In international tribunals it is often the case that a judge will vote in favour of a State that appoints that particular judge or that a judge will vote in favour of their State of nationality where that State is involved in a case before the tribunal. Sometimes, the suggestion is made that these facts show that judges have some sort of bias in favour of their national State or in favour of the State or party that appointed them. This suggestion of bias might well be an overstatement given that, at least in the case of the ICJ, many times the national judge or ad hoc judge, though voting in favour of their own State or the State that apointed them, is also voting with the majority.
The case of Velkhiyev v. Russia, a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (from July 2011), is a very interesting one with regard to the question of how judges vote in cases involving their national State. In that case, the Court found by six votes to one that Russia had NOT violated Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) with regard to 6 of the applicants in the case. The sole dissent on that question was Judge Anatoly Kovler – the Russian judge! He would have found that Russia had violated that provision. So in this case, the judge voted against his State of nationality when the majority would have found in favour of that State. I suspect that this is very rare indeed. So my question today is:
Are there any cases when a judge in an international tribunal has voted against his or her national State or against the party that appointed him or her but where the majority of the tribunal would have found in favour of that State?
For these purposes I would define an international tribunal to include any tribunal in which at least one party to the case is a State. So I include mixed arbitrations, like investment treaty arbitrations. I have to confess that at the time of writing this question, I do not know the answer to it. I would very much like to be enlightened. Perhaps this sort of thing happens more regularly than I imagine it does. Answers in the comments box please!
Just to complete the story with the Velkhiyev v. Russia. The Chamber of the ECHR dealing with that case had, unanimously, found Russia in violation of Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life) and in violation of Art. 3 with regard to one applicant.