Professor Catherine Rogers has recently completed the third in a series of four related articles that examine the “confused and incomplete” ethical regulation of participants in international arbitration. The article, titled, Regulating International Arbitrators: A Functional Approach to Deriving the Standards of Conduct, was selected as a winner for the 2004 Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum in the category of Law and Humanities and will be published in the Stanford Journal of International Law.
Roger’ s first two articles considered attorney ethics in international arbitration, while her most recent article turns to the controversies surrounding the regulation of international arbitrators. According to Rogers, “This article provides the necessary theoretical models to untangle the methodological mayhem that characterizes judicial attempts to delineate standards to describe arbitrators’ obligations of impartiality.” She argues that confusion over arbitrator impartiality is rooted in the misleading judicial referent. Rogers suggests that reconciling the contradictions between arbitrators and judges requires reconceptualizing the term “impartiality,” and that a new definition must be developed independent from national judicial standards. Through conceptual analysis, her article demonstrates that the impartiality required of arbitrators is tied to specific features of their functional role in the international arbitration system, rather than being simply a watered-down version of the mythologically “impartial” judge.
The first two articles were selected for the 2001 Stanford Yale-Junior Faculty Forum in the category of private international law, and also received the 20th Annual CPR Professional Article Award for 2002 for their contributions to Alternative Dispute Resolution.