Good afternoon everyone. Everyone in this audience who I assume is not Welsh or Irish because they may well think something is more important going on at the present time. As you may know, either by the accent or knowing anything about my background that I came and studied here for the LLM and then stayed on London and worked there ever since but I grew up and qualified in New Zealand. And to New Zealanders, perhaps like Millie of the Welsh and Irish at this moment, there are a few things more important than rugby and the All Blacks. But we were so harshly reminded yesterday that there are things many four times important than sport and rugby and that is having a cohesive and supportive and safe society. And that was so rudely interrupted in our consciousness yesterday morning to what happened in Christchurch and I'm sure all our thoughts go out to the families and people that have been affected directly and indirectly when the university power has family there. The Prime Minister of New Zealand said rather emotionally this is not New Zealand and certainly that is the feeling that all New Zealanders have but that is not something only New Zealanders have. I'm sure everyone in this audience wherever you come from would feel that is not my country wherever that country is that is not my society which I have grown up or want to grow up or want to contribute to and I take from the fact that you are studying here and studying international arbitration or international law or something else. So we remember those who have been affected not only in Christchurch but around the world by such horrendous crimes that are on there and far too often. But having said that we are here this afternoon to have a debate and I emphasise that it is a debate, it won't be a lecture. There will be two teams, two members each and they will be debating the proposition that what is more important is the signage rather than the law but motion is, arbitral cases are won and lost on persona and not on the law and we will have people supporting that motion and that is going to be Mark and Wendy. Mark, I'll keep this short but then bio-show what extremely experienced advocates and lawyers they are Mark McNeil, partner at Sherman and Sterling and Wendy, Mark, you see my trajectory and partner at Denver Boys then there is a team opposing the motion which is here that for a partner at Albemore Porter and Emma Liga who is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and they are going to take positions perhaps similar to some of the cases where they have been advocates and I emphasise that the positions they will be taking are not necessarily the positions for personal views that they believe they have been whipped into taking a particular sign in this debate but we're not debating something that relates to the existential future of the United Kingdom so we're not expecting them to resign their whip in the positions that they take to continue on topic as they have been asked to do each speaker is going to get a few minutes and we're going to go back and forth so the proposes of the motion, the opposers then back to Wendy and then back to us we're going to take a very short break before rebuttals and serra buttals just to let whoever is going to do that just to capture their thoughts we're going to come back to you, the audience, if you've got any comments right at the end there's going to be an opportunity for questions and answers so we won't do Q&A just for that moment but if you want to make a couple of comments at that point in time please bear them in mind but just remember the debate actually hasn't finished I have prohibited points of order so we won't have interruption and more particularly I can sort back and not worry about that it would be interesting and depending on your views of democracy but I'm actually going to allow two referenda one at the end you're entitled to change your views and one certainly hopes and I certainly expect, given the calendar of the speakers you will be better informed when you come to give your second vote at the end we won't be having buses going past outside the promises that Mark or Emily might be making to you but let me sit down, but before I do that if you think about the motion that you have before you cultural cases that have won and lost on the sonar and not on the law and I'm not going to ask you to identify yourself with a show of hands but I've been watching on BBC Parliament TV some of the debates that have been going on last week and before they go to the lobby they start with a vocal expression of opinion so those in favour of the motion, cultural cases that have won and lost on the sonar and on the law they say hi those against none well, everything's up to grabs we were choosing this over rugby we will try to keep the debate just as lively and even robust so you won't feel like you've missed it very much I didn't see who the names were I couldn't tell but we'll suss you out during the question and answer session there'll be a lively debate but it won't be a fair debate and that is because the sonar so clearly influences the outcome of decision making traditional decision making and oral decision making and this is a great topic to discuss now because it's just been in more recent years that there's been a greater accumulation of serious studies on the extra legal factors that influence traditional decision making and unsurprisingly you find that there are a number of factors that are not simply derived from an application of the text the treaty text, the law, the contract to the facts there's much more going on in the arbitral mind but that's the position that our esteemed beneficiaries are going to try to sell you on that's all the arbitrarier does you could call it the legalist theory or the robotic theory of arbitrarier decision making and I would say to you that it's not only naive, it's dangerous because you're missing really so much of what's actually going on between the text of the treaty with the law and the actual decision there's a big gap in there and a lot of things that happen and if you want to be a better advocate, you need to be aware of what happens in that chapter particularly in investment treaty arbitration where the enemy of the parties, the advocates, but particularly of the tribunal members is one of the most decisive factors in the outcome of the arbitration it's undermined you may listen carefully to my adversaries because you may hear them because they're trying to defend something which is really impensable except in very narrow, passive cases that I'll describe to you but otherwise, as a general theory of decision making, it's so impensable not to listen carefully to them because they're going to try to make this a debate about normative policy what should decisions be based on should it be a simple legalist application application of the law to the parties that's not the debate what happens there when I'm talking about how we should be we're talking about the reality of judicial, marital decision making and being aware of that reality is what will make you a better advocate now let's start I'm going to address I'm going to focus a bit more on investment treaty arbitration but this phenomenon, I would say, is even greater and Wendy is going to focus more on commercial arbitration and I will also start from the perspective of the decision maker from the arbitrator and then I will end with a discussion of the advocate looking at things in the advocate and then Wendy will pick up from that perspective so starting with the decision maker with the arbitrator or the judge have any of you read by a show of hands or at least heard about the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Canson it's really a remarkable book that really looks at sort of the flaws and the quirks of human cognition and how the limbic system that is the center of emotion and brain takes in information and quickly sorts it into important information less important information good, bad, and it mixes it with emotions and memories and the bottom line is that the information that's important that there's an actual application of conscious analytical thinking and for everything else, which is the vast majority the arbitrator, the decision maker, the judge is sort of on this autopilot sort of resorts to this more primitive monkey brain which relies on these mental shortcuts that you call heuristics and it's very important to bear this in mind that that is the way humans like to decide things that really only apply their brains to the very important the things that they have identified as very important one of the most remarkable studies in that book is about parol behaviors and in this study 35% of parol decisions by these judges are in favor of parol releasing the impartiality but the interesting thing is the author of the study looked at the timing of when these decisions were made and the remarkable thing was immediately after lunch or after one of the snack breaks the rate of parol spikes to 65% and then over the coming two hours it decreases to zero or very close to zero and that's remarkable what's going on what's happening is as the judges get tired and cranky and hungry they start resorting to the default position and they're not using their active brain and they start defaulting to the easier decision which is just send them a denied parol send them back to the person this is really remarkable I think if an important decision like that can be influenced so greatly by a sandwich what else is going on in the decision making process by judges and as it turns out quite a lot if you start with the case in the United States there's a lot of studies there on traditional decision making in the federal courts including the Supreme Court and there's now a lot of evidence for a number of extra