Crisis of International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the Context of “Lawfare”: Rendering an Arbitral Decision Null and Void as a Consequence of Arbitrator Bias and Breach of Rules of Procedure Regulating Appointment of Arbitrators, by Example of the “Kerch Incident” Inter-State Arbitration between the Russian Federation and Ukraine

INTRODUCTION. The system of international justice faces a new challenge. In the struggle for international legitimacy States are increasingly turning to international dispute settlement bodies as an instrument of foreign policy. In a few cases it takes the form of “lawfare” – the abuse of international dispute settlement mechanisms for political purposes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article highlights maintaining the independence and impartiality of international justice bodies – international courts, arbitrations, and quasi-judicial bodies – are of particular importance. Consideration of a dispute by an independent and impartial panel of judges (arbitrators) is one of the key conditions for the State’s consent to such consideration, which in turn is an indispensable requirement for the initial emergence of the authority to consider this dispute. The legitimacy of the court or arbitration tribunal itself, as well as the validity of its decisions directly depends on the fulfillment of this condition.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Author's research spots the existence, content and observance of the principle of independence and impartiality of arbitrators, the execution of relative rules of procedure and the grounds for invalidating an arbitration award using the example of interstate ad hoc arbitration established on the basis of Annex VII to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to resolve a dispute between the Russian Federation and Ukraine related to the so-called “Kerch incident”.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Through examination of the relevant legal doctrines and analysis of the case materials, several specific problems of the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators have been identified, having both local signifi-cance for Annex VII arbitrations and broader, global significance for the situation in international justice. Options for overcoming these problems are proposed to prevent the politicization of international arbitrations, maintain their impartiality and equidistance, which is an indispensable component of the implementation of the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

1. Ameli К. Impartiality and Independence of International Arbitrators. – Revue de Recherche Juridique. 1999. No. 27-28. Universite Chahid Behechti. P. 89-109.

2. Carlston K.S. Procedural Problems in International Arbitration. – American Journal of International Law. 1945. Vol. 39. P. 38-39.

3. Cleis M.N. The Independence and Impartiality of ICSID Arbitrators: Current Case Law, Alternative Approaches and Improvement Suggestions. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff. 2017. 302 p.

4. Dunoff J., Giorgetti Ch., Hamamoto Sh., Nottage L., Ratner St., Schill St., Waibel M. Lack of Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators. University of Amsterdam. UvADARE (Digital Academic Repository). 2019. P. 1.

5. Gao J. Appointment of Arbitrators by the President of the ITLOS pursuant to Article 3 of Annex VII to the LOS Convention: Some Tentative Observations. – Chinese Journal of International Law. 2017. Vol. 16. № 4. P. 723-749.

6. Gleider I. Hernández. Impartiality and Bias at the International Court of Justice. – Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2012. Vol. (1) 3. P. 183-207.

7. Hackworth G.H. Digest of international law. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O. 1940-1944. Vol. VI (1943). P. 83.

8. Hall W.E. A Treatise on International Law. 8th ed. Oxford. 1924.

9. Ilkevich A.A. Bespristrastnost arbirtov kak osnova professionalnogo standarta ih deyatelnosti [Impartiality of arbitrators as a basis of professional standard of their activity]. – Voprosy rossijskoj justitsii [Issues of Russian Justice]. 2019. № 2 (In Russ).

10. Jennings R.Y. Nullity and Effectiveness in International Law. Cambridge Essays in International Law. London, Stevens & Sons. Dobbs Ferry. New York. Oceana Publications. Inc. 1965. P. 64-88.

11. Khan D.-E., Zimmermann A., Tams Ch.J. The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. 3rd ed., OUP. 2019. Р. 480.

12. Lauterpacht E. The Legal Effect of Illegal Decisions of International Organizations. Cambridge Essays in International Law. London, Stevens & Sons. Dobbs Ferry. New York. Oceana Publications, Inc. 1965. P. 88-122.

13. Lavrov S.V. Podlinnaya mnogostoronnostʹ i diplomatiya protiv «poryadka, osnovannogo na pravilakh» [Genuine Multilateralism and Diplomacy vs the “Rules-Based Order”]. – Rossiya v globalʹnoj politike [Russia in Global Affairs]. 2023. T. 21. № 4. S. 72-81. (In Russ).

14. Megret F. International Judges and Experts’ Impartiality and the Problem of Past Declarations. – Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2011. Vol. 10. No. 1. Р. 31-66.

15. Neshataeva T. Mezhdunarodnyy sud'ya: nichego lichnogo [The International judge: nothing personal]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie [International Justice]. 2019. Vol. 9. No.1. P. 23-42 (In Russ).

16. Nordquist M.H. et al. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary. 1989. Vol. VI. P. 421, 428-429.

17. Oellers-Frahm K. Judicial and Arbitral Decisions, Validity and Nullity. – Oxford Public International Law. 2023. P. 5. Рaras. 3, 10, 12.

18. Papayannis D.M. Independence, Impartiality and Neutrality in Legal Adjudication. – Revus: Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law. 2016. Vol. 28. P. 33-52.

19. Pufendorf S.V. De Jure Naturaeet Gentium. Oldfather Translation. 1688 ed. Oxford. 1934. Vol. II. Book V. Chap. XIIII. Sect. 4. P. 829. Цит. по: Commentary on the Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure Adopted by the International Law Commission at its Fifth Session, prepared by the Secretariat. A/CN.4/92. April 1955. United Nations Publication. Sales No.: 1955. V. 1. P. 106.

20. Rosenne S. The International Court of Justice and International Arbitration. – Leiden Journal of International Law. 1993. Vol. 6. P. 297-322.

21. Tamada D. Applicability of the Excess of Power Doctrine to the ICJ and Arbitral Tribunals. – The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2018. Vol. 17. № 2. P. 251-270.

22. Vylegzhanin A.N., Alferʹeva K.E. Vklad Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON v razvitie mezhdunarodnogo ekonomieskogo prava [Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Economic Law]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2016. No. 3. S. 31-48 (In Russ).

23. Vylegzhanin A.N., Kalamkaryan R.A. Znachenie mezhdunarodnogo obychaya v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave [The Role of International Custom in the Contemporary International Law]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2012. No. 2. S. 5-29 (In Russ).

24. Vylegzhanin A.N., Zinchenko O.I. Yurisdiktsiya Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OOH: nekotorye teoreticheskie voprosy [The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: some theoretical issues]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2018. No. 4. S. 6-32 (In Russ).