Are We There Yet? Preemptory Issues of Arbitrability and Jurisdiction in Contracts Tainted by Corruption Allegations

With a steady growth of International business transactions, corruption has intensified across all sectors of economic activity. Some of the effects of this tectonic shift has also been felt in Arbitration forums, cutting across all forms, even though the methodology of truce remains contentious. One of the primary investigations in this scholarship is to come out with answers to the burgeoning question of ‘how to deal with corruption’ in the field of Arbitration law. For years since the ICC Case of 1963, corruption allegations have thrown some confusing propositions before the arbitral tribunals across the globe, lending a parallel and divided jurisprudence on the matters where contracts tainted by corruption are argued. This has in turn caused a fetch shift transformation in how these allegations are investigated and what consequences they may cast on the resulting awards across forms of arbitration. The present article tries to paint a wholesome picture of the peremptory issues of ratione materie jurisdiction, arbitrability and to some extent, even admissibility in the light of corruption ridden contractual claims. Firstly, a comparison is drawn with arbitral forums dealing with investment treaty based issues and contractual matters involving private parties. Secondly, an inquiry is led into the arbitrability of contracts, where corruption allegations are raised. Thirdly, an examination is conducted on the modern arbitral confusion around the powers of the arbitral tribunals in terms of evidentiary procedure, investigative powers and jurisdictional authority. Finally, a discussion is conducted on the consequences that flow from the finding of corruption in contracts. While, these answers may not get a unanimous response in terms of their viability, they nonetheless initiates an expedition into the larger point of deflection, ‘Are We There Yet’