Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Do arbitrators have a duty to report corruption? Maybe . . . Maybe Not
This paper explores whether arbitrators’ have a duty to report corruption or not. It is divided into two parts. In part one, the paper presents the legal status of arbitrators by introducing the contractual, judicial and hybrid theories. Also, it examines the national laws of the US, Egypt, a...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
AUC Knowledge Fountain
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This paper explores whether arbitrators’ have a duty to report corruption or not. It is divided into two parts. In part one, the paper presents the legal status of arbitrators by introducing the contractual, judicial and hybrid theories. Also, it examines the national laws of the US, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to establish whether there is a legal duty to report or not. In the second part, the paper defines both confidentiality and public policy, and shows where the conflict between the two exists. On the one hand, arbitrators have a duty to protect confidentiality. On the other hand, arbitrators have a duty to insure the award will be enforced and that the contract does not contradict public policy. With this in mind, the paper will present five cases where the competent governments knew about the corruption, yet they did not prosecute the perpetrators. The paper concludes with the contention that arbitrators have no legal duty to report corruption. |
|---|