We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2009
Much has been written on the similarities and differences between arbitration tribunals and international courts; much more could and will certainly be written in the future. The purpose of my comments is to define similarities and differences in regard to the role of equity in both. However, I hope to enter the caveat at the very outset that in this paper I will focus solely on the role of equity in cases where the decision is to be based on international law. Accordingly, I will not here discuss cases of the type I had in mind when I pointed out in a speech delivered 34 years ago to the Legal Committee of the UN General Assembly that “[t]he arbitral solution has been applied in the past to a variety of problems, some of which were not judicial in character and did not raise issues of law”. Nor will I now discuss arbitrations in which the parties have agreed that the arbitrators need not be guided by law, or where the arbitral tribunal is expressly authorized by the parties to decide ex aequo et bono and thereby to settle the matter in a liberal spirit without regard to legal requirements and technicalities. Thus, cases in which the arbitrators have been empowered to seek mutual accommodations that would give offense to neither party are outside the scope of this discussion, as are cases where arbitrators recommended action by one of the parties as an act of grace.
1. U.N. GAOR, Sixth Comm., 563rd Meeting, at 65–66. See also my report on Arbitration and International Adjudication in A.H.A. Soons (ed.), International Arbitration: Past and Prospects, 37 et seq. (1990).
2. See Article 38(2), Statute of the International Court of Justice. Cf. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 33(2); see also Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes Between Two States, Article 33(2).
3. A.P. Herbert, Misleading Cases in the Common Law 77 (1927).
4. See, e.g., Michel Virally, 2 L'Equite dans le Droit; Le Droit International à l'Heure de sa Codification, Etudes en l'Honneur de Roberto Ago, at 30 (1987).
5. Continental Shelf case (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Dissenting Opinion Judge Gros, 1982 I.C.J. Rep. 149, citing North Sea Continental Shelf case, (The Netherlands and Denmark v. Federal Republic of Germany) 1969 I.C.J. Rep. 23 in fine.
6. Id. (Judgment), at 60 Para. 71.
7. See the reports submitted by the Rapporteur of the International Law Commission on the Succession of States. He recognized that “Equity may mean everything and may mean nothing” (8th Special Report, Para. 260).
8. See, e.g., Charles De Visscher, De l'Equité dans le Règlement Arbitral ou Judiciaire des Litiges de Droit International Public, (1972). See also Paul Reuter, Quelques Réflexions sur l'Equité en Droit International, 1980 Revue Beige de Droit International 165.
9. Article 83(1) of the Law of the Sea Convention.
10. 1982 I.C.J. Rep., at 92, Para. 132.
11. 1984 I.C.J. Rep., at 315, Para. 163.
12. 1984 I.C.J. Rep., at 298, Para. 110.
13. 1982 I.C.J. Rep., at 60, Para. 71.
14. J. Charpentier, L'affaire de la Barcelona Traction 320 (1970).
15. See Michele Sicart-Bozec, Les Juges du Tiers Monde à la Cour Internationale de Justice, Economica H, 290–291.
16. 1982 I.C.J. Rep., at 60, Para. 71.
17. 1985 I.C.J. Rep., at 39, Para. 45.
18. 1969 I.C.J. Rep., at 50, Para. 92.
19. Arbitral Award, 124.
20. Id..
21. Prosper Weil, The law of Maritime Delimitation – Reflections 88 (1989).
22. H. Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, III, Cap. XX, at 47 (New York ed., 1901).
23. Prosper Weil, op. cit., note 21, at 89.
