The Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction in Uncovering Fraudulent Evidence: In Light of the Practices of the International Chamber of Commerce

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Corresponding author, Associate Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 MA Student of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

Abstract

When parties to a dispute select arbitration as their means of resolving the conflict, they relyon evidentiary materials to present claims or defenses. In this context, the likelihood of oneparty engaging in fraudulent practices in the presentation of evidence and utilizing fraudulentmaterials to influence the arbitration process is significant. According to the arbitration practicesof the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), it has been established that an arbitratorlacks independent and direct authority to uncover such fraudulent evidence. However, whenthe opposing party challenges the evidence as fraudulent and raises allegations of fraud in thearbitration, the arbitrator is obliged to address this objection and examine the validity of eachpiece of evidence according to its nature. Failure by the arbitrator to consider such evidence canundermine the credibility and value of the arbitral award. When the award issued by the arbitrationauthority is tainted by falsehood and fraud, it loses its enforceability. Therefore, delineating thescope of the arbitrator’s authority in the face of fraudulent evidence is of paramount importance.Analyzing arbitration practices and the conduct of arbitrators, particularly within the frameworkof the ICC when confronted with fraudulent evidence, will ultimately contribute to theestablishment of a unified procedure. This article employs a descriptive-analytical methodology,utilizing library resources to address the question of what the scope of the arbitrator’s jurisdictionis in uncovering fraudulent evidence.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Born GB, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2014).
Cosar U, ‘Fraudulent Evidence: Investment Arbitration’ (Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law 2020).
Jafari Langeroodi MJ, Legal Terminology (Ganje Danesh Publication 2017). [In Persian]
Mafi H, Commentary on the International Commercial Arbitration Law (1st edn, Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services University Press 2016). [In Persian]
Moein M, Moein Dictionary Vol 5 (Ney Publication 2012). [In Persian]
O’Malley ND, Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration: An Annotated Guide (1st edn, Informa Law 2012).
Querijero ML, ‘A Practical Guide to Evidence in Connecticut’ in Documentary Evidence (2013) ch 9.
Shiravi AH, International Commercial Arbitration (15th edn, SAMT Publication 2023). [In Persian]
Articles
Boroumand B, Shahbazinia M and Arabiyaan A, ‘Good Faith in Arbitration Procedures (A Comparative Study in Iranian and English Law)’ (2020) 24 Journal of Comparative Legal Studies 1-24. [In Persian]
Feris J and Torkomyan S, ‘Impact of Parallel Criminal Proceedings on Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration’ (2019) ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin 3.
Findley KA, ‘Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search for the Truth’ (2011) 56 New York Law School Law Review 911-941.
Finkelstein R, ‘The Adversarial System and the Search for Truth’ (2011) 37 Monash University Law Review 135-144.
Gabriel S, ‘Dealing with “Challenged Documents”’ (2011) 29 ASA Bulletin 823-837.
Justice A, ‘Comparative Analysis between Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems’ (2017) Social Science Research Network https://ssrn.com/abstract=3077365 7-8.
Lamm CB, Pham HT and Moloo R, ‘Fraud and Corruption in International Arbitration’ (2013) 10 Transnational Dispute Management.
Mohebi M and Jafari Nadushan S, ‘Inquisitorial and Accusatorial Systems in International Commercial Arbitration’ (2015) International Law Journal No 52. [In Persian]
Moses ML, ‘Inherent Powers of Arbitration to Deal with Ethical Issues’ (2014) Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No 2014-2016.
Rose C, ‘Fraudulent Evidence in the International Court of Justice’ (2016) Inaugural Detlev F Vagts Roundtable on Transnational Law, ASIL Proceedings.
Samadi Maleh S and Mafi H, ‘Discovery of Truth in International Commercial Arbitration with Emphasis on the Prague Rules (2018)’ (2021) 8 Scientific Journal of Comparative Law 237-285. [In Persian]
Scherer M, ‘Inherent Powers of Arbitrators’ (2019) LLC ch 4.
Sezer ZD, ‘The Impact of Fraud in International Arbitration: a Question of Admissibility, Jurisdiction or Merits?’ (2019) LLM Paper, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Academic Year 2018-2019, Ghent University.
Uluc I, ‘Corruption in International Arbitration’ (2016) Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University School of Law.
Theses
Asgharzadeh M, Access of the Arbitration Tribunal to Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration (Master’s Thesis, University of Mazandaran 2015). [In Persian]
Documents
Law on International Commercial Arbitration (LICA, Enacted 1997).
Rules
“Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims” (June 2005).
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, International Arbitration Practice Guideline about Using Party-Appointed and Tribunal-Appointed Experts (2015).
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Protocol for the Use of Party-Appointed Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration (September 2007).
Federal Rules of Evidence of the United States of America (2023).
ICC, ‘Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration’ (January 1, 2019).
International Bar Association, IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2010).
International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Arbitration Rules (2021).
Netherlands Arbitration Rules (in force as of March 1, 2024).
Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (Prague Rules) (2018).
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021).
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1998).
Cases
Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v Ghana Investments Centre and Government of Ghana, Ad Hoc Arbitration, Award on Damages and Costs (June 30, 1990).
ICC Final Award in case No 17818, National Bank of Xanadu v Company ACME (Turkey).
ICC, Technoservice Limited v NOKIA Corporation, ICC Case No 23513/FS, Award on Costs (June 2020).
ICC, The Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v Cubic International Sales Corporation, Case No 7365/FMS.
ICC, ‘Preliminary Award in Arbitration dated October 9, 2008’ (2011) ASA Bulletin (Swiss Arbitration Association) 4/2011, sec 87.
ICSID, Churchill Mining Plc and Planet Mining Pty Limited v Indonesia, Procedural Order No 15: Claimants’ Request for Reconsideration of Procedural Order No 13 (January 12, 2015) Case No ARB/12/14 and Case No ARB/12/40.
ICSID, EDF (Services) Limited v Romania, Case No ARB/05/13, Award (October 8, 2009).
ICSID, Europe Cement Investment & Trade S.A. v Republic of Turkey, Case No ARB(AF)/07/2, Award Date (August 13, 2009).
Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 3, Issue 1
June 2025
Pages 164-180

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics