Exceptions and Limitations to the Obligation of Confidentiality

Reymond-Eniaeva, Elza

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19003-3_5

Elza Reymond-Eniaeva²¹

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 7))

559 Accesses

Abstract

According to the Cambridge Essential British Dictionary, ‘exception’ means ‘something that is not included in a rule’. If we assume that confidentiality is the rule, exceptions would be the cases derogating from the rule of confidentiality. There is, however, a controversy over whether the parties’ obligation of confidentiality really exists in the absence of express contractual and other applicable provisions on confidentiality. If confidentiality is not the rule, the term ‘exception’ should arguably not be used. We will still use the term ‘exception’ as we will assume for the purpose of our research that confidentiality is the rule in international commercial arbitration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (last visited on 13 September 2018).
2.
Smeureanu (2011), p. 110.
3.
Relevant law means: (a) a law of the Commonwealth, other than this Act; and (b) a law of a State or Territory and (c) a law of a foreign country, or of a part of a foreign country:
- in which a party to the arbitration agreement has its principal place of business; or
- in which a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship are to be performed; or
- to which the subject matter of the dispute is most commonly connected.
4.
The written details must include an explanation of the reasons for the disclosure.
5.
Art. 23D AIAA.
6.
Report on the Arbitration Bill, paras. 11 to 16, in Merkin and Flannery (2014), pp. 433–444.
7.
Merkin and Flannery (2014), pp. 433–444.
8.
Ali Shipping v. Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
9.
Coppo (2013), p. 142.
10.
Coppo (2013), p. 142.
11.
Art. 8(1) of the Milan Rules.
12.
Coppo (2013), p. 142.
13.
Coppo (2013), p. 142.
14.
See, for example, Art. 23D(2) AIAA; Rule 26(1)(a) of the Schedule 1 of the Scottish Arbitration Act of 2010; Art. 76(a) of the WIPO Rules; Art. 22.2 of the ACICA Rules; Art. 39.2 of the SIAC Rules; Art. 44(1) of the Swiss Rules.
15.
See, for example, Denoix De Sain Marc (2009), pp. 213–314, for more details.
16.
See, for example, Art. 23D(2) AIAA; Rule 26(1)(a) of the Schedule 1 of the Scottish Arbitration Act of 2010; Art. 76(a) of the WIPO Rules; Art. 22.2 of the ACICA Rules; Art. 39.2 of the SIAC Rules; Art. 44(1) of the Swiss Rules.
17.
See, for example, Art. 30.3 of the LCIA Rules; Art. 77(i) of the WIPO Rules; Art. 30.3 of the ICDR Rules; Art. 34.5 of the UNCITRAL Rules.
18.
See, for example, Art. 22.2 of the ACICA Rules; Art. 44(1) of the Swiss Rules; Art. 30.3 of the LCIA Rules.
19.
Ali Shipping v. Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054; Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm); Lew (2013), p. 447; Smeureanu (2011), pp. 113–114.
20.
Smeureanu (2011), p. 113.
21.
De Ly et al. (2012), p. 380.
22.
De Ly et al. (2012), p. 380.
23.
See, for example, Rule 26 of the Schedule 1 of the Scottish Arbitration Act of 2010; Art. 44(1) of the Swiss Rules; Art. 30(1) of the LCIA Rules; Art. 39.3 of the SIAC Rules.
24.
See, for example, Rohner and La Spada (2013), para 12.
25.
Smeureanu (2011), p. 111.
26.
Smeureanu (2011), p. 112.
27.
Born (2014), p. 2800.
28.
See, for example, Arts 23D(9) AIAA; Art. 14C(d) NZAA; Art. 44(1) of the Swiss Rules; Art. 30(1) of the LCIA Rules; Art. 22(2)(d) of the ACICA Rules; Art. 33(1) of the Abu Dhabi Rules.
29.
See, for example, Arts 23D(5)-23D(6) AIAA; Art. 14C(b) NZAA; Section 18(2)(a) of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance; Rule 26(1)(d) of the Schedule 1 of the Scottish Arbitration Act of 2010; Art. 44(1) of the Swiss Rules; Art. 30(1) of the LCIA Rules; Art. 22(2) of the ACICA Rules; Art. 39.2 of the SIAC Rules.
30.
See, for example, Arts 23D(5)-23D(6) AIAA; Art. 14C(b) NZAA; Section 18(2)(a) of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance; Rule 26(1)(d) of the Schedule 1 of the Scottish Arbitration Act of 2010; Art. 44(1) of the Swiss Rules; Art. 30(1) of the LCIA Rules; Art. 22(2) of the ACICA Rules; Art. 39.2 of the SIAC Rules.
31.
Born (2014), p. 2800.
32.
Emmott v. Wilson & Partners Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 184.
33.
G. Aïta v. A. Ojjeh, Cour d’appel de Paris (1ère Chambre suppl.), 18 February 1986, in: Rev. Arb. 1986, 583. Also see Sects. 3.2.3.7 and 6.2.2.1 discussing this case.
34.
G. Aïta v. A. Ojjeh, Cour d’appel de Paris (1ère Chambre suppl.), 18 February 1986, in: Rev. Arb. 1986, 583; see above Sect. 3.2.3.7 for more details on this case.
35.
See Sect. 5.3.3.
36.
Würzburger (2014), para 4.
37.
Born (2014), p. 2801; see, for example, Art. 192 of the Swiss PILA.
