The interim awards in the multibillion-dollar arbitrations brought by Yukos shareholders against the Russian Federation have sparked a debate in some sectors about whether international arbitration can survive what one commentator has described as “a post-crisis vogue for stability and greater financial transparency” in which “companies will opt once more for the public courts”.
This situation seems somewhat ironic given that the Yukos awards, like many others, are freely and fully accessible on the internet and provide a full account of the arbitration proceedings. Underlying the growing complaints of lack of transparency, however, are broader concerns: namely whether, and in what circumstances, it is appropriate for privately-appointed arbitrators to decide cases in which public interests are fundamentally at stake; the extent of the powers of international arbitral tribunals; and the lack of any form of binding precedent, with different arbitral tribunals reaching very different conclusions on the meaning and effect of the same treaty provisions.
