Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Text & Talk

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies

Ed. by Sarangi, Srikant


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.400
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.750

CiteScore 2018: 0.61

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.305
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.670

Online
ISSN
1860-7349
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 36, Issue 4

Issues

Balancing neutrality and partiality in arbitration: discursive tensions in separate opinions

Ruth Breeze
Published Online: 2016-06-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0017

Abstract

Although arbitration is increasingly being used to settle important disputes, particularly on an international level, little attention has focused on the language used by arbitrators. This article contains a qualitative analysis of the discursive moves and resources used in separate (dissenting and concurring) opinions published on the website of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes from 1987 to 2013. Arbitrators’ discursive practices in this forum are analyzed, with a particular focus on the tensions that arise between the need to sustain the arbitral system and maintain professional relations, on the one hand, and the equally pressing need to display commitment to the losing party’s cause, on the other. These tensions have parallels in other areas of legal practice and professional life, and can be understood as part of the way power systems operate and replicate through discourse.

Keywords: alternative dispute resolution; arbitration; legal discourse; professional discourse; genre

References

  • Amossy, Ruth. 2009a. Argumentation in discourse: A socio-discursive approach to arguments. Informal Logic 29(3). 252–267.Google Scholar

  • Amossy, Ruth. 2009b. The new rhetoric’s inheritance. Argumentation and discourse analysis. Argumentation 23. 313–324.Google Scholar

  • Antaki, Charles. 1988. Analysing everyday explanation. London: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Arribas-Ayllón, Michael, Srikant Sarangi, & Angus Clarke. 2011. Genetic testing: Accounts of autonomy, responsibility and blame. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Asher, Nicholas & Eric McCready. 2007. Were, would, might and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics 24. 93–129.Google Scholar

  • Bhatia, Vijay K. 2004. Worlds of written discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Billig, Michael. 1985. Prejudice, particularization and categorization: From a perceptual to a rhetorical approach. European Journal of Social Psychology 15(1). 79–103.Google Scholar

  • Breeze, Ruth. 2012a. Dissenting and concurring opinions in international investment arbitration: How the arbitrators frame their need to differ. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 25(3). 393–413.Google Scholar

  • Breeze, Ruth. 2012b. With the greatest respect for my colleagues. Politeness in dissenting opinions in international arbitration disputes. In Manuel Padilla Cruz & Lucía Fernández Amaya (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 149–165. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar

  • Breeze, Ruth. 2014. Constructing authority in international investment arbitration: Insights from separate opinions at ICSID. In Vijay K. Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone, Rita Salvi, Girolamo Tessuto & Christopher Williams (eds.), Language and law in professional discourse: Issues and perspectives, 93–108. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Commission, Jeffrey P. 2007. Precedent in investment treaty arbitration: A citation analysis of a developing jurisprudence. Journal of International Arbitration 24. 149–150.Google Scholar

  • Conley, John M. & William M. O’Barr.1998. Just words: Law, language and power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Cutts, Martin. 1995. Oxford guide to plain English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • De Boissésson, Matthieu. 1998. Le droit français de l’arbitrage interne et international. Paris: GLN Joly.Google Scholar

  • Dolzer, Rudolf & Christopher Schreuer. 2008. Principles of international investment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Endicott, Thomas. 2000. Vagueness in law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Erickson, Frederick & Jeffrey Shultz. 1982. The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1996. Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication 13(2). 251–281.Google Scholar

  • ICSID (International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes). 2006. ICSID convention regulations and rules. https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/partF.htm (accessed 12 January 2016).

  • Lalive, Pierre. 2010. On the reasoning of international arbitral awards. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1(1). 55–65.Google Scholar

  • Lévy, Laurent. 1989. Dissenting opinions in international arbitration in Switzerland. Arbitration International 1, 35–42.Google Scholar

  • Meisenbach, Rebecca J. 2008. Working with tensions. Management Communication Quarterly 22, 258–287.Google Scholar

  • Nivelle, Nele. 2008. Counterfactual conditionals in argumentative legal language in Dutch. Pragmatics 18(3). 469–490.Google Scholar

  • Perelman, Chaim & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

  • Rescher, Nicholas. 1961. Belief-contravening suppositions. The Philosophical Review 70(2). 176–196.Google Scholar

  • Ryan, Erin. 2005. The discourse beneath. Emotional epistemology in legal deliberation and negotiation. Williamsburg: William and Mary Law School Faculty Publications, 235.Google Scholar

  • Sanders, Pieter. 1999. Quo vadis arbitration?: Sixty years of arbitration practice: A comparative study. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

  • Sarangi, Srikant. 2010. Practising discourse analysis in healthcare settings. In Ivy Bourgeault, Robert Dingwall & Raymond G. de Vries (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research, 398–416. London: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Sarat, Austin & William L. F. Felstiner. 1986. Law and strategy in the divorce lawyer’s office. Law & Society Review 20, 93–134.Google Scholar

  • Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Rhetorical strategies in legal language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

  • Van Leeuwen, Theo & Ruth Wodak. 1999. Legitimising immigration control: a discourse historical analysis. Discourse and communication 1(1). 91–112.Google Scholar

  • Vázquez Orta, Ignacio & Diana Giner. 2012. Contrastive study of international commercial arbitration awards and judgments: Intertextuality through metadiscourse in action. In Vijay K. Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone & Chiara Degano (eds.), Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realizations, 171–191. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar

  • Weidemaier, Mark. 2010. Toward a theory of precedent in arbitration. William and Mary Law Review 51. 1895–1958.Google Scholar

About the article

Ruth Breeze

Ruth Breeze is Senior Lecturer in English at the University of Navarra, Spain, and is currently engaged in several research projects on discourse analysis and professional languages in the university’s Instituto Cultura y Sociedad. Her recent books include Corporate Discourse (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015) and the coedited volume Interpersonality in Legal Genres (Peter Lang, 2014).


Published Online: 2016-06-21

Published in Print: 2016-07-01


Citation Information: Text & Talk, Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 363–389, ISSN (Online) 1860-7349, ISSN (Print) 1860-7330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0017.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in