The workshop seeks to foster a critical discussion on how arbitral reasoning is expressed, structured, and communicated, and why language matters for the authority, legitimacy, and usability of arbitral decisions.
At the core of the workshop lies the idea of clear language and its role in legal texts. Participants will engage with existing approaches to clarity in legal drafting and assess their relevance for arbitral practice. A central set of questions concerns whether a clear-language standard can meaningfully be articulated for arbitral awards, what such a standard would entail in practice, and to whom any obligation of clarity is owed—that is, who the beneficiaries of clarity are (the parties, reviewing courts, the broader legal community, or the public at large).
The discussion will draw on arbitral awards from a wide range of fields, including investment treaty-based arbitration (ISDS), international commercial arbitration, construction arbitration, commodities arbitration, maritime arbitration, sports arbitration, etc. In addition, perspectives from international courts and tribunals, as well as national courts, will be incorporated in order to situate arbitral practice within a broader judicial and institutional context.
A recurring theme of the workshop will be the observation that many arbitral awards display a systematic overemphasis on the detailed reproduction of procedural history and parties’ submissions, at the expense of synthesis, structured analysis, and transparent legal reasoning. The workshop will critically assess the causes and consequences of this tendency and consider how it affects the intelligibility and persuasiveness of awards, as well as their wider role within arbitration practice and beyond.
Further themes include legal design, the architecture of arbitral reasoning, and the identification of concrete tools and techniques that may enhance clarity without compromising precision or due process. In this context, the workshop will also consider existing guidelines and checklists issued by arbitral institutions for the drafting of awards and assess their role in shaping the form, structure, and clarity of arbitral decisions. By combining doctrinal, practical, and design-oriented perspectives, the workshop seeks to contribute to a more reflective approach to the drafting of arbitral awards.
Programme
The event takes place in meeting room 4 at Campus Lillehammer
Introduction
- The idea behind the workshop. On language in legal reasoning. Yuliya Chernykh (University of Inland Norway, Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration)
First round of observations: commercial arbitration across different fields of practice
Moderator: Erlend Haaskjold (Schjødt and University of Inland Norway)
- M&A and general commercial arbitration. James Hope (Vinge and SCCL, Stockholm University, Sweden)
- Price review arbitration. Kamalia Mehtiyeva (University Paris-Est Créteil, Clay Arbitration and Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, France)
- Maritime & transport arbitration. Jonas Rosengren (Werks and University of Oslo, Sweden/Norway)
Second round of observations: arbitration across different fields of practice
Moderator: Emilia Onyema (SOAS, UK)
- Sports arbitration. Mark Hovell (Mills & Reeve, UK)
- Construction arbitration. Jovan Nikčević (Nikčević & Kapor, Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Serbia)
- Commodities arbitration. Ivan Vashchynets (Kyiv University of Law of the National Academy of Law, Ukraine)
Third round of observations: arbitration in public international law and comparative perspectives
Moderator: Mavluda Sattorova (University of Liverpool, UK)
- Investment arbitration. Andrea Bjorklund (McGill University, Canada)
- ICJ and inter-state arbitration. Serena Forlati (University of Ferrara, Italy)
- Norwegian courts: Torunn Elise Kvisberg (University of Inland Norway, Norway)
- Comparative judicial perspectives. Anna Nylund (University of Bergen, Norway)
16.00-17.30 Round table
Moderator: Laura Létourneau-Tremblay (University of Inland Norway)
Introductory observations. The Language of Legitimacy: Judicial Decision Writing and Public Trust in Courts. Michael Blasie (Seattle University, USA)
Concluding remarks and way forward
Contact information
- yuliya.chernykh@inn.no
- Phone
- +47 61 28 75 44