38.
Habegger and Bühler (2009), p. 283.
39.
Règlement sur le Tribunal fédéral du 20 novembre 2006.
40.
Art. 58 of the Regulation on the Federal Supreme Court.
41.
Würzburger (2014), para 8.
42.
Würzburger (2014), para 8.
43.
http://www.bger.ch/fr/index/juridiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht.htm (last visited on 13 September 2018).
44.
Publication policy of the Federal Supreme Court case law, available at https://www.bger.ch/files/live/sites/bger/files/pdf/fr/urteilsveroeffentlichung_d.pdf (last visited on 13 September 2018).
45.
Würzburger (2014), para 7.
46.
Würzburger (2014), para 18.
47.
Loi fédérale sur l’aide aux victimes du 23 mars 2007.
48.
Würzburger (2014), para 18.
49.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006.
50.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006.
51.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006.
52.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006, recital 8.4.1.
53.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006, recital 8.4.1.
54.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006, recital 8.4.1.
55.
TF 2C_677/2015, 31.03.2016, recital 4.3.
56.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006, recital 8.5.
57.
TF 4P.74/2006, 19.06.2006, recital 8.4.2.
58.
Art. 122(1) of the Swiss Federal Constitution.
59.
Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm).
60.
Part 62 of the CPR.
61.
Section 62.2 of the CPR.
62.
Section 62.2(1)(a) of the CPR and sections 66-68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996.
63.
Pendell and Richards (2009), p. 305, with further references.
64.
Pendell and Richards (2009), p. 305, with further references.
65.
Section 62.10 of the CPR.
66.
Section 62.10 of the CPR.
67.
Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm).
68.
Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm), paras 2, 4.
69.
Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm), para 4.
70.
Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm), para 43.
71.
Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm), para 55.
72.
Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v. Bankers Trust Co., [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm), para 57.
73.
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).
74.
Tompkins (2017), p. 1, with further references.
75.
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).
76.
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-599 (1978).
77.
Tompkins (2017), p. 1, with further references; Drahozal, 32, with further references.
78.
The Decapolis Group, LLC v Mangesh Energy, LLC et al, 3:13-cv-1547-M (N.D. Texas 2014).
79.
Continental Insurance Company v Fairmont Premier Insurance Company, 16-cv-655 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
80.
Continental Insurance Company v Fairmont Premier Insurance Company, 16-cv-655, 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
81.
Continental Insurance Company v Fairmont Premier Insurance Company, 16-cv-655, 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
82.
Definition of ‘disclosure’ from the Black’s Law Dictionary.
83.
Definition of ‘discovery’ from the Black’s Law Dictionary.
84.
Kaufmann-Kohler and Bärtsch (2004), p. 14.
85.
Kaufmann-Kohler and Bärtsch (2004), p. 14.
86.
Riddick v. Thames Board Mills [1977] 3 ALL ER 677, at 687-688.
87.
Kaufmann-Kohler and Bärtsch (2004), p. 14.
88.
Emmott v. Wilson & Partners Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 184.
89.
Emmott v. Wilson & Partners Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 184 at para 87.
90.
Shearson Lehman Hutton Incorporated and Another v. Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. [1988] 1 WLR 946.
91.
Shearson Lehman Hutton Incorporated and Another v. Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. [1988] 1 WLR 948; Lew (2013), p. 443.
92.
Shearson Lehman Hutton Incorporated and Another v. Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. [1988] 1 WLR 948.
93.
Shearson Lehman Hutton Incorporated and Another v. Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. [1988] 1 WLR 946.
94.
Shearson Lehman Hutton Incorporated and Another v. Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd. [1988] 1 WLR 948.
95.
See, for example, Art. 3.7 of the IBA Rules on Evidence.
96.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
97.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
98.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
99.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
100.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
101.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
102.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
103.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
