodu w postępowaniu rozjemczym dotyczącym ochrony
inwestycji]
Międzynarodowe postępowanie rozjemcze różni się od
krajowego postępowania sądowego w kwestii przeprowadzania
dowodu oraz ciężaru dowodowego w takim sensie, że brak w
nim określonych formalnych zasad przeprowadzania dowodu
oraz zasad dotyczących ciężaru dowodowego. Przedmiotem
artykułu są wybrane charakterystyczne kwestie związane z
przeprowadzaniem dowodu w sporach dotyczących ochrony
inwestycji w nawiązaniu do praw i obowiązków stron.
DEU [Rechte und Pflichten der Parteien im Zusammenhang mit der
Beweisführung in einem Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren]
Das internationale Schiedsverfahren unterscheidet sich vom
innerstaatlichen Gerichtsverfahren in Fragen der Beweisführung
und der Beweislast dahingehend, dass keine formalen Regeln
für die Beweisführung und keine formalen Regeln betreffend die
Beweislast vorgegeben sind. Gegenstand des vorliegenden Beitrags
sind einige der spezifischen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit
der Beweisführung, wie sie in Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren
hinsichtlich der Rechte und Pflichten der Parteien aufgeworfen
werden.
RUS [Права и обязанности сторон в связи с процессом
доказательства в спорах между инвестором и
государством]
Международный коммерческий арбитраж отличается
от национального судопроизводства в вопросах
доказательств и бремя доказательства таким способом,
при котором отсутствуют формальные правила
доказательства и формальные правила, касающиеся
бремени доказательства. Предметом данной статьи
являются некоторые специфические вопросы, связанные с
| 19
процессом доказательства в спорах о защите инвестиций

в увязке к правам и обязательствам сторон.
ESP [Los derechos y las obligaciones de las partes en materia
de obtención de prueba en el arbitraje de protección de
inversiones]
El arbitraje internacional difiere de los procedimientos judiciales
nacionales en materia de obtención de prueba y carga de la
prueba en el sentido de que no se han establecidao unas reglas
formales para la obtención de prueba ni para la carga de la
prueba. Este artículo aborda algunos de los temas específicos
relacionados con la obtención de prueba en las controversias
sobre la protección de inversiones en relación con los derechos y
las obligaciones de las partes.
│││
Bibliography
Charles N. Brower, Evidence Before International Tribunals: The Need
for Some Standard Rules, 28 Int’l Law (1994)
David D. Caron; Lee Caplan; Matti Pellonpää, The UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules: A Commentary, Oxford: OUP (2006)
Doak Bishop; James Crawford; W. Michael Reisman, Foreign
Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary, The
Hague: Kluwer Law International (2005)
Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, Corrupt Practices in the Foreign Investment
Context: Contractual and Procedural Aspects, in Arbitrating
Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive
Legal Aspects (Norbert Horn; Stefan Kröll eds., 2004)
Jamison M. Selby, Fact-Finding Before the Iran-United States Claims
Tribunal: The View from the Trenches, in Fact-Finding Before
International Tribunals, American Society of International Law
(Richard B. Lillich ed., 1992)
Jennifer Sperling; Marc Suskin, Roz Trading: Expanding Federal Court
Participation in Arbitral Discovery, 22(3) Mealey’s International
Arbitration Report (March 2007).
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Presenting Evidence in International Arbitration,
1(16) ICSID Review – FILJ (2001)
Lucy Reed; Jan Paulsson; Nigel Blackaby, Guide To ICSID
Arbitration, Kluwer Law International (2004)
20 |
Mark Kantor, Valuation for Arbitration: Compensation
Standards, Valuation Methods and Expert Evidence, Kluwer
Law International (2008)
Markus Müller-Chen, Aus dem US-amerikanischen Discovery-Verfahren
gewonnene Beweise im internationalen Zivilprozess und Schiedsrecht in
der Schweiz, in Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Tercier, Genève, Zurich:
Schulthess Médias Juridiques SA (2008)
Matthias Scherer, Circumstantial Evidence in Corruption Cases Before
International Arbitral Tribunals, 5 International Arbitration
Law Review (2002)
│││
| 21

Article - Czech &amp; Central European Yearbook of Arbitration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article - Czech &amp; Central European Yearbook of Arbitration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Czech (& Central European)

Alexander J. Bělohlávek Naděžda Rozehnalová

Silvy Chernev Andrzej Kubas Jozef Suchoža

Sir Anthony Colman Nikolay Natov Vladimír Týč

Piotr Nowaczyk Evangelos Vassilakakis

Radu Bogdan Bobei Wolfgang Hahnkamper Květoslav Růžička

Viorel Mihai Ciobanu Vít Horáček Matthias Scherer

Marcin Czepelak Miluše Hrnčiříková Thomas Schultz

Filip Černý Lászlo Kecskes Jiří Valdhans

Ian I. Funk Vladimir Khvalei Kamil Zawicki

Address for correspondence & manuscripts

Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®

Jana Zajíce 32, Praha 7, 170 00, Czech Republic

Institutions Participating in the CYArb® Project

Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic

Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Slovak Republic

VŠB – TU Ostrava, Czech Republic

Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech

Non-academic Institutions Participating in the CYArb®

Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the

Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of

Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech

Arbitration Court attached to the Czech-Moravian Commodity

ICC National Committee Czech Republic

The Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce in

Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law, Slovak

Proofreading and translation support provided by: Agentura

Cristina Ioana Florescu

Garðar V. Gunnarsson │ David Earnest

Andrzej Kubas │ Maciej Durbas

Antuen Skënderi │ Aulona Hazbiu │ Klotilda Bushka (Ferhati)

Elena Zucconi Galli Fonseca │ Carlo Rasia

NEWS & REPORTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY, CURRENT EVENTS, CONFERENCES,

All contributions in this book are subject to academic review.

AA 1996 United Kingdom the English Arbitration

CIETAC China International Economic and Trade

Cristina Ioana Florescu

Garðar V. Gunnarsson │ David Earnest

Andrzej Kubas │ Maciej Durbas

Antuen Skënderi │ Aulona Hazbiu │ Klotilda Bushka (Ferhati)

Elena Zucconi │ Galli Fonseca │ Carlo Rasia

Abstract │ International arbitration differs from Alexander J. Bělohlávek,

I. Taking of Evidence and Burden of Proof

II. Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof

II.1. Burden of Proof

decide to whose disadvantage such non liquet situation has to

“it is up to Venezuela, which relies upon the force majeure excuse,

II.2. Standard of Proof

that you have to convince me.12 The standard of proof changes

what is claimed is true. This was notably the case in Feldman

III. Production of Documents

III.2. ICSID and UNCITRAL Rules

relevant rule of the ICSID Convention. Indeed, it reproduces

accessing the publicly available material, the other party should

III.3. Scope of Document Requests and Burden

III.4. International Bar Association (IBA) Rules

the production of documents that can be found”.33 In certain

where ordering the production of a document would impose

III.6. Adverse Inferences

III.7. Assistance of U.S. Courts in Obtaining

Code) Section 1782 (“Assistance to foreign and international

tribunal appointed two valuation experts. In its award, the

languages agreed upon by the parties or determined

Article - Czech & Central European Yearbook of Arbitration

Article - Czech & Central European Yearbook of Arbitration