This handsomely produced volume contains the first in a series of published lectures in memory of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. In them, Judge Schwebel of the International Court of Justice takes up three problems of modern international arbitration: first, the issue of the severability of the arbitral clause of a contract; secondly, whether refusal by a state to arbitrate pursuant to a clause in a contract with a foreign national constitutes a denial of justice; and, thirdly, whether an international arbitral tribunal which lacks the participation of one of its appointed members is able to proceed and render a judgment binding on the parties. Each question is discussed in a common format, divided into consideration of the question, the theory, state practice, the views of writers, and a conclusion. The book is not divided equally among the three problems; the first takes a mere 60 pages to dispose of, the second some 84 pages, and the third 152 pages. It is perhaps not the complexity of the question which accounts for the space needed, but the volume of theory and practice. While there is virtual unanimity on the proper answer to the first problem, there is much more controversy about the second and third questions.

Both logic and authority demand that the arbitration clause must be regarded as severable from the agreement in which it is contained, since otherwise the institution of international arbitration would be deprived of its effectiveness. Given that this is so, it is perhaps surprising that the issue continues to surface. Judge Schwebel’s meticulous analysis leads ineluctably to his conclusion that the case for the severability of the arbitration clause is “broad and compelling”.

The second problem occurs with less frequency, but Judge Schwebel considers the problem worthy of analysis because it has attracted little attention among scholars. That deficiency is remedied in this book. It is not the main question which proves difficult to answer, but the subsidiary issues. Judge Schwebel amasses a considerable weight of evidence in support of the conclusion that a failure by a state to honour its agreement to refer a dis