Professor Albert Jan van den Berg (Netherlands) is the immediate past president of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA; 2014–2016) and a partner of Hanotiau & van den Berg (Brussels, Belgium). He is a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC; and Tsinghua University, Beijing. He is also emeritus professor at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Professor van den Berg is presiding and party-appointed arbitrator in numerous international commercial and investment arbitrations. He also acts as counsel in international commercial arbitrations. He is a former president of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute and vice-president of the London Court of International Arbitration.
What inspired you to focus your practice on international arbitration?
My mentor, the late Professor Pieter Sanders.
What skills make a successful arbitrator?
I believe that a successful arbitrator requires a mix of different skills. Among the most important ones are: (a) awareness that 80 per cent is facts and 20 per cent is law in most cases; (b) awareness that you are in a service industry where you have to resolve a dispute between parties before you; (c) knowledge of several languages (in particular English, French and Spanish); (d) not to be afraid of numbers; (e) knowledge of and respect for different cultures; (f) management, diplomacy, patience and endurance; and (g) permanent curiosity with respect to human, social, historical, political and technical matters.
How can practitioners who desire to sit as arbitrators take steps to mitigate conflicts that may bar their appointment?
As a general matter, I recommend founding or joining a boutique law firm. In case of investment arbitration: do not act as counsel so as to avoid “double hatting”.
What advice would you give to young lawyers looking to sit as arbitrators in the future?
Select carefully your role models.
What has been your proudest moment in practice?
When the Dutch court set aside the US$50 billion awards in Yukos on 20 April 2016.
International investment arbitration is now, more than ever, playing an important role in ongoing international treaty negotiations such as the CETA and TPP. What effects do you think that this is having on the practice?
I think there is a strong future for international investment arbitration because it is an effective dispute settlement mechanism that addresses concrete problems that otherwise might not be remedied.
The legitimacy of investor-state arbitration is being heavily scrutinised. How has this scrutiny affected the field and what can be done to offset these criticisms?
There appears to be much misunderstanding about investor-state dispute settlement. One of the obvious measures is more transparency.
Several firms have taken steps to strengthen their capabilities in international arbitration. Is this having any impact on the field?
I consider this a welcome development. It contributes to more diversity in international arbitration.
