After reading Stacie Strong's article, I guess I'm not so surprised to hear that there aren't many publications about research methods on international arbitration. Just reading about the various treaties and arbitral rules and the Model Rules this semester has demonstrated that the lack of a set code or civil law makes the practice area quite nebulous, and there is no one handbook on how to navigate preparing for an arbitration.
I know we've seen these laid out before, but I wanted to take this opportunity to memorialize Strong's list of the types of authority used in international arbitrations on my blog so I can reference them quickly in the future:
"In all, there are seven types of legal authority, including, in roughly descending order of importance:
• International conventions and treaties;
• National laws;
• Arbitral rules;
• Law of the dispute (procedural orders and agreements between the parties);
• Arbitral awards;
• Case law; and
• Scholarly work (treatises, monographs and articles)."
I'm particularly heartened to hear Strong say that by the time the oral arguments roll around "most of the advocacy has already been done and is firmly constricted within the confines of binders of documents and long pages of arguments and prior statements.” I definitely prefer the brief-writing to the oral argument portion of arbitration and think that it's definitely the more important portion (perhaps that's my bias, but I think it's still true given the huge amount of prep time in comparison with a few minutes in front of the tribunal). Strong's tips are helpful (and timely for our class) and I will consult them again when the problem goes out in a couple of weeks.
Thank you for listing the seven types, it is very helpful.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree about the oral advocacy though. Perhaps it is just my bias, but I enjoy it. I also think it might be the most effective point in time to get your narrative across. Besides, for me at any rate, talking, and answering questions, really aids understanding.
I actually have a tendency to agree with Rhiannon. I find oral advocacy to be extremely important in international arbitration. I find that oral arguments (when they are well done) are usually much more persuasive than written ones because they use our auditive as well as our visual senses and can seem more dynamic.
ReplyDeleteI have to side against Rhiannon on this. I think if you want oral advocacy go to court. I like that the brief is so important to arbitration. It means that the side with the most cogent argument and best research wins, not some slick talker!
ReplyDelete