legal factors that enter into the decision making process and it's politics, ideology, self-interest a sense of judicial fairness all sorts of different ideas enter into the picture and in fact at the Supreme Court level you should not surprise anyone that it's a political party even though it's appointed but still it has such an influence political scientists are better at determining and guessing the outcome of the decisions than our constitutional scholars looking at the law and they're using non-legal factors to make these terminations and they're better at guessing what the outcome is and that's again that's the very high sport in the United States now fairness, right? the idea that you want to lean in favor of the party that seems more deserving of winning is a very important point in this debate there's an eminent English court judge, Lord Griffiths who once famously said I have one rule and one rule only shits don't win in my court does that speak for you? that tells you a lot about how you should plead your case in part of Lord Griffiths there's a judge for an arbitrator who coaches the rule this way he gives a premium on how you present your case in credibility and your client as being of the honest deserving, light-able party or if you can't achieve light-able at least don't be a shit this isn't to say that the law doesn't matter and that's probably the decision that probably the territory of our adversaries that's not true at all when you have routine cases and routine issues and it's a simple application of the contract or the treaty to something that's quite simple that's where there's less judicial discretion and you expect to see less of these other factors that I'm talking about but that's not most of the cases that we work on when you're looking at the cases from Arnold Porter or Gaby's Duke Chamber there are usually very big complex cases and complex issues and there's very often a wide gap between the treaty or the text of the contract which may be ambiguous and the outcome and simply the application of the law to the facts isn't going to give you a satisfactory answer there's something else there's judicial discretion which enters in there and it's in that gap in particular that all these other factors enter in mostly subconsciously doing the right thing in their application of the law or they at least press up a lot of their decisions as to applying the law now arbitration is even more susceptible than courts court judges to this phenomenon why is that there are a number of factors well first of all we know that arbitral decisions are not appealable in America as was mentioned in the prior panel so if a judge has ever heard a decision on the equities or some other extra legal factor physically the chance will be overturned not so in international arbitration as long as the arbitrator dresses up his or her decision as arbitral decisions on America another important distinguishing feature of arbitration is that the parties have a say in the constitution of the Tribunal again as it was addressed in the prior panel this also defy a wide range of sidelines with elements that don't exist at least to the same extent in the decision process so parties who appoint and pay those area members often feel empowered with an element of control over their procedures at least over their nominee and the question through the last panel was do you know of any example of a situation where a party appointed in favor of the other party there are none and it was Albert Young Venter who raised this point a few years ago he said 100% of the Senate opinions are in favor of the appointing party and it can't just be explained by the fact that you're choosing the arbitrator for particular attitudes it really shows that there's a very powerful psychological tug in favor of the party in that regard arbitrage also creates a close bond with the prior panel and their decisions are influenced very much by the forces of the market they do not have tenure like judges and their likelihood depends upon requirements often by the same large law firms and this must have a significant effect usually subconscious on the arbitrage and their decision it creates a bias in favor of rendering difficult from popular decisions or at least rendering decisions being created that will pass the likelihood of being reappointed and continue your livelihood and your career and then you see that also the fact that arbitrage and counsel switch roles, right, the devil has we don't have time to get into this but I have to further layer of psychological, that is further psychological dimension more than just simply the issue of this and their option you can think about the arbitrage which we know is appointed very often by the client so they are appointed very often by the response but they want to go one step further and be the chair in more cases, right, so they might be motivated to sort of neutralize their decisions so they don't go to proclaim that you're a pro-responder alternatively you have a number of arbitrators some of them were mentioned earlier whose business case is to be in favor of your favorite response, right, that's fine let's do that, and then the complice for the parties is do I blame the fact that their vote is a formal conclusion against the fact that they're still very popular, very persuasive on this idea because they're very intelligent and yes they're going to vote 100%, 99% in favor of the climate but they're still so persuasive that it's worth having and that kind of strategic decision which may be outcome internment has very little to do with the law, right it's really gaining the identity of the panel finding investment media operations is no secret that you know when a lot of the Tribunal members think about many of these contentious issues because they're taking papers, they speak on panels like this one or you can make a few phone calls and ask people who have had these Tribunal members appear before them or stop them and get some insight into their own so from a large part in investment media arbitration you're not talking about persuading your arbitrators on the law you're picking your arbitrators you're trying to stack the debt to begin with with arbitrators who already decide on the issue that you think is out on the agenda in the U.S. now the dark arts of arbitral appointments is a whole rich topic for another day but this is one of the key features of investment media arbitration find a way to say investment treaty law is fraught with legal standards that are vague, might be fair enough for treatment of course and also you have a number of issues in this area where there's a split often a 50-50 split between one way of viewing the most favorite nation involved and so you're not controlled by the text of the treaty or precedent and it gives you much more discretion to reach the inclusion that you want to reach and that's a major reason why investment media arbitration is more susceptible to all of these other expert involved in this now we're talking about culture how does culture play into this again it's a vast debate there was a discussion in the recent Vienna arbitration day about the cost key dimensions that measure various cultural differences and lawyers come from different cultures and are susceptible to viewing the world in a particular way and one of the dimensions of one of the factors is called power distance and the idea that was told in this context was if someone scores high on power distance and a lower score is persons who are concrete that are more skeptical interestingly New Zealand was right near the bottom not at the bottom, but right near the bottom so what does that mean? Does it mean that you don't deploy an expert if I'm on a drive-in or a Wendy or an Aussie maybe not but it may influence how you use your expert so instead of having the expert actually draw up a final conclusion you may want them simply to be helping the tribunal contextualizing, explaining, interpreting actually you may use them in a different way to make it less offensive to someone who comes from legal culture that is less or more skeptical about being told by a supposed expert who is hired by a party what the expert wants to create it's also why you know that approaches to legal problems differ from all legal cultures it's no surprise it's why you know when you see a tribunal and you see an English, if you see one side of a French, a couple of pounds on the other side you get a good sense about which party likes the words of the contractor which party wants to have more of a less of an interpretation and those stereotypes I would say very often hold true but it also holds up the idea of similarities right and it's no surprise that people like those who are more similar to themselves right so what does this mean if you're in front of a a prior commercial project it may mean that you want to have someone with upon each of those accent argue with the case in the higher-up you see and keep the guy who would be the cherished American accent in the back of the room question is if it's a Brooklyn accent so these are some things that enter into the decision-making process but sometimes it had a very subtle level but I think anyone who spent a long time in the international arbitration will tell you these things actually do matter and they can tell you lots of stories about how they simply were getting an attraction from the tribunal and then they swap themselves out for someone with a different accent someone who looked more like the German and suddenly things changed now I'll just say one quick word about jurisdiction because I think that my adversary is going to say well the investment period of jurisdiction that's purely legal they should have good psychological factors and I'll just say in my zero time remaining that they're wrong