M.B.: What was Mr. Lagergren’s style as an arbitrator?
S.L.: His style, I believe it was traditional style, it was a possibility to give opportunity to each party to speak as long as they want. Not to interrupt, not to say “Oh, let us stop, you have talked about that.” No. “Okay, let them go, let them go, let them go, let them go.” So it was just a very liberal approach. But I believe that is the situation with all Swedish chairmen, presiding arbitrators whom I’ve met, that it’s just very liberal approach. Each party is given opportunity to speak as long as they wish.
M.B.: Do you have any other memories to share with us about Mr. Lagergren? An episode you recall? With your cooperation with Gunnar.
S.L.: Well, you asked me to recall that? I hope my recollection is correct. We had a meeting with American colleagues in New York. I believe that is correct. There are so many conferences, meetings and so on in various parts of the world, sometimes there is a mixture, but I believe that is correct. We had a meeting in New York. And it was till late evening we finished. And he said “Let us go to my ship, which is in New York port.” His own ship? And we went there. There were 3 Soviet participants of that conference, and from Sweden there were also 3, and 2 Americans, who decided to accompany us to that visit. And we came to the ship. The ship arrived to New York, and it was discharged already. And there was only the master of the ship who met us in the ship. Said, “Hello, hello, hello, hello.” And the ship was empty. And he showed us, I don’t know why it was so, he wanted us to show that ship, I don’t know what was actually the reason. And then it was not the end. And after that, he said “Let us go to my law firm. Not my, but with which I cooperate here in New York.” We went there. It was late evening. Maybe ten hours. And we came to that building. I cannot remember what was the name of that company which had that building. And there were many people moving there, in this law firm. And I asked him: “They are working so late? They are not slaves here, no?” He said: “No, they are working. You believe that it is a Russian village in the Russian sense? That I have arranged for them to work so long? No, they are working because they had to work.” “Okay.” That was an episode. I believe I’m right recalling these episodes. But it was so long ago. And then, sometimes later, we had an arbitration meeting with him. And he had an assistant, a young man, whom I met later.
M.B.: Thank you so much. I would like to move on from the details to the bigger picture. Do you think that trade in between the Soviet and the Western countries had an influence on the development of Perestroika and Glasnost in the Soviet Union? Was there a relationship, you think? Did trade play any role in that development in the Soviet Union?
S.L.: Well, Perestroika is a special period in our history. And to say that it was connected with international trade, yes. It is true. Because there was actually the decision to limit the principle of state monopoly of foreign trade, and to give to parties to more actively participate in international trade. That was very important, of course. But, in my view, now it is a history, but in my view, more important was political aspects which influenced that development in Russian political situation. But of course, in my view, all aspects are important when we talk about historical developments here, and cultural aspect was also very, very important in that respect.
M.B.: Trade and arbitration, I imagine, must have been difficult during the Cold War?
S.L.: Yeah. And I said that this decision with Americans to have arbitration in Stockholm was a very important aspect in this way. Yeah. To say: “Well, let’s have arbitration in New York.” “No, no, let’s go to Moscow” or otherwise. That was very important to find something as development in commercial relationships between Soviets and Americans at that time. It was very, very important, indeed.
M.B.: Because even during the Cold War, trade relationships still flourished in between Russia and the West.
S.L.: Yeah. Because it is a necessary aspect for development of each country. And this new system of economic sanctions against Russia is something terrible, I say, unjustified and legally incorrect, because such things may be adopted by the Security Council of United Nations. That is what is called sanctions. Otherwise, what is these sanctions adopted by European countries and United States are contrary to the principle of normal international trade, and in my view that is inappropriate way. And it is bad for both sides. Of course, for Russia, and for other countries. And I hope this situation will be overcome.
M.B.: Is it fair to say that without arbitration there can be no trade, and without trade there can be no friendly development?
S.L.: Well, that is too strong. Foreign trade can develop without arbitration, and before arbitration appeared there was foreign trade in old time between countries. Without foreign trade, arbitration would not mean anything if it is arbitration for commercial disputes, of course, that is true, but I would not put that so strong. I agree that arbitration is important for foreign trade. That would be in my view the most appropriate appreciation of the role of this institute.
M.B.: I’m thinking about the philosophical question that it is a friendly way of settling disputes. That disputes will always occur when people interact, and trade, and you could solve those issues either by force or by negotiations. Reconciliation.
S.L.: Yeah, of course, that is, indeed, the friendly method of settlement of disputes, yes. I believe it is the most appropriate, not by force, of course, but by arbitration. And with the idea that arbitrators make awards which are impartial. Which can be adopted as impartial.
M.B.: I would like to ask a question about a specific case. And you answer if you like to, but you don’t have to. But I’m curious about the dispute which arised when the American new embassy in Moscow back in the ’80s supposedly were wire-tapped, and there was an issue for arbitration. Do you have any comments on this, or reflections on this?
S.L.: No. I know about this fact. Such information was supplied to Americans by Russians at that time, so it is a well-known situation, it was published. But how the developments were extended in this respect, how they were resolved, I don’t know. I really don’t know. And I don’t know that something was published on this account. Maybe yes, I don’t know.
M.B.: No. I just, I’m curious. And another curious question. If I understand correctly, Professor, you were a member of the Russian President’s Council for Judicial Reforms. Was that correct? Were you appointed to the Council of Judicial Reform, law reform, back in the ’90s, and reappointed for 2000–2004?
S.L.: Yes, I was. I was a member of that council for several years, yes. And the chairman of that council was Professor Tumanov.
M.B.: Can you tell us about the name of the council, and the purpose? What was the purpose of that council?
S.L.: Let me see, how to translate… it was the Council for Perfection of Judicial System. It was [speaks in Russian]. It was the Council for Perfection of Judicial