104.
London & Leeds Estate v Paribas Ltd [1995] 2 EG 134.
105.
London & Leeds Estate v Paribas Ltd [1995] 2 EG 134.
106.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
107.
London & Leeds Estate v Paribas Ltd [1995] 2 EG 134. See below for a discussion of “the Esso Australia case” to which the Court refers.
108.
Emmott v. Wilson & Partners Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 184.
109.
Emmott v. Wilson & Partners Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 184.
110.
Westwood Shipping Lines Inc and another v Universal Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH and another [2012] EWHC 3837.
111.
Westwood Shipping Lines Inc and another v Universal Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH and another [2012] EWHC 3837.
112.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and for those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to Her Majesty in Council or, in the case of Republics, to the Judicial Committee (http://jcpc.uk/).
113.
Associated Electric Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Company of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11.
114.
Associated Electric Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Company of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11.
115.
United States v Panhandle Eastern Corporation 118 FRD 346 (D Del 1988).
116.
See above Sect. 3.2.3.5 for more details on the case.
117.
United States v Panhandle Eastern Corporation 118 FRD 349 (D Del 1988).
118.
See, for example, Tweeddale (2005), p. 69; Gu (2004), p. 7; Tjio (2009), p. 13.
119.
Kinnear et al. (2013), p. 108.
120.
Esso Australia Resources Ltd. and Others v. Sidney James Plowman and Others.
121.
See above Sect. 3.2.3.4.
122.
Esso Australia Resources Ltd. and Others v. Sidney James Plowman and Others, Arbitration International, Volume 11 No. 3, 1995, p. 238.
123.
Esso Australia Resources Ltd. and Others v. Sidney James Plowman and Others, Arbitration International, Volume 11 No. 3, 1995, p. 259.
124.
Art, 22(2) AIAA; Nottage (2017), pp. 1–2; Shirlow (2015), p. 2.
125.
London & Leeds Estate v Paribas Ltd [1995] 2 EG 134.
126.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
127.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054.
128.
Art. 4(5) of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on International Arbitration.
129.
Art. 79 (3-1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Art. 82 (2.1-1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
130.
Zurich Court of Appeals, decision of 7 September 2000, ASA Bulletin 2/2001, 322–324.
131.
Jeandin (2011), CPC commenté, Art. 166 para 11; Jolles et al. (2013), pp. 140–141.
132.
Jolles et al. (2013), p. 141.
133.
Jolles et al. (2013), p. 141.
134.
Jolles et al. (2013), p. 141.
135.
Besson (2011), p. 100, with further references.
136.
Besson (2011), p. 101, with further references.
137.
Besson (2011), pp. 101–102, with further references.
138.
Consorts Rouny v. Soc. Anonyme Holding, Cour d’appel de Paris, 29 May 1992, in: Rev. Arb. 1996, 408.
139.
LCIA Rules, Art. 30.2; Abu Dhabi Rules, Art. 33(2).
140.
LCIA Rules, Art. 30.2; DIAC Rules, Art. 41.2.
141.
For a detailed analysis of the dissenting opinion, see, for example, Manuel Arroyo, Dealing with Dissenting Opinions in the Award, Jean-François Poudret, Légitimité et opportunité de l’opinion dissidente dans le silence de la loi ?, Smit (2004).
142.
Arroyo (2008), p. 438.
143.
Explanatory Note to the Model Law, para 43.
144.
Jean-François Poudret, Légitimité et opportunité de l’opinion dissidente dans le silence de la loi ?
145.
Lalive et al. (1989).
146.
Poudret (2004), p. 243.
147.
Arroyo (2008), pp. 437–466.
148.
Arroyo (2008), pp. 439–440.
149.
Arroyo (2008), pp. 439–440, with further references.
150.
Arroyo (2008), pp. 439–440.
151.
ATF of 11 May 1991, in: ASA Bull. 266 (1992), 2b.
152.
ATF of 11 May 1991, in: ASA Bull. 266 (1992), 2b.
153.
Uzinexportimport Romanian Co. c/Attock Cement C, Cour d’appel de Paris (1ère Ch. C), 7 July 1994, in : Rev. Arb. 1995, 107.
154.
Uzinexportimport Romanian Co. c/Attock Cement C, Cour d’appel de Paris (1ère Ch. C), 7 July 1994, in: Rev. Arb. 1995, 107.
155.
Uzinexportimport Romanian Co. c/Attock Cement C, Cour d’appel de Paris (1ère Ch. C), 7 July 1994, in: Rev. Arb. 1995, 107.
156.
Kunz (2013), pp. 18–19.
157.
Mosk and Ginsburg (2000), p. 31.
158.
Poudret (2004), p. 250, with further references.
159.
See above Sect. 3.3.3.2.
160.
Blackaby et al. (2015), para 5.82; Cremades and Cairns (2003), pp. 65–91; Lew (2011), pp. 113–115.
161.
Blackaby et al. (2015), para 5.86.
162.
ICC Report Working Group on Criminal Law and Arbitration (Doc 420/492).
163.
Lew (2011), p. 115.
164.
Lew (2011), p. 115.
165.
Lew (2011), p. 115.
166.
Lew (2011), p. 115.

