投资者告东道国争议机制（ISDS）仲裁庭因其以年长白人男性（male, pale, and stale）为主导而饱受诟病。人们开始对这种情况产生强烈反感，但话语几乎完全集中在多样性方面：性别。例如，《仲裁平等代表权承诺》（Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge）的签署人已超过2900名，他们承诺在（商业及投资者－东道国）仲裁员名册中任命更多女性仲裁员。据报道，许多仲裁机构已增加其仲裁员名册中女性候选人的数量。这些都在向好的一面发展，尽管过程并不顺利。2017年，投资者和共同仲裁员在向ICSID仲裁庭作出任命时，未任命一名女性。即使是那些最近由相对先进国家谈判的国际投资协定（IIAS），如《加拿大-欧盟综合经济贸易协定》（CETA），也不包含与仲裁员多样性相关的条款或甚至序言条款。

进步仍然是进步。问题在于，虽然实现性别平等（或更多！）是一个值得称赞的目标，但多样性比性别具有更大意义。不幸的是，对ISDS的多样性论述迄今几乎完全局限于性别问题，并避开了多样性不同方面之间的交叉。（2018年4月在华盛顿举行的ITA-ASIL年会是一个罕见但令人欢迎的例外。）毕竟，女性律师都来自不同的背景。有亚洲女律师、土著女律师、黑人女律师、发展中国家的女律师、穆斯林女律师等等。这些复合特征产生了寻找投资仲裁领域“入口”的不同经历和斗争。仲裁员是一个有威望的重要职位，能获得很好的报酬。如果我们作为一个团体想认真对待多样性问题，就必须超越那种只看到发达国家白人女性加入仲裁员队伍的多样性。

虽有过度简化的风险，“交叉性”是指单个个体中多样性不同方面的复合效应。这个词由一位美国法学教授Kimberlé Crenshaw在1989年的一篇论文中提出。Kimberlé Crenshaw特别关注美国黑人女性的经历，她们遭受种族主义和性别歧视以及两者之间的交集，但这一概念具有广泛的关联性。其背后的想法是，同属于多个受歧视群体的人所遭受的歧视不同于那些只在一个方面受歧视的人。因此，相比于白人女性和黑人男性，黑人女性的斗争更多地被不同社会动态所塑造。因此，潜在的具有交叉背景的仲裁员，例如来自发展中国家的亚洲女律师，在寻求仲裁员任命时会遇到独特的障碍。交叉性更普遍地指这种对不平等的思考方式，这种观点认识并承认那些面对交叉歧视之人的经历。

简要查看2012-2017年组成的ICSID仲裁庭名册，有复合背景的女仲裁员数量很少。（注意，那些管理投资争端的突出仲裁机构，如ICSID、ICC和SCC，并未报告对具有复合特征的女性仲裁员任命的统计，并且也不考虑双重任命。我们的统计来自于一个个被任命仲裁员的档案，在ICSID仲裁中总共有951次任命。只有三名被任命的仲裁员是女性、非白人，以及来自发展中国家的人：Bertha Cooper Rousseau（巴哈马）、Tinuade Oyekunle（尼日利亚人）和Dorothy Udeme Ufot（尼日利亚人）。有趣的是，这三人都是撤销委员会（annulment committee）成员，且均由ICSID任命。在列入ICSID仲裁员名册的仲裁员或当事人或其他仲裁员任命的仲裁员中，我们并未发现同时符合性别、种族和国籍特征的仲裁员。有一些仲裁员符合这些特征中的两项。例如，Teresa Cheng是香港的女仲裁员，可以被认定为非白人；玛丽.安德烈恩格韦是来自法国的黑人女仲裁员；Maria Stanivukovic是来自塞尔维亚的女仲裁员。

然而，在我们的样本中，被列入仲裁员名册的少数女性中绝大多数是来自发达国家的高加索人。事实上， ICSID仲裁员名册认命的大部分女性都是Brigitte Stern人或Gabrielle Kaufman Kohler人。在我们951次任命数据集中，只有106次（11%）是女性仲裁员，而在这些任命中，Stern获得了53次任命和Kaufman Kohler获得了15次任命。其他所有女性仲裁员的任命总和只有38次（占总数的4%）。（ISDS仲裁庭不是唯一一个缺乏多样性的仲裁庭；非西方的女法官和女仲裁员在所有国际法院和仲裁庭中仍然罕见，只有少数几个例外，例如国际刑事仲裁庭的法官Gabrielle Kirk McDonald，其曾任职于南斯拉夫和伊朗－美国索赔案的仲裁庭， Joyce Aluoch法官和国际刑事法院的Olga Venecia Herrera Carbuccia以及国际法院的Julia Sebutinde法官和 Xue Hanqin法官。）

当前以性别为中心的论述，部分归咎于最近为增加仲裁员多样性的努力所带来的令人失望的结果，因其导致自满却没有解决最重要的问题。交叉性视角有助于我们确定的关键问题（该问题基本不在近期的讨论中），不是我们是否已任命足够多的女性仲裁员（我们并未这样做），而是我们任命了哪些女性？简而言之，交叉性的概念为平庸的观察赋予意义，即多样性不是一维的。复合背景的人可能遇到阻止其进入仲裁领域的独特障碍，如他们被任命，这些障碍也会给他们带来独特的视角。如果ISDS仲裁庭不存在交叉群体代表，我们不能认为仲裁群体已取得进展，即使在性别多样性方面。

交叉性为什么重要？通过关注交叉性来改善多样性对每个人，甚至对白人男性有益，这至少有三个原因。首先，多样化的仲裁员名册可能产生更高质量的裁定，因为多样性能够扰乱群体思维并减少认知偏见。例如，在国际刑法中，两位女法官Gabrielle Kirk McDonald和Elizabeth Odio Benito在承认性侵犯作为战争罪方面发挥了重要作用。其次，在任何工作场合，多样性都是一个公平问题，尤其在一个像投资者－东道国仲裁员这样重要的场合中。正如Francoise Tulkens所言，女性的存在不需要“正当化”或“合法化”任何东西；他们必须出现在ISDS仲裁庭上，只因为没有充分理由不让他们成为该领域的积极决策者。第三，多样化代表权将提高合法性。ISDS依赖于对其合法性的广泛政治认可，这种认可在左翼和右翼的民粹主义复兴中不能理所当然地被人们接受。ISDS永远不能享受全球的合法性，除非来自世界各地的人们能够看到自己在这个程序中被代表。

将交叉性纳入仲裁员多样性的论述将是向前迈进的一步。但我们可以做更多努力对仲裁员任命程序进行改革。首先，任何改革都必须以经验为基础。解决交叉候选人在寻求仲裁任命方面遇到的障碍和对交叉仲裁员进行的考虑需要比目前更多的数据。对不同背景的仲裁律师进行访谈，有助于了解其在国际仲裁公约中遇到的主要障碍。第二，在这些调查结果的基础上，与仲裁机构商议可能有价值，因仲裁机构已成为增加女性仲裁员任命的驱动力。第三，如果实证研究能够确定具有复合背景的候选人面临有关“入口”的最严重障碍，那么可以建立有针对性的程序来帮助交叉性候选人克服这些障碍。不仅他们，而且整个ISDS群体都将受益。

【英文原文】

True Diversity is Intersectional: Escaping the One-Dimensional Discourse on Arbitrator Diversity

By Joshua Karton, Ksenia Polonskaya

ISDS tribunals have an unfortunately accurate reputation for being “male, pale, and stale”. A welcome backlash to this state of affairs has arisen, but the discourse has focused almost entirely on one aspect of diversity: gender. For example, the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge has garnered over 2900 signatories, who have committed to appointing more female arbitrators to arbitral panels (commercial and investor-state). Reportedly, many arbitral institutions have increased the number of female candidates they appoint to panels. These developments are all to the good, although progress has by no means been steady. When investors and co-arbitrators made appointments to ICSID tribunals, they did not appoint a single woman in 2017. International Investment Agreements (IIAs), even those negotiated recently by relatively progressive countries, such as the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), contain no provisions—not even preambulatory ones—relating to arbitrator diversity.

Still, progress is progress. The problem is that while achieving gender parity (or more!) is a laudable goal, there is much more to diversity than gender. Unfortunately, the diversity discourse in ISDS has thus far been almost totally restricted to the issue of gender, and has avoided intersections between different aspects of diversity. (The recent ITA-ASIL Annual Conference, held in Washington in April 2018, was a rare but welcome exception.) After all, female lawyers come from various backgrounds. There are Asian female lawyers, Indigenous female lawyers, black female lawyers, female lawyers from developing states, Muslim female lawyers, and so on. These overlapping characteristics generate different experiences and different struggles to find “points of entry” into the field of investment arbitration. Being an arbitrator is a position of prestige and importance; it is also well remunerated. If we as a community are to take diversity seriously, we must move beyond the kind of token diversity that sees only white women from developed Western countries added to the pool of arbitrators.

At the risk of oversimplifying, “intersectionality” refers to the overlapping effect of different aspects of diversity in a single individual. The term was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, an American law professor, in a 1989 paper. Crenshaw was particularly concerned about the experiences of black women in the United States, who suffer from racism and sexism and the intersection between the two, but the concept has broad relevance. Underlying it is the idea that people who belong to more than one group that suffers discrimination experience discrimination differently from those who are discriminated against only on one axis. Thus, the struggles of black women are shaped by different social dynamics than those affecting white women and those affecting black men. Accordingly, potential arbitrators with intersectional backgrounds—for instance, Asian female lawyers from developing states—can experience a distinctive mix of obstacles in seeking arbitral appointments. Intersectionality more generally refers to this way of thinking about inequality, a perspective that acknowledges and recognizes the range of experiences of those who face intersecting axes of discrimination.