again on that point but they will be wrong again in that point why is that? first of all you're selecting these other periods that I said for decisions which are already known right on there are the jurisdiction questions the scope of investment or investor the application of the internet and so forth there's also a study on jurisdictional decisions that found that nationality of the claimant was an overwhelming factor in the outcome the claimants from France Germany, UK and the US were 84% more likely to be resolved expansively in favor of the client now if all that's going on there is the application of law to the facts it's sort of mechanical a lot of the practice that wouldn't describe why these existed first of all and it tells you that there's something else even in the area of jurisdiction something else entirely going on besides simply this legalist approach to decision making I will end there and your government vote thank you Mark now to hear the other side of the motion Emily well of course not what I would hate is to appear in favor of this motion in fact I wonder how my super legal friend Mark McNeill with the high road that I'm in favorites today has agreed to appear in favor of the motion why he's telling you and you will note that in view of the version he's saying that most of the cases are well in favor and not on the law so whose person is he talking about and the person he has been talking about for three years already the person he has been lawyer in the case the person he has been arbitrator and the person he has been out there client and cause and expert and the person he has been talking about and he has been talking about the motion that he would which would lead to chaos and depression but how is there a view of law on our language the first reason why the motion must be defeated is that it is dangerous for us to have a population lawyer and it makes them operate for the highest rate if you came to that one and I saw that half the lawyer are not the law all we are is going to come back telling the story and this is what we'll have to admit all we are in the version of the flat of the stomach telling ourselves in the stomach square that any lawyer they should be made sold in the community the motion is the very reason why popular filters lawyers are elected a lawyer and in order to present the debate that is an extensive group of search and I found a reputable newspaper website that has an article in title why I am a lawyer like this now the discussion expectation is even of the association between lawyer and lawyer they need to hire an arbitration in particular that is national arbitration why is that? but international arbitration is not only complicated for the day man or day woman it is also for federal law arbitration lawyer and just to take some examples federal arbitration lawyers struggles to understand how you have a legal arbitration that is not what you are going to have to hear they struggle to understand what is the arbitration rules they struggle how a civil French lawyer could be a French lawyer and arbitrate for more international business they find it terribly shocking even when they think they are the system federal arbitration lawyers can use that point of view so my end up changing this with one of the groups to my mind anyway around here I stated in the concept of seeking arbitration meeting changes when he came and said it is all about the seats unfortunately we are discussing an exit so in such a negative there is only one short step for the federal arbitration community of lawyers to assume that all you need to win an arbitration is is a good liar sorry lawyer that is what the motion suggests and that makes a mockery of arbitration and in fact to all the other students in the room if you believe the motion is correct you should study this theory of psychology and you may leave the room nobody left the room and I hope that this means that you will be overwhelming to reject the motion if you are not persuaded yet there is yet another reason why you should reject the motion the motion is dangerous not only by arbitration lawyers but because it threatens the very existence of international arbitration if most arbitration cases are one of the personnel of arbitraters not one of them then those who reach the device of arbitration are correct during the first two method of treaty arbitration attacks on the bill come from every angle the left wing NGO actually that shared the survey from the entire trade agreement between Canada and the EU in union on the basis that it contained a dispute resolution mechanism between the investor of states the right wing nationalist angle received the investment treaty arbitration as a way to curb the state's sovereignty and a certain regional institution of course and not what we think even once the EU Commission has been needing a war on a treaty for years and it has been far too successful in the context of the EU in the context of that there so the threats are everywhere and one of the key arguments before is by those of the traitors is that there is no consistently the aim of the treaty arbitration because of the decisions that I got but as soon as not known but in this context is that the conscious is not imagined depends on the motion through the fact of what we must and this is not to say that we do not try to avoid arbitration because of the same levels that we do but this is not there so now arbitrators might come to different inclusions and a different point because both arbiters abide in law and they think differently in law now coming to commercial arbitration the threats are not as in international treaty arbitration but they are making a civil society a big civil society even able to distinguish between commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration I don't know about you but I really have friends in the family that send me answers on the documentaries that they arbitration has been requested and all you need to do is all you need to do is to know the arbitration and make a decision that is fatal to you in fact my investment banker brother my drug was more ill than his for two reasons this is a critical part of the arbitration in the industry exemplary and not the support version of today arbitrators are academic, lawyers former judges and in fact the quality of the decisions you gave in law especially when you should have context and a whole different jurisdiction are often better than often more open to different rules and to remind them understand with them and this suggests that more often than not commercial arbitration is not one in a civil war I don't know if it's a civil war that I want to introduce and this we need to argue that the version is not more dangerous it is wrong in fact what should I say most arbitration is about I'm going to talk about as the client or expert so when Bob was referring to the fact that's what I'm referring to so I'm going to say as he suggested the example of jurisdiction no matter about impending the prices no matter about rating prices there is no arbitration agreement that would be lost now it's true that this is quite a script arbitration is quite an extreme example that was about rating prices so I suspect that the other side will give you a mere example of witnesses that were not as good as expected experts who were angry and were far from contamination and they would suggest that this means that most arbitration is not one of the festivals that are not new so those are entertaining examples but they are misleading arbitration is worth the area of the floor we have supplied about three new rare and will certainly not make one way or lose the case at the hearing there is some interpretation like the U.S. for example for a lot of people and they do so in big international clubs that participate in arbitration they always have a U.S. lawyer who has to prepare with it and if that's not the case the French one the French players have the habit for international arbitration where they are allowed to prepare witnesses even if that's not possible there is a specific company that helps you to prepare a witness in England so it is incredibly rehearsed so what is the approval thing that I am certain that you want to have sort of a law that makes the three new rule if not purely have the benefit of one in international arbitration and I am taking an example of a criminal case when I was a pupil of Irish I was representing a client in an extradition case and I was told by an expert that he exaggerated what the member was and the point that we were taking was that it was against the right to the private and family life of the X to her because it was culturally marked because of his memory loss it would be very terrible really to be separated from his family that the expert said he's got no memory loss issue but he's physically impaired he ought to wash himself and it would even work to have to be brought back to one another in prison and so I saw the client five minutes before the hearing in the cells and he said and I asked him a few questions and realised he was exaggerating the memory loss of the family so all I said he seemed to remember that he was saying it's very well but it's another case very poorly he was called and arrived in the courtroom and he was asked please confirm your name and he said I don't remember please confirm your address I don't remember so in such case well it is a proportionality test I can say with stockings but it would never happen in arbitration it would never have such surprises therefore before you vote for the version I urge you to reconsider here's your advice to use it you would come to the silence when shunt form come near them if anyone and one who turns into those and hears the saying of the silence is white and children will never welcome