International arbitrators have been criticized for purportedly engaging in a practice of compromise when rendering decisions ("splitting the baby" or "triangulating"), instead of adjudicating claims in accordance with proven facts and applicable law. Despite having been considered a myth and an outdated discussion, this concern has been recently revisited with great interest, and is still described as an often-prevailing point of view among a number of international arbitration players. It is therefore relevant to determine the possible causes behind the perception that arbitrators tend to "split the baby", as well as to assess whether such causes justify its continuous reconsideration in the international arbitration community. This article aims to discuss the causes of the myth and, by relying on previous studies on the matter and on empirical data, determine whether the myth is after all justified.
Journal of International Arbitration