A brief look at the ICSID panels formed in 2012-2017 shows very few female arbitrators with intersecting backgrounds. (Note that the prominent arbitration institutions that administer investment disputes, such as ICSID, ICC, and SCC, do not report statistics on the appointments of female arbitrators with overlapping characteristics, and do not account for double appointments; our statistics were generated by checking the biographies of appointed arbitrators one-by-one.) Over that time period, a total of 951 appointments were made in ICSID arbitrations. Only three appointed arbitrators were female, non-white, and from a developing state: Bertha Cooper-Rousseau (Bahamian), Tinuade Oyekunle (Nigerian), and Dorothy Udeme Ufot(Nigerian). Interestingly, all three were members of annulment committees and all three were appointed by ICSID. We found zero arbitrators appointed to ordinary ICSID panels, and zero arbitrators appointed by parties or by other arbitrators, who meet the gender/race/nationality overlap. There are some arbitrators who meet two of these characteristics; for example, Teresa Cheng is a female arbitrator from Hong Hong and can be identified as non-white; Marie-Andrée Ngwe is a black female arbitrator from France; Maria Stanivukovic is a female arbitrator from Serbia.

Yet, in our sample, most of the few women who are appointed to the panels are Caucasians from developed states. Indeed, the majority of all appointments of women to ICSID panels are of eitherBrigitte Stern or Gabrielle Kaufman-Kohler. Out of 951 appointments in our data set, only 106 (11%) were of female arbitrators, and of these Stern obtained 53 appointments and Kaufman-Kohler 15. Only 38 appointments (4% of the total) went to all other female arbitrators. (ISDS tribunals are hardly unique in suffering from a lack of diversity; non-Western female judges and arbitrators continue to be rare across all international courts and tribunals with only a few notable exceptions, such as Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Judges Joyce Aluoch and Olga Venecia Herrera Carbuccia of the International Criminal Court, and Judges Julia Sebutinde and Xue Hanqin of the International Court of Justice.)

The current gender-focused discourse is partly to blame for the disappointing outcomes of recent efforts to increase arbitrator diversity because it engenders complacency without tackling the most important problems. The key issue that the lens of intersectionality helps us to identify—the issue that is largely absent from recent discussions—is not whether we appoint enough women arbitrators (we don’t) but which women we appoint? In short, the concept of intersectionality gives meaning to the banal observation that diversity is not one-dimensional. People with overlapping backgrounds may experience unique obstacles that prevent them from entering the field as arbitrators, and they would also bring with them unique perspectives should they be appointed. Without representation of intersectional communities on ISDS tribunals, we cannot say that the arbitration community has made progress even on gender diversity.

Why does intersectionality matter? There are at least three reasons why improving diversity by focusing on intersectionality helps everyone, even white males. First, diverse arbitral panels are likely to produce higher quality decisions because diversity disrupts groupthink and short-circuits cognitive biases. For example, in international criminal law, two female judges, Gabrielle Kirk McDonald and Elizabeth Odio-Benito, played an instrumental role in the recognition of sexual assault as a war crime. Second, diversity is a matter of fairness, in any workplace, but especially in one as consequential as that of investor-state arbitrator. As Francoise Tulkens argues, women’s presence need not “justify” or “legitimize” anything; they must be represented on ISDS tribunals simply because there is no good reason for them not to be active decision-makers in thefield. Third, diverse representation would improve legitimacy. ISDS depends on widespread political acceptance for its legitimacy, an acceptance that cannot be taken for granted in these days of resurgent populism on the left and right. ISDS can never enjoy global legitimacy unless people from around the globe can see themselves represented in the process.

Just bringing intersectionality into the discourse on arbitrator diversity would be a step forward. But we can do even more to reform the arbitrator appointment process. First, any reforms must be empirically based. Addressing both the obstacles that intersectional candidates experience in seeking arbitral appointments and the perspectives that intersectional arbitrators bring to the deliberations requires more data than we currently have. It may be useful to conduct interviews with arbitration lawyers of diverse backgrounds to identify the key obstacles they encounter in traversing the international arbitration cursus honorum. Second, on the basis of these findings, it may be valuable to consult with arbitral institutions, who will necessarily play an important role in shifting the dynamics of arbitral appointments, as they have already been a driving force in increasing appointments of women. Third, if empirical studies can identify the “points of entry” at which candidates with overlapping backgrounds face the most serious obstacles, tailored programs can be established to help intersectional candidates overcome those obstacles. Not only they, but the whole ISDS community, will benefit.

来源： 临时仲裁ADA，不代表本会意见