them home again but they sit in a green field and wander there to death with the sweetness of their soul there is a great heap of dead men's bones lying all around with the flesh that is rotting of them that will pass the ether inside and stop the men here with wax that none of them may hear Mr. Lankin and Ms. Baz have blunt, beautiful, glamorous and incredible have no doubt when you vote for the motion do so carefully if you vote too close to that so it will be decided that's part of the international of arbitration Thank you, Emily now we'll hear the second debate proposing the motion I can say with confidence that Mr. Lankin and Ms. Baz have a great time I am starting with a significant point and let's go to the public because we do want to propose other cases of one and lost on the so-called anti-moral law so if the syntax of the proposition that we're asking and we skip over it a little bit quickly it doesn't really suit you the proposition is not all cases of one or a certain amount it's just a great case of one it doesn't really depend on the definition of the keyword of anti-moral that is unique to Selma and I've seen from all of you came into with us the post where we get scholars and admit with shamelessly without shame that I had to do for Selma like Latin, which we are some people in the right but Latin education was not rich in music we were rich in other things in our training not to be differential as the market has made for you so if Selma doesn't need me and I suspected the girl of the Selma the Selma it's in its every day the social role or the character played by an actor now I've taken pride in that obviously we're originally referred to a theatrical mask we'll make you do the theatrical role right here on me the aspect of a person's character that's presented or perceived by others that have been in the viewing and in the public sector of the actor adopted by an actor and just some synonyms synonyms synonyms for a character personality identity self front facade mask glass exterior role or part of all things that we've been talking about all day they're the themes of this conference we've actually talked very little about war to give them back because you remember your life the purpose of my remarks as a mask in international commercial arbitration and by way of introduction as you are in international commercial arbitration is to write from a contract so just for fun because I was in the mood let's look at the esomology of the word contract not like this so it goes back to the audience and it means to agree to a normal person to do or not do the contract is the width or together the track to draw things together metaphorically to make a living most international arbitration cases are about to speak to a human being to have been drawn together to reach a life where human beings make decisions based on words and actions of how they're human beings and how they're represented the human being to be selected to decide or represent parts of the arbitration they're selected because of who they are because of the character or the role that they play and how they're played in terms of personality identity and so on human beings who want to lose they want to lose because of who they are and how long they can form in that character of the days or in the weeks now the first part of the motion will be about a contract and it's not but in my experience in practice it's rarely a dispute about whether or not any contract exists they don't accept the question of law but I don't have to learn on every case here I just have to show you that some cases are a lot of loss on this area and I accept that because this is a two-question issue most cases are not about that dispute they're about the nature and scope of the contract so as a matter of fact they're about what the parties deliver and do and that inquiry breaks down in most cases sorry to disillusion you all and commercial arbitration to three phases or three to ten or two questions first, the question is secondly, the very context of how long it's been for that bargain and thirdly, if one person can purchase that bargain for most of the other bargain so again, those are according to the proposition we're now trying to get to that scope and nature of the bargain is the question on why such a dispute and how often is that really the case the bargain we're talking about the bargain that comes to schools much, every dispute that I've involved with is a bargain ultimately made between human beings and that human beings usually end up taking them off and responding where it comes from to see that so sure, the contractual document presents the difference of what each one of us can believe for their own benefit but that document clearly is set for the time of school that it's unlikely that they can have an hour hour of fees in charge of that argument so in the order of course one person will be to be charging against the cardinal that the bargain is the one thing and the other will be charging against the cardinal that the bargain is the one thing and the winner the winner is the one who is most persuasive about the truth and how the clients in this format spell about freedom of insurance through the vehicle of human beings in the form of arbitrages through the time of the slave counsel who they're using as the representative force pieces to display and their witnesses test violence is the only test one each and every one of us will face public place or personality on the basis of what other people decide on so I'd like to look a little bit more closely to the roles of its human characters in this play of arbitration and how they play that in terms of arbitration so not some of these kids cause a lot of time on driving so I don't need to revisit that pretty much everything except that the best to stay driving is does apply in terms of commercial driving and other than to assure you that my trustworthy persona that Mark is absolutely 100% correct that everything he's told you today I don't understand more about travel he's basically the time of the slave counsel and again I reassure you I've won Mark for many years and planned to be an amazing champion in the realm who rely on what he's said from the last console I'm not saying any of this Mark so let me add one more point to what Mark said about the console the sale I were relevant to the selection of counsel and the leading counsel in particular in the five years I want to give you the answer then why do we continue in this professional sense in particular to have such a troubling group of gender gatherers in our new counsel to find the answers easier to find whatever it is that blocks women from rising to the role of being counsel and equal numbers to men whatever it is that keeps our women on our trip traveling astoundingly at 17% at best it's not their ability to argue with individuals it's not being legal about political powers and jurisdiction and it was selecting the counsel in our trip to something other than the counsel in the role of the lead a hard life to lead there's something other than the role that is more to our ability to learn the case because that's what we're able to learn to learn the case not anymore we're able to catch the counsel and where the counsel is so if it's not certain enough then what is it that we need to end and have some shooting water but this will have such an impact on my life that I'm going to have to do it yes it was Maryfield came up so the other choice she said she says this about persona gender persona and the voice in the team for us where I think it's all about the same trust that I believe she says come trust the deep voiced man with all the connotations of confundity that a simple word deep print that's what I really thought about the head of the chain that she brought the voice with deep voice it's still the case that in this miscarriage they do not hear a voice they do not hear a voice they do not hear a voice they do not hear a voice and it's not just words you can have an entirely different basis that's such an actual risk that can lead to a blow but I've talked about this before but I'm going to be more what we've judged on the same ways as an application that's deep persona what she's saying is that these attitudes assumptions, prejudices prejudices they're hardwired into us not into our brains they're hardwired into our culture our language our language our history it's a great read I don't know but this kind of assessment which is our example it's a strong advocate and good to stay fighting them out and fighting to them and what you should be like to put all of our efforts to build profile, bias to failure and to be able to change the social networks of international arbitration rather are we going for our pure legal career what separates the winners from the losers and this game is our ability to persuade and that comes from our selling so I really have to come back to Q&A because we have time as to why I put those standards but it doesn't mean we're going to vote on that and I don't want to distract you from this point of view so just to recap we are on our business council we choose both based on normal rule but I'll understand we'll choose those two as it will increase our likelihood of winning all about parties and the testifying facts for businesses so we're a bit like family we don't need to choose that and scut with what comes with the case so Anne said that we could use some of the media examples of failure which I did have some that so I hope it doesn't point to that but I bet you instead in international arbitration we're in fear and surprises are extremely rare because of how well we prepare our businesses but with respect this is precisely the point we prepare our businesses so they can trade with the owner so it is necessary to prepare the case