Paul Cohen, a London-based lawyer known for representing the Sulu claimants in their high-profile arbitration case against Malaysia, was seen attending the trial of Spanish arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa.<\/p>\n
Manila, Philippine \u2013\u00a0London-based lawyer Paul Cohen,
\ncounsel for the Sulu claimants in their $14.9 billion arbitration against
\nMalaysia, was recently seen attending the Madrid trial of Spanish arbitrator
\nGonzalo Stampa\u2014whose conviction for defying Spain\u2019s courts has reignited global
\ndebate over impartiality in international arbitration.<\/p>\n
Earlier this month, Spain\u2019s National Court rejected Stampa\u2019s
\nappeal against a six-month prison sentence for contempt of court. The ruling
\nstems from Stampa\u2019s decision to continue the Sulu arbitration after Spanish
\njudges had annulled his appointment and ordered proceedings to halt. Instead,
\nStampa transferred the arbitral seat from Madrid to Paris, enabling
\ncontinuation of the case and ultimately producing the controversial $14.9
\nbillion award against Malaysia in 2022.<\/p>\n
Cohen\u2019s attendance at the hearing, while not improper,
\nrenewed focus on the professional relationships surrounding the arbitration.
\nStampa previously worked for B. Cremades & Asociados, the Spanish law firm
\nthat represented the Sulu claimants in Spain, and is believed to have remained
\nclose to its founder, Bernardo Cremades Sr. Observers say that long-standing
\nconnection raises legitimate questions about whether Stampa\u2019s independence was
\ncompromised.<\/p>\n
Adding to the controversy, a YouTube video posted on 11 May
\n2022 shows Bernardo Cremades Jr. describing how his firm convinced Stampa to
\ncontinue the arbitration despite Spanish court orders\u2014and even claiming credit
\nfor persuading him to shift the seat of arbitration to France. Legal experts
\nnote that this admission effectively confirms outside influence on Stampa\u2019s
\nprocedural decisions.<\/p>\n
The episode has become emblematic of deeper concerns within
\ninternational arbitration: the overlap of roles among a small circle of
\npractitioners who alternately act as arbitrators, counsel, and experts in
\nbillion-dollar disputes. Analysts argue that such entanglements threaten
\nconfidence in the neutrality of a system that already operates largely outside
\npublic oversight.<\/p>\n
\u201cEthical lines in arbitration have blurred<\/i>,\u201d said one
\nMadrid-based academic. \u201cWhen professional loyalty outweighs judicial
\nauthority, the credibility of the entire process comes into question<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
While Stampa has been held legally accountable, the broader
\nnetwork of individuals and financiers who helped drive the Sulu arbitration has
\nnot faced formal scrutiny. Governments and industry observers alike are now
\ncalling for tighter safeguards against conflicts of interest in cross-border
\ndisputes involving sovereign states.<\/p>\n
As the controversy widens, the Sulu case may prove to be a
\nwatershed moment\u2014testing whether the global arbitration community can uphold
\ntransparency and independence amid growing public and judicial pressure.<\/p>\n