This article proposes a revision to the ‘Green List’, sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.4 of the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration 2014. It argues that the classification of social media relationships for disclosure requirements should be divided into two categories: (i) connections on professional and (ii) general social network sites, based on the functionalities of the platform’s features. The article then suggests that social media mining can be used for assessing challenges based on social media relationship with quantitative analysis on close personal relationship between an arbitrator and a party or counsel that * Suar Sanubari, Senior Associate, Dispute Resolution, Hiswara Bunjamin & Tandjung. suar.sanubari@hbtlaw. com. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. The author would like to thank Professor Stavros Brekoulakis who encouraged writing about the topic, as well as fellow LLM programme students Scott Charles Schubert and Chloe Stonex-Bonnet, Mary Mitsi the Teaching and Research Fellow at Queen Mary University of London, and Antony Crockett of Herbert Smith Freehills, as well as JIDS anonymous reviewers who read and commented the draft. Credit is also given to Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (the Endowment Education Fund) of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia for supporting the author financially with full scholarships for his LLM studies, and to Lubis Santosa & Maramis for the additional stipends. The author also benefited from the Alumni and Friends of School of International Arbitration Conference 2015 hosted by Norton Rose Fulbright. The author would like to thank Ayaz Ibrahimov specifically for choosing the topic submitted by the author for the panel discussion, thus allowing the topic to be discussed by reputable arbitration experts and practitioners. The author was fascinated by how social media data can and have been used for researches in psychology, sociology, anthropology and marketing from the first time he introduced to such notion. That was when he was working on a social media defamation case, during which he had the privilege of meeting Roby Muhamad, one of the researchers in Columbia University’s Small World Project, who was presented as expert in the hearing. The author himself is a social media user. As a millennial, it seems natural for the author to join the ranks of the ‘Hashtag Generation’. The author is an active user of Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and Path. The author uses and relies on social media heavily, yet is wary of connection addiction. The author understands social media should support offline social life. However, the attachment to them may even degrade offline social life. The author tries to limit his time spent social media. Nevertheless, he can never completely detach himself from their use. Social media has become an integral part of the author’s life. One fine example is this article. The author posted a thought on 11 July 2015: ‘So I am writing an article [about] social media. I’m doing most of my research on social media. Being distracted in between writing by social media. And recording my thoughts and feelings on social media.’ Therefore, the topic is not just novel, but also interesting and relevant to modern life. The advantage of a novel topic is the freedom to explore it and create new original ideas. Obviously, the biggest challenge is the lack of reference materials. The author knows from the start that he would have to look beyond law to write this article. Fortunately, social media removed many barriers in searching for the reference materials. The author managed to access online journals for various scientific disciplines. Reading interdisciplinary scientific subjects was not an easy feat for the author. However, the author found the efforts to be exhilarating and rewarding. VC The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 1 Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2017, 0, 1–24 doi: 10.1093/jnlids/idw026 Article by gest on Jauary 0, 2017 http://jidsrdjournals.org/ D ow nladed from gives rise to justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality by measuring the tie strength of the said online relationship. The article also explores the possibilities of social media mining for profiling arbitrators. Lastly, the article discusses the concerns related to social media mining and proposes social media mining procedure for arbitration to address them. 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N The use of social media, specifically social network sites, by arbitrators as legal professionals may create issues regarding conflicts of interest. Arbitrators’ conduct and virtual relationships with parties or counsel on social media may arouse questions about their independence and impartiality. There have been several scholarly suggestions about how an arbitrator (in performing his/her dual roles as service provider and judicial function) should approach social media. These range from total abstinence to limited and controlled use. Prohibiting arbitrators from using social media is the safest way to avoid conflicts of interest or suspicion about the lack of independence and impartiality. However, such prohibition will deprive arbitrators of the professional advantages in their role as service providers, particularly networking and marketing. Given the proliferation of social media in every aspect of life, the total abstinence approach is not a suitable one for the modern world. Even if the proponents of complete prohibition of social media use by arbitrators support their arguments by emphasizing an arbitrator’s judicial function, it should be noted that many of the judicial ethics committees in the United States and the American Bar Association (ABA) do not endorse such an approach for judges. The majority consensus is that judges may participate in social media with certain caveats. The International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflict of Interests in International Arbitration (the ‘Guidelines’), the soft law that will be the main focus of this article, and International Principles on Social Media Conduct for the Legal Profession 2014 are also strong indications of the acceptance of social media use by arbitrators within the legal professions. Therefore, a permissible but controlled approach is more suitable to current developments in legal practice. The permissible approach requires further elaboration on the limitation and control aspects. The Guidelines simply classify any social media relationship between arbitrators and parties or counsel in the ‘Green List’. This means the connection will never lead to disqualification under the objective test and need not be disclosed. However, it is important to take into account the debate on social media relationships during the panel discussion of 2013 IBA’s Annual Meeting that gave rise to the 1 JE Kalicki and M Silberman, ‘Social Media and Conflict of Interests: A Challenge for the 21st Century’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 23 April 2012) accessed 16 February 2015. 2 CV Harvey, MR McCoy and B Sneath, ‘10 Tips for Avoiding Ethical Lapses when Using Social Media’ Business Law Today (January 2014) 11 accessed 5 December 2016. 3 IBA, Guidelines on Conflict of Interests in International Arbitration 2014 Part II, Green List, ss 4.3.1 and 4.4.4. 4 ibid, Explanation to General Standard 3. 2 Arbitrator’s Conduct by gest on Jauary 0, 2017 http://jidsrdjournals.org/ D ow nladed from Guidelines (the ‘Meeting’). Lawrence Schaner suggested that most cases of social media connections do not represent real and actual relationships. Hillary Heilbron QC opined that the issue of disclosure is about the nature of a particular relationship, not the source. Therefore, social media relationships in the ‘Green List’ must not undermine the general principle if an arbitrator finds him/herself in a circumstance that needs to be disclosed. Basically, the discussions on disclosure revolve around whether an arbitrator who has a social media connection with a party or a counsel also has a real (offline) relationship that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. The Meeting acknowledged that shunning social media would deprive arbitrators of a medium to market themselves. Moreover, exchanging contacts via social media has become just as much an acceptable business practice as the exchange of business cards, particularly for the younger generation of lawyers. It is also interesting to note that only LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter—the most popular social media platforms—were mentioned in the discussion. Furthermore, the report on the Meeting has no record of any discussion on the definition and scope of social media. As this article elaborates in the next sections, social media can exist in various forms and hold different features that represent several functionalities. The absence of discussions on what social media is during the Meeting may be an indication of a limited understanding of social media among arbitration practitioners. The Meeting also did not discuss any case precedent of a challenge based on social media relationships. One of the first known cases involving a challenge based on a social media relationship was EURL Tecso v Neoelectra SAS Group. In that case, Tecso petitioned for an award to be set aside to the French courts. One of the arguments raised was the fact that the President of the Tribunal was a Facebook ‘friend’ of the counsel of Neoelectra. Furthermore, the counsel of Neoelectra ‘liked’ the President of the Tribunal’s Facebook page that was set up for his Paris Bar el

中文翻译：

---

仲裁员在社交媒体上的行为

本文提议修订《国际律师协会 (IBA) 2014 年国际仲裁利益冲突指南》中的“绿名单”第 4.3.1 和 4.4.4 节。应分为两类：（i）专业和（ii）一般社交网站的连接，基于平台功能的功能。然后，文章建议社交媒体挖掘可用于评估基于社交媒体关系的挑战，并对仲裁员与当事人或律师之间的密切个人关系进行定量分析，* Suar Sanubari，争议解决高级助理，Hiwara Bunjamin 和 Tandjung。suar.sanubari@hbtlaw。com。本文中表达的观点仅代表作者的观点。作者要感谢鼓励撰写该主题的 Stavros Brekoulakis 教授，以及法学硕士课程的同学 Scott Charles Schubert 和 Chloe Stonex-Bonnet，伦敦玛丽女王大学的教学和研究员 Mary Mitsi，以及伦敦大学的 Antony Crockett Herbert Smith Freehills，以及阅读和评论草稿的 JIDS 匿名审稿人。还感谢印度尼西亚共和国财政部的 Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan（捐赠教育基金）为作者提供了法学硕士学位的全额奖学金，以及 Lubis Santosa & Maramis 的额外津贴。作者还受益于 Norton Rose Fulbright 主办的 2015 年国际仲裁学院校友和之友会议。作者特别感谢 Ayaz Ibrahimov 选择了作者提交的主题进行小组讨论，从而让知名仲裁专家和从业人员能够讨论该主题。从第一次引入社交媒体数据开始，作者就对如何将社交媒体数据用于心理学、社会学、人类学和营销学的研究而着迷。那时他正在处理社交媒体诽谤案，在此期间，他有幸会见了哥伦比亚大学小世界项目的研究人员之一 Roby Muhamad，他作为专家出席了听证会。作者本人是一名社交媒体用户。作为千禧一代，作者加入“标签一代”的行列似乎很自然。作者是 Facebook、LinkedIn、Instagram 和 Path 的活跃用户。作者严重使用和依赖社交媒体，但对连接成瘾持谨慎态度。作者理解社交媒体应该支持线下社交生活。然而，对他们的依恋甚至可能会降低线下的社交生活。作者试图限制他在社交媒体上花费的时间。然而，他永远无法完全脱离他们的使用。社交媒体已成为作者生活中不可或缺的一部分。一个很好的例子是这篇文章。作者在 2015 年 7 月 11 日发表了一个想法：“所以我正在写一篇[关于]社交媒体的文章。我的大部分研究都是在社交媒体上进行的。在社交媒体写作之间分心。并在社交媒体上记录我的想法和感受。’因此，这个话题不仅新颖，而且很有趣，与现代生活息息相关。新颖主题的优势在于可以自由探索它并创造新的原创想法。显然，最大的挑战是缺乏参考资料。作者从一开始就知道他必须超越法律才能写这篇文章。幸运的是，社交媒体消除了搜索参考资料的许多障碍。作者设法访问了各种科学学科的在线期刊。阅读跨学科的科学科目对作者来说并非易事。然而，作者发现这些努力是令人振奋和有益的。VC The Author 2017。牛津大学出版社出版。版权所有。如需许可，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup.com 1 Journal of International Dispute Settlement，2017, 0, 1–24 doi: 10.1093/jnlids/idw026 Gest 于 2017 年 1 月 0 日发表的文章 http://jidsrdjournals.org/ Dow nladed from 通过衡量所说的在线关系。本文还探讨了社交媒体挖掘对仲裁员进行剖析的可能性。最后，本文讨论了与社交媒体挖掘相关的问题，并提出了社交媒体挖掘仲裁程序来解决这些问题。1 . 引言 仲裁员作为法律专业人员使用社交媒体，特别是社交网站，可能会产生有关利益冲突的问题。仲裁员的行为以及与当事人或律师在社交媒体上的虚拟关系可能会引起对其独立性和公正性的质疑。关于仲裁员（在履行其作为服务提供者和司法职能的双重角色时）应如何处理社交媒体的问题，学术界提出了一些建议。这些范围从完全禁欲到有限和受控使用。禁止仲裁员使用社交媒体是避免利益冲突或怀疑缺乏独立性和公正性的最安全方法。然而，这种禁令将剥夺仲裁员作为服务提供商的专业优势，尤其是网络和营销。鉴于社交媒体在生活各个方面的激增，完全禁欲的方法不适合现代世界。即使完全禁止仲裁员使用社交媒体的支持者通过强调仲裁员的司法职能来支持他们的论点，应该指出的是，美国的许多司法道德委员会和美国律师协会 (ABA) 并不支持法官的这种做法。大多数人的共识是，法官可以在有某些警告的情况下参与社交媒体。国际律师协会 (IBA) 国际仲裁利益冲突指南（“指南”）、将成为本文主要焦点的软法以及 2014 年法律职业社交媒体行为国际原则也很重要法律界仲裁员接受社交媒体使用的迹象。因此，允许但受控制的方法更适合当前法律实践的发展。允许的方法需要进一步阐述限制和控制方面。该指南只是将仲裁员与当事人或律师之间的任何社交媒体关系归类在“绿名单”中。这意味着连接永远不会导致客观测试下的取消资格，无需披露。然而，重要的是要考虑到 2013 年 IBA 年会小组讨论期间关于社交媒体关系的辩论，该讨论引发了 1 JE Kalicki 和 M Silberman，“社交媒体和利益冲突：21 世纪的挑战” '（Kluwer 仲裁博客，2012 年 4 月 23 日）2015 年 2 月 16 日访问。2 CV Harvey、MR McCoy 和 B Sneath，“使用社交媒体时避免道德失误的 10 条提示”今日商法（2014 年 1 月）112016 年 12 月 5 日访问。 3 IBA，2014 年国际仲裁中的利益冲突指南，第二部分，绿名单，ss 4.3.1 和 4.4.4。4 同上，通用标准 3 的解释。2 仲裁员的行为，2017 年 1 月 0 日 http://jidsrdjournals.org/ Dow nladed from Guidelines（“会议”）。Lawrence Schaner 认为，大多数社交媒体联系案例并不代表真实和实际的关系。Hillary Heilbron QC 认为，披露问题与特定关系的性质有关，而不是来源。因此，如果仲裁员发现自己处于需要披露的情况，“绿名单”中的社交媒体关系不得破坏一般原则。基本上，关于披露的讨论围绕着与当事人或律师有社交媒体联系的仲裁员是否也存在真实（离线）关系，这可能会引起对仲裁员独立性和公正性的合理怀疑。会议承认，回避社交媒体会剥夺仲裁员推销自己的媒介。此外，通过社交媒体交换联系人已成为与交换名片一样可以接受的商业惯例，尤其是对于年轻一代的律师而言。有趣的是，在讨论中只提到了最流行的社交媒体平台 LinkedIn、Facebook 和 Twitter。此外，会议报告也没有对社交媒体的定义和范围进行任何讨论的记录。正如本文在下一节中详细阐述的那样，社交媒体可以以各种形式存在，并具有代表多种功能的不同特征。会议期间没有讨论社交媒体是什么，这可能表明仲裁从业人员对社交媒体的了解有限。会议也没有讨论任何基于社交媒体关系的挑战案例先例。EURL Tecso v Neoelectra SAS Group 是最早涉及基于社交媒体关系的挑战的已知案例之一。在这种情况下，Tecso 向法国法院请求撤销裁决。提出的论点之一是，法庭庭长是 Neoelectra 律师的 Facebook“朋友”。此外，