they're exactly what we fix them up we familiarize if we don't like what we see in the business we change it we change their clothes what they wear how many of us can we use we give our own suit we change their hair we love where we're at we don't know I'm sorry we change the number we change the obnoxiousness for every trade we do there's an idea of the cardinal when and how to shape an argument I have on my occasion how the cardinal could go out in front of an individual and ask what's the bias of the lawyer preparing the article to be fair that they have lost a suit but there's no way we're going to put them on the jeans and t-shirt we try to look down but don't assess the facts that this is based on the rule they assess them on the basis of the truth of their position and assess that truth on the basis of this as shown in the speech and the gestures how they come across to other and that is is discerning and even if one thinks that and when this is great just how they come sometimes they do this themselves it's helping prove in the process as you go through the stages of preparing for this statement and if I've got time I've got one particular example which is one of my favorite examples in my fire racing career where we had a female student of an automated manufacturing company who was very familiar with the environment and she got to a very, very senior role and had an original licence and it's a word that Mary Berry uses on how we're going to get to successful positions at an infrastructure and she had dark suits with very, very short hair that I made after they had no dark senses and it so happened that the team who was pregnant the team who took her with the statement who prepared her for the hearing and started to give evidence was all been out and the first person we met and she was very, very discontented and a cultural part about this too and age but we were very, very evident along with her and we were also just very relaxed and friendly and the third time this time we were about three months apart each and third time we came in and she was like a banquet so she was really pleased to see us she came into the hearing and she had a a bright red prior handbag over her shoulder and I said, look at you again and she said, yeah, it's almost time for the girls and I thought, she went into that hearing and she had dropped all of this hyper, hyper structured aloofness and she had that prior handbag the absolute power of her hand the absolute power of her handbag but most of her process animation asking her to help them figure out the content and she was us here though she wasn't even our expert so just an example I'm going to say that in fact so then we had content one minute on content, that's my last point which is going to cost a content expert again quite often a huge amount of choice these are all of our accountants so accountant or accountants disproportionately a number of testifying accountants and accountants are men white men on a certain age so we choose our friends that are just expert and indeed any expert again, most of our reputation rabbit has priority for ability to express difficult concepts in a straightforward manner reasonable credibility believability or of which goes to the designer of their other central character in the animation process, the expert so actual cases not just because of the way it's made up, it's not up to the rest of the spectrum so the way we deal with facts and the way we deal with matters of expertise are indeed one and lost we decide that thank you Wendy now I will hand over to to conclude the substantive arguments for the team opposing the motion I stand before you to ask you to vote for what we know is right and as a proposition that motherhood is not on the first one and I will start with the question I have seen a different approach to this debate to the one that we should take when my understanding is I should spend many months of weeks preparing for the presentation today I have decided to take the risk and not come with prepared remarks as I was going to be last in this holiday process I have been trying to take notes to respond to the arguments at Mark and Wendy for you now the risk that comes with that is that motherhood but I will do my best to invest the points that have been presented by Mark and Wendy in some of your fashion and perhaps I will start with the last points that Wendy will be talking about and it may be realized it seems that I get witnesses that do not near and need so much cooperation and that leads me usually to tell the witnesses two things the most important thing that you need to do when you present your overall testimony before the tribunal is to know where the statement is that is what we need to do we need to tell the tribunals the truth we need to tell the tribunals the facts we need to rely on these important biologicians that have been cited and added to your the second thing I tell them is be yourself I have done this for many years and the instances in which I have seen witnesses fail miserably in terms of tribunals unfortunately it is always on the other side is the witness that seems to be older people here guarded, nervous not wanting to share what he or she truly knows and that has demonstrated that the witness that speaks to the facts and then lets the lawyers apply the law through the facts are the witnesses that you want to have on your side now notice that Wendy being the former lawyer that she is stratified trying to dissect the precise syntax and wording of the propositional and she said arbitral cases are one in law, so not on the law and she said notice that this would take all cases and so according to her recent proposition if there is one case that is worn on persona then the propositioning must be accepted so of course even if there is such a case we all know that there are instances in which there are serious characters of justice the fact that one case or a few cases may be decided on persona does not mean that the proposition is correct notice also that Wendy said that persona matters and it influences decisions, but of course it does but of course it does and neither Emily nor I would stand before you on the straight face and tell you that it's not true Mark also in the same vein would say that we will be arguing for your own logic application of the law and that is what happens in that case, that's not true for you to support the motion that Wendy and I are understanding you don't need to believe that arbitrators are robots and we'll be applying the law in a multi-fashion of course as human beings and most of them are not all but most of the arbitrators and the human beings will be influenced now Mark mentioned the book thinking past as well it's a fabulous book he also mentioned nudge on the same vein now one of those books are documented very well the biases to which we are subject as human beings I would also comment that you read the book The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Hyde he draws an analogy that has stuck with me of human beings consisting essentially of two elements a writer that sits on top of a nest the writer is the rational self the elephant is our biases our emotions and of course there are certain situations in which we will not be able to steer the elephant in the way in which we would want sometimes it goes for us to be not conscious in the direction in which the elephant is going but when arbitrators are sitting before a very experienced and prepared group of lawyers witnesses and experts they will not give the reins to the elephant they will be sitting there as the writer that is in the control of the situation now the analogy or example that Mark gave about parole offices I don't believe it applies here I was also struck by that passenger of the book when I read it arbitrators are not parole officers deciding absent cases in a week after lunch they have an intense copy of the copy these are very complex cases and that is one of the few arguments that Mark got right these are very complex cases over many years with absence of exodus and they are very moving to get into the facts and the law and that's what we do and the arbitrators being professional and conscious of PR will take the time to analyze the law and the facts and the basis of what they will need is rightfully to the law now I've noticed that there are certain very important elements of the investment of artificial education that either Mark nor Wendy and I will try to set them as arguments that constitute clear evidence that the proposition that Emily and I are defending is correct which is part of the cases of law and unlaw on the law and I will list them first and I will try to address them first, predictability second, precedent third, recognition enforcement and fourth, replication which is one in which I like to be fair Mark but when we did try to address the issue of replication when they discussed how volunteers are appointed to terminal now I will start by again observing the golden rule of effective advocacy one which I am sorry but respectfully point out that neither Mark nor Wendy have respect which is never overstatement during this and again I will concede that this is an important part of decision making but it is not what ultimately will decide on a case now let's address first predictability the quarter stone arbitration that predictability is the quarter stone of investment law the higher system of investment arbitration and to some extent commercial arbitration but mostly industrial arbitration is built on the premise that rules need to be guiding more the whole system was built to go away from the power the rule before law became law was applied to decide these cases there is no longer a mind is the rule, is the application of a law that will decide whether the investor is entitled to compensation or not if you accept the proposition you are essentially saying that the whole system is a charade that law doesn't matter why do we have rules and when we have categories for the arbitrariness of the individual sitting deciding to pick a system and we know that the system has to write precisely because it is providing predictability and predictability cannot exist in a void predictability exists because it is the consequence of a rules based system of clear investment treaties in contracts and involved now precedent is the truism that there is no binding precedent in investment arbitration or in commercial arbitration there is no standard of sizes but it is equally obvious that precedent plays a huge role in investment arbitration and commercial arbitration to a lesser extent but still plays a very important part and despite the fact that there is no unifying treaty or contract or investment law that applies to these cases then why would there be such an important role played by precedent if you don't have that common treaty as it is the desire for consistency and for predictability that is the objective as I said earlier of the entire system and that works in various ways that allows the parties and the states to know what sort of conduct will reach the obligations that this needs out doesn't tend to lead the investor to compensation and of course anyone who has ever received an award will even proceed to award will see the role that precedent plays and you have this you have Adelaide class you have a total audience of interesting ones because they are set that traditional consistency in the field of investment law is decided judicial consistency you do not have judicial consistency if you will be able to work in what you have to know and you do that versus Canada if you don't pull it you have to pull it and you have to pull it and it is a moral obligation what tripod's followed precedent with the facts and the law justify doing so and Adelaide I was looking up on my phone talking that I remembered from Adelaide it said the importance when precedent is particularly strong in cases מפiyor bullets it夜 under the same applicable law as a previous tribunal. Now, notice that it is in reliance of the facts, the measures and the law. Again, there is something that the arbitrarians will look to to decide the cases. It is not there in the process, it is not the evidence that will decide the cases. It is the buyer looking in an objective manner at the law, adding evidence and applying the law to the facts. Recognition and enforcement. Another aspect that neither Wendy nor Mark mentioned. Now, Mark and Wendy, in a way, are telling you that we do believe that there is a conspiracy out here, or at least that there's no difference in the people that are deciding the cases, because what they were saying is true, that there wouldn't be the rates of recognition and enforcement that you see in the investment and provisional arbitration. But the stats feel very different to the story. Now, let's start with the investment arbitration and the case of invention. Unknown. You know that the rounds for an element are very narrow and very strict under the investment law. And you know as well that the idea poses a very strong discipline on the arbitrators inside the states. Two of the rounds are failure to state reasons, and the other one manifests excess of power. The arbitrators know that they're being held to that standard. They will make sure, in their words, to provide the reasons that will support their innovation. They will know that they need to adhere to their jurisdiction, that they need to apply the law, because if they fail to do that, they will be, their own words will be annulled. And that is one of the biggest fears that any arbitrator will have, is to have their decision overturned or nulled because it is a way of telling the entire world that they failed to do their job, and didn't apply the law in a matter of the truth, in a matter that says, you need to apply it. The situation is not unlike, the situation under the New York Convention, and that applies either to investment arbitration under a constant trial or to commercial arbitrations. It is very similar in the sense that you also have a narrow set of rounds for set of site, so not a condition of equal work. And you also, if you look at the stats, you will see that the number of arbitral awards that are set aside in the different jurisdictions is very, very small in comparison to the number of cases of war service and reports. The statistics, I was also able to pull them up, for weeks it is that from the year 2011, 2019, 170 exit awards, only five were nulled and only five are the 170. How can it be that 165 different cases, multiplied by five, three, the number of arbitrators sitting in those curfews, rules the same in a way that was insulated from annulment. The only way that that can happen is that there is a conspiracy, and the numbers that are nulled are simply deciding the case in the same way to the private state or of the investor of what's being treated or in contact with the domestic law figures. And of course we know that that is not true. Now, the future of these works are in the things that were before the last argument, which was reputation. That the arbitrators all went to the point that again and again, and some career arbitrators, a challenge to find someone who wants to be a point walk or who wants to never again be a point walk. And that desire to be a repeat arbitrator and eventually make a career of being an arbitrator demands, I don't think of it as being that we're nicest if you were to subscribe to the proposition that more than we are asking you to support. Now, some would do with standing or praise or financial gain, to some extent all of us are in vain in some fashion, but the reality is that the truly good, exceptional, repeat arbitrators are the ones that can be very adept at being able to earn the respect of their peers and of the arbitrators that are sitting in the terminal with them. And here, the arguments that Mark made about dissent and belief support our proposition. Any good counsel that is in the process of selecting the members of the criminal will vote for someone who is objective, who wants the tribunal's rights to deliberate will be able to display his or her fellow arbitrators. The ones that are dissenting, simply to support the party that has appointed them are not the people that we will appoint to the tribunal. And I always tell my clients, don't think that because you know the arbitrator or because you share something in common because we have that human connection that he or she is someone that you want in your tribunal. If you appoint that person, as opposed to the person who can really persuade the others, based on the case of our current knowledge of the law, you're going to end up losing the match to the one. It does not even be your case to appoint someone who you know to support you based on that personal connection, but will not be able to persuade the other two members within these tribunal. And ultimately, the arbitrators that are successful are the ones who maintain that objectivity. And that objectivity can only be maintained if they know the law, if they can analyze the facts and the views of evidence that we present before the tribunal and they can justify their decisions. Again, remind them of the law because they know that if they don't remind the law, they will lose the case of an element or the award will be set aside. Last point that I will make. Patricia. This is, 10 seconds. One of, I think, the best examples of evidence I can put in a short decision is that if you go through what Mark and then what he said, that it is only the truly polished, sophisticated, all the advocates, the good-looking advocates, the sirens would be the successful ones, the ones that are able to persuade the members of the tribunal. Now, I'm not going to talk about those things, but I know the law and our different cases. Now, you might not think that I am able to persuade the arbitrators on the basis of the law. Okay, very good. So neither team thought it was a good idea to keep me fed with biscuits. So I could be harsh on them, but I'm not going to be. I'm going to be generous on their parole applications and release them from their character sooner than otherwise, but I'm going to let them conclude, but I'm going to change the time because we are over the allotted time for the substantive speeches, but I have confidence in their advocacy ability. So I'm going to ask them to put to you their three best points in bullet point fashion, a simple statement, one sentence each, three sentences summing up their case. Now, I'll let them just collect their thoughts. While we do that, would anybody like to throw out any comments, we'll have questions and answers when they're out of character, and I think that will be more constructive and helpful for you, but is there anything you want to just throw out at the moment, maybe something you want the bullet points to address that as a jury, you're undecided and this is their last chance to hit an issue. Gentleman up there. This is more a question than a comment. No, you're only allowed to comment. No. A question, a question by definition is expecting an answer. You're not going to get an answer, but throw it out anyway. Very quickly, my name is Fili Bara, I'm an associate at Warrington. My question is for Wendy and Mark. The question is, if I appear before you, sitting as an arbitrator, and due to unfortunate scheduling, my star witness appears just before lunch and he refuses to hide in banter, is there anything I can do to win my case or is it game over and I shouldn't start with myself? Thank you, Gentleman. Okay, does anybody else want to throw a comment or a question like that that they can think about? Whoever's got their hand up at the back. My only comment would be that my impression and this is maybe something that the park is made addressing their good points is not the distinction between the advocates of you win or lose the case on personal or on the low, but rather between what happens and what should happen. Okay, good comment. Was there somebody a little bit further down that had their, yes? Come up. Thank you so much. My name is Zephyr from Everless Listers. There is a recent survey, very recent, I read approximately three weeks ago, in quarters with which in the UK, in average for any job application, applicants from Asian countries have less than 70% chances of getting hired as compared to the white applicants with the same qualification. So it is fact, I'm not saying from my survey done by different organization in UK for any job application.  So with this background and scientific evidence, do you think that the whole arbitration process, if not the decision-making within it, is characterized by a persona? And if it is, then I think it is not correct reasonable to separate the decision-making within it from the whole process, especially when there is no merit-appealing to a different course where you can analyze the decisions in review details and you can scientifically check each and everything. Okay. It is a good observation. Last one. It's just a very small comment, but the study of all the judges on parole has been debunked actually. There's been such a fact, or it could be explained by this time management. So you see, to you too. Just look at that, we do that. Okay. Right. Who's it gonna be? Mark. 60 seconds. Oh, yes. You're being punished for going over time before. So, three words. I'll say this is very easy to vote. I do need to use my own friends. I'm just gonna say that once it's been made, you heard about this season's silence and signing death war and some rotting flesh and you were recited poetry. You heard about maybe you had made something in for ISDS, you wanted to go to practice. Policy, policy, policy, policy, policy. That's what you heard. You heard that arbitration shouldn't be influenced by extra legal factors, right? And it's exactly what I told you. You were gonna hear it from the other side. They weren't gonna address all of the empirical studies which show how important influence non-feel factors can have. They didn't address any of those. And you heard the same thing from Patricia O'Hurton. Oh, consistency and great abilities in the cornerstone of the wall. That's great. We love having consistency and great ability. But that's not the question that's forced today. It's how much an influence these extra legal factors have in reality, right? Now, their best case we heard from, we heard from Emily, jurisdiction, right, that's the easy case. That's the extreme case. Jurisdiction in industrial state arbitration is exactly where you see this issue launched. And I'll cite this statistic again because it really says everything you need to know. Claimants from France, Germany, UK, and the US are 84% more successful in getting through the jurisdictional threshold. Why is that? It is just a simple legal application. Why is that? I can tell you why it is. The study doesn't tell you. But you can extrapolate a lot of ideas on how parties from those jurisdictions are playing the game in a more sophisticated way in terms of the effectiveness of the treadmill lovers in terms of their entire usage and sort of their presentation from the treadmill beats the entire panel database. And you can see it in the statistics. It's not going to reflect, it's not going to reflect 84%, and you simply can't explain that sort of thing to us at all.  It can make a difference, you know, I was involved in a case as a third party in which the state was defending itself on the basis that the investment was actually illegal and the owner of the company's climate came into the hearing room with a leather jacket and a black shirt and a white tie. Looked like it all at the set of the surprise.  Yeah, of course, probably the nicest thing that happens. So, you know, how do you present yourself in the hearing room? You've got the entire panel. I'll be involved now, just saying that you're using to mean your case, which may be a difference. We have orders, may be a difference, I know. American, they're coming in the way, you won't tell me, you don't need to be in front of me to win this today. I expected them to be locking in the room of the bad dog for the debate and said, even if I'm locked up in there with wings. You must be worried whenever someone tells you it's quite so simple. I, in fact, am overly, almost simplistic. And that's sometimes, I feel it, something that happens, you know, outside your office in the kitchen, you ask, there's a tendency to oversimplification. So here, what the other side is explaining is that prejudice will determine whether you win in international arbitration. This is simply another simplification. You would not win, so they're telling you that it will be prejudice, be the gender prejudice, that will make you win or not. So even if there are too many white men in international arbitration, they do not all sing in the same way. They wouldn't like it as differently. They're not all the same. Being the personality of your clients, how the fans are dressed, that is really, it's really not giving looks of credit to international arbitrators. Being your accent, as much as I would, I would like to think that if there's a problem with an arbitrator, my French accent would kill it and it would win today. Unfortunately, it's not how it works. For being food, which is even more outrageous, this is a local simplification against which you should be born and you should walk away from chaos and go against the motion. Okay, so we've got 10 minutes to have a wider discussion. Before we do that, let's show of hands those in favor of the motion, the cases when are lost on persona and not on the law. You're in favor of the motion, put up your hand and those against, well, I think the motion was passed. So thank you very much for our debaters in character. As I say, I'll release them now. Anybody like to add to the comments that were made just before which our speakers can comment on, but if you'd like to throw out another comment or question, what I suggest is we take a bunch of them and then they can be answered together if there's any particular themes. Does anybody else want to say anything? James. Just the question arising, particularly in London's secret arbitration, if persona was so important by so many retired judges, by the debaters and snappled so many appointments on the territory of the bench. Is the premise of your question that they may be, you think that may be less influenced by individuals, but what? Without themselves, legal training should be influenced usually by legal arguments and not all of them have enormous charisma. Anybody else? Okay. Do you remember the questions and comments that were made before the rebuttals? So if you'd like to pick up any of that or James's comments. Just on James's purpose, I mean, I'd flip it around. They said we're all about the law, why isn't every tribune a retired in the court judge? There's plenty of them out there. So I think the answer to that is, I have never appeared in front of three member tribunals, almost all of my tribunals are three member, where if any English retired judge at all, it would be no more than one, and usually sitting in the chair and often appointed for his ability to, and it usually is a his, I'm afraid, although we now have this Gloucester, yay. His ability or Liz's ability to manage a docket. Man balance, I was being facetious. I do think there's a serious point in physical presentation. And I think, yeah, and it's difficult. It's difficult with witnesses. It's difficult with cultural aspects. What we do is international, it's multicultural. There's genders. I don't often get to work with women witnesses. It is mostly men, but there's all sorts of gender issues when you talk about appearance as well, if it's women. And these are really, really loaded things, but if somebody goes in there in their gumboots and their ripped jeans, nobody's going to take them serious. It's not how we come in here. It's not how we operate. It is serious professional stuff. No, but I'm just fine. And I just threw it in there, but the humor. Sorry about that. Oh, some suggestion. Just to mention that there's a study, the 2014 EECA conference in Miami had a study. They compared the performance of judges to arbitrators and the conclusion of the study is that there is no difference. The judges, despite their training, 34 years of career, are still prone to the same type of biases, but the way that they approach problems and ultimately reach their decisions is not unlike the way in which arbitrators reach their decisions. Do you, Matt, does your firm have blind interview? When you look at CVs now, that there is this move to try to eliminate any unconscious biases. And a lot of firms are doing that, which I think may over time address some of the problems that you raised as more people coming and have careers in more firms of academia and development. Attraction profiles. If anything, I think that now there is more bias in favor of appointing women in general in the teams that I'm working with, with various firms actually. But the question in investment treaty in particular is that you know which issue, quite often you know which issues you want decided in your favor, and so you will look at the history of decision and the history for women arbitrator is a shorter history by definition quite often, except you know Bridget Steyer and other people like that. And so that even if you want to, sometimes in treaty arbitration, at least you are unable to. And that's a real issue. If I can, I was a bit surprised by the vote. And I made a mental picture of the people that voted against my proposition for recruitment purposes. Just letting you know. I was surprised because I truly believe, despite you know that was the proposition that I had to defend, but I believe in it. And I do think that it plays a role, the bias plays a role, and that there's a human element that we cannot get away from. But I think that in the context of investment arbitration, where as I said, it's a very drawn out process incredibly complex with evidence of the application of the law, with oversight, with precedent, that I truly do not believe that the personal human element can be the deciding factor. And I think that again, that is borne out by our experience. Now, I may appoint someone based on their history, their background, their legal training. I will never appoint someone because of simply those natural persona elements. And I believe that their decisions and their reputation and the career and the high regard in which they are held, I think it's testament to the fact that it is only the soundness of the decisions that can be defended on the basis of the law and the facts that is what carries the day. So I was a bit surprised that persona would be considered to be the deciding factor in decision-making. Can I, something that I don't think you touched on, you referred to, I think your team as arbitrators could be robotic, but artificial intelligence, is that where we're gonna go? Are we gonna take the persona whether it's good or bad out of decision-making? Do you see in five or 10 years time, AI deciding these cases? I think there's a set of commoditized disputes that work could, so very basic, sort of formulaic type disputes potentially, but in most of the work that we do, there's a much more complex interhuman element. And even though most of my works for big corporations occasionally states, there's still, those big corporations have their corporate social responsibility, they have their accountability, they have their accountability to their stakeholders, their shareholders, investors, their employees, and this process, whether they win or lose, if done properly, gives some self, some ointment to whatever sort of wound that the dispute itself has caused. And I've seen that time and time again. So I do think there is something actually much richer about what we do other than just deciding who wins and who loses. And I think we would lose something really important in the oil of international trade and commerce and investment if we were to try to make that robotic. You know, I think AI will play a bigger role, but as Wendy says, starting with the much more simpler situations, and you hear about, for example, insurance coverage for simple questions about whether something falls within the coverage or not for travel insurance. But for the cases in which we operate, the point with the Pearl Board, whether that study is valid or not, the point there was that that was a very simple decision process, or at least it's based on a limited number of facts. How can trite is the person? How much do we think they're gonna integrate themselves back into society and so forth? And if it can be influenced, then when you have a very complex issue, there's more scope for other factors to play in. Now, I overstated the case, of course, for purposes of the debate, but you can think of many examples. I mean, I mentioned the US Supreme Court in 2007 when it sort of took alerts to the right when you had the replacement of a moderate conservative, O'Connor, with Alito, the law changed. And you say, what's the law then? If you change the persons, and the law changes, then what is the law? And so it's an uncomfortable fact when we discuss the role of persona and persons in what is the law making. I do think, though, if there's one takeaway from today, one of the most important things is to read some of this literature. Just Google bias and investment treaty arbitration and judicial cognition and so forth. And you'll come up, you'll see this immediately, this incredibly rich debate about all of these other factors. And I think it's at least useful to be aware of those. And they may not decide all of your cases. They may only be at the margins in a lot of cases, right? But it is important to be aware of these factors because it does make you a better advocate. Good question. I fully agree with Mark. I think that if you want to be a good advocate, you have to read thinking fast and slow and also nudge. It will not win your cases, but it will make you a better advocate. And I think that another point that Mark raised, which I think is very important in his concluding remarks, the cultural difference. I think it's something that needs to be addressed. And it is true that you notice that difference in advocacy, somewhat different parts of the world. And I don't think that it is simply a function of the bias and the members of the Tribunal deciding these cases when they have someone from certain parts of the world, as opposed to Western Europe, for instance. I do think that there is a huge gap in the expertise in those regions of the world. And they're not as able, simply because of that lack of experience, of presenting these very complex cases in a way that will make it easier for the Tribunal to really be able to side with them. And simply an issue of marshaling of evidence, for instance. They're not able to marshal the evidence in the way that the Tribunals need to be presented with the evidence to decide the case in their favor. But it is an issue that needs to be addressed. We often hear all the time about diversity and gender. And it is a problem. And now the focus has been greatly on gender and rightly so, but I think that diversity in terms of geographical coverage, it's a huge problem and needs to be corrected. Emily, in the last one. I completely agree with what Patricio just said and to add on to that. So I do quite a lot of teaching with African lawyers and it's quite true in African countries. And they want to get into the field and they're very enthusiastic about doing more arbitration. But there is really a gap in terms of training that even if they attend a few courses here and there with lawyers from law firm, that's not enough to quite get to that level. And so they are on the back foot. Now you can be against people, against local law firms in some smaller commercial arbitrations, for instance, and they will be on the back foot. And that's, I think that the discrepancy in training is also something that we need to address to allow it to be proper international arbitration, not just people who are effectively look a bit more different than before but have the same training. In reality, are the same. Well, good. Thank you. I think our time is up and I think there are drinks outside. And certainly we should thank the panelists, our speakers, our debaters in the right spirit. I mean, I would conclude by simply saying there is a distinction. I think the speakers brought this up. There is a distinction between treaty arbitrations and commercial arbitrations, I think. And you will probably be reading a great deal about treaty arbitration. You'll be reading a great deal about how certain arbitrators are seen or are objectively appointed by investors or states more often than not and there may be a perception about them, rightly or wrongly. There are many that don't fall on one side or another. Fair and equal treatment was mentioned and that's a developing area of law where people from different backgrounds, legal backgrounds and legal cultures may interpret FET slightly differently so one can get variations and decisions and who makes up a tribune on those circumstances is significant because it's developing. Just as we've seen in any common law system how the law of negligence is developed and how certain doctrines then get reversed on appeal and then get reversed again on further appeal, of course judges who are seeking to apply the law may see the law and its application to a particular facts differently so people, the judges are important. And there's advocates, I think certainly and all of us will have been arbitrators, remember no matter how conscientious a tribunal is they will not have spent as much time on the cases you have. So help them, give them roadmaps, help them to walk through what are quite often difficult legal issues but complex facts and that's good advocacy. Look at, I just wondered what was in my bookshelf because I wondered whether any of our debaters had written so I was gonna tease them. The Art of Advocacy and International Arbitration, it's good, I picked up one called The Devil's Advocate which is not quite what you might think but very, very good advice as to how to be an advocate. Now, there comes a point and I think our debaters said if you've got two equally good experienced advocates they tend to kind of equalize one another because they're both helping the tribunal, they're both presenting to the tribunal the relevant facts that support their side. They're both articulating the law in an equally clear way but they seek to have it applied differently but cases can be lost because lawyers don't pick up what are the most essential facts to support the case don't pick up an important legal point but more often than not they don't explain it clearly to the tribunal so the tribunal gets it. The tribunal may then disagree with you but they don't even get the point you're trying to make. So I think there is still a lot what you're doing is not a waste of time I think what you can contribute to a case for your clients is still very, very, very valuable. So thank you very much for coming, there's drinks afterwards and please thank the debaters. Thank you.