Bibliography

Arroyo M (2008) Dealing with dissenting opinions in the award: some options for the tribunal. ASA Bull 26(3):437–466
Google Scholar
Besson S (2011) Role of arbitrators and arbitral institutions in subsequent court proceedings. In: Tercier P (ed) Post award issues. Association Suisse de l‘Arbitrage, Huntington, pp 93–112
Google Scholar
Blackaby N, Partasides C et al (2015) Redfern and hunter on international arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press
Google Scholar
Born GB (2014) International commercial arbitration, 2nd edn. Walters Kluwer
Google Scholar
Coppo B (2013) Confidentiality in the arbitration rules of the Milan Chamber. In: Malatesta A, Sali R (eds) The rise of transparency in international arbitration/the case for the anonymous publication of arbitral awards. Juris, New York, pp 137–153
Google Scholar
Cremades B, Cairns D (2003) Transnational public policy in international arbitral decision-making: the cases of bribery, money laundering and fraud. In: ICC dossier, arbitration: money laundering, corruption and fraud. ICC Publication, Paris, pp 65–91
Google Scholar
De Ly P, Friedman M, Radicati di Brozolo LG (2012) International law association international commercial arbitration committee’s report and recommendations on ‘confidentiality in international commercial arbitration. Arbitr Int Kluwer Law Int 28(3):355–396
Google Scholar
Denoix De Saint Marc V (2009) Confidentiality of arbitration and the obligation to disclose information on listed companies or during due diligence investigations. J Int Arbitr 20(2):211–216
Google Scholar
Gu W (2004) Confidentiality revisited: blessing or curse in international commercial arbitration. Am Rev Int Arbitr 15:607
Google Scholar
Habegger P, Bühler M (2009) Country Report on Switzerland. In: ICC international court of arbitration bulletin – 2008 special supplement: guide to national rules of procedure for recognition and enforcement of New York Convention awards. ICC Publishing, Paris
Google Scholar
Jeandin N (2011) Commentary of Article 166 of the code of civil procedure. In: Bohnet F, Haldy J, Jeandin N, Schweizer P, Tappy D (eds) Code de Procédure Civile Commenté. Basle
Google Scholar
Jolles A, Stark-Traber S, Canals de Cediel M (2013) Chapter 7: confidentiality. In: Geisinger E, Voser N (eds) International arbitration in Switzerland: a handbook for practitioners, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, pp 131–152
Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler G, Bärtsch P (2004) Discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much? SchiedsVZ. pp 13–21
Google Scholar
Kinnear M, Obadia E, Gagain M (2013) The ICSID approach to publication of information in investor-state arbitration. In: Malatesta A, Sali R (eds) The rise of transparency in international arbitration/ the case for the anonymous publication of arbitral awards. Juris, New York, pp 107–122
Google Scholar
Kunz C (2013) Dissenting opinions in international commercial arbitration proceedings in Switzerland. Selected Papers on International Arbitration, pp 1–22
Google Scholar
Lalive P, Poudret JF, Reymond C (1989) Le droit de l’arbitrage interne et international en Suisse. Lausanne
Google Scholar
Lew JDM (2011) The arbitrator and confidentiality. In: Dossier of the ICC Institute of world business law: is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Status, powers and role of the arbitrator
