John Beechey

Arbitration Chambers

London www.arbchambers.com

jb@beecheyarbitration.com Tel: +44 20 7167 2040

Biography

The founder of Clifford Chance’s international arbitration practice and a two-term president of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, John was appointed CBE for services to international arbitration in 2016. Now a member of Arbitration Chambers based in London, he has served as an arbitrator on more than 100 arbitral tribunals in commercial and investor-state arbitrations, both ‘ad hoc’ and under the rules of many of the world’s leading arbitral institutions, over the course of his career.

What is the key to succeeding as an arbitrator across multiple arbitration institutions in a wide range of jurisdictions?

The majority of arbitral appointments come from party referrals or as a result of a selection process agreed between the parties rather than by way of direct appointments by an arbitral institution. All of the institutions have their particular characteristics and idiosyncrasies. For some arbitrators, the involvement of a particular institution may encourage them to take an appointment; for others, it might give reason to pause. All of the institutions will tell you that they value diligent case management and the prompt delivery of awards. Certain institutions provide support and assistance of the highest quality to their tribunals while others do not. The relationship between arbitrators and institutions and, it must be said, between arbitrators and parties, is changing, and in some cases, not necessarily for the better. Having experienced the practice of international arbitration over time in the roles of counsel, administrator and arbitrator, it is a concern of mine that a subject that ought squarely to be addressed is all too often ducked.

As a former president at the ICC International Court of Arbitration, what would be the advantages and challenges of developing international accreditation procedures for arbitral institutions based on common standards?

To be candid, I think that there are more important issues on which to focus. There are such significant differences in case load, case management techniques, geographical spread (and presence) and maturity between the institutions, which hold themselves out as offering arbitration services around the world that I doubt that a ‘tick box’ accreditation approach would serve a useful purpose.

To what extent can investment arbitration claims be pursued under EU law?

This is ought properly to be the subject of a full chapter or article; it is worthy of more than a few lines. For present purposes, and on the basis that it is very much the expression of a summary personal view, it has to be accepted that, for all intents and purposes, a combination of the weight of political sentiment in the European Commission and Parliament and powerful, but not always well-informed, if not wilfully uninformed, lobbying of those bodies by NGOs and others has brought about the end of ISDS in the form of intraEU BITs. A thorn in the side of Brussels remains the Energy Charter Treaty to which the EU is a signatory in its own right and thus has treaty obligations of its own to respect. A German court has recently declined to declare a claim brought under the ECT by an Irish wind power investor against Germany inadmissible on the ground that it is an intra-EU dispute. It remains to be seen whether that is the last word on the matter.

Do you envisage the emergence of any new arbitration seats that will rival those currently most popular?

Rather than the emergence of new seats, I think the more significant impact upon the business of the established and most regularly used institutions is likely to be that brought about by geopolitical developments. Will Russian disputes come to London or Stockholm as regularly as they did before the invasion of Ukraine? Will the changes in Hong Kong see more business going to Singapore? Are the established regional centres likely to grow at the expense of the mature international arbitral institutions, particularly those which must grapple with the effects of the imposition of sanctions of which some of the regional institutions are free?

What do you think will be the greatest challenge facing the next generation of arbitration practitioners and how should they equip themselves?

Recognition of the fact that the practice of international arbitration is now big business on a global scale. While fierce competition to win work affords potential clients the option to apply pressure to reduce the level of fees, an international arbitration mandate will frequently be a big-ticket revenue earner for the successful firm. It is a long time since I have dealt with costs submissions that did not run into the millions of dollars or euros or pounds. There are many more arbitration practitioners and arbitrators chasing the available work and appointments than ever there were even 10 years ago. Management of expectations means that not everyone who wishes to practice in this area will be able to do so and for those who do succeed, the best advice has to be ‘do not be in too much of a hurry’. Quality will always show through and a number of years with a proven track record as counsel in international disputes is, I believe, still the best way to kickstart a career as an arbitrator.

Peers and clients say: ““He is absolutely one of the top arbitrators in commercial and investment arbitration” “John is truly outstanding”