Google Scholar
Lew JDM (2013) Chapter 21: confidentiality in arbitrations in England. In: Lew JDM, Bor H et al (eds) Arbitration in England, with chapters on Scotland and Ireland. Kluwer Law International
Google Scholar
Merkin R, Flannery L (2014) Arbitration act 1996, 5th edn. Informa, New York
Book Google Scholar
Mosk RM, Ginsburg T (2000) Dissenting opinions in international arbitration. Mealey’s Int Arbitr Rep 15(4):29–36
Google Scholar
Nottage L (2017) Australia’s International Arbitration Act Amendments: Rejuvenation by a Thousand Cuts? Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 13 May 2017, available at www.kluwerarbitrationblog.com. Last visited 13 Sept 2018
Pendell G, Richards T (2009) Country Report on United Kingdom (England, Wales, Northen Ireland). In: ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin – 2008 Special Supplement: Guide to National Rules of Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of New York Convention Awards. ICC Publishing, Paris
Google Scholar
Poudret JF (2004) Légitimité et opportunité de l’opinion dissidente dans le silence de la loi? Poursuite d’un débat amical. In: Autour de l’arbitrage, Liber amicorum Claude Reymond. Paris, pp 243–253
Google Scholar
Rohner T, La Spada F (2013) Commentary of Article 44 of the Swiss rules of international arbitration. In: Zuberbühler T, Müller C, Habegger P (eds) Swiss rules of international arbitration, commentary, 2nd edn. Zurich-Basel-Geneva
Google Scholar
Shirlow E (2015) Recent developments in Australia’s approach to confidentiality and transparency in international arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 19 December 2015, available at www.kluwerarbitrationblog.com. Last visited 13 Sept 2018
Smeureanu IM (2011) Confidentiality in international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International
Google Scholar
Smit H (2004) Dissenting opinions in arbitration. ICC Bull 15(1):37–41
Google Scholar
Tjio H (2009) The limits of confidentiality in arbitration/Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners. Lloyd’s Marit Commer Law Q 1:10–15
Google Scholar
Tompkins JJ (2017) The Loss of Confidentiality in NY Arbitral Enforcement Cases, Law360, New York, 27 February 2017, Available at http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/NewsInsights/Publications/2017/02/The-Loss-Of-Confidentiality-In-NY-Arbitral-Enforcement-Cases.pdf. Last visited 13 Sept 2018
Tweeddale A (2005) Confidentiality in arbitration and the public interest exception. Arbitr Int 21(1):59–69
Article Google Scholar
Würzburger A (2014) Commentary of Article 27 of the Law on the Federal Supreme Court. In: Corboz B, Würzburger A et al. (eds) Commentaire de la LTF, 2nd edn. Bern
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Lausanne, Switzerland
Elza Reymond-Eniaeva

Authors

Elza Reymond-Eniaeva
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reymond-Eniaeva, E. (2019). Exceptions and Limitations to the Obligation of Confidentiality. In: Towards a Uniform Approach to Confidentiality of International Commercial Arbitration. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19003-3_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19003-3_5
Published: 12 June 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19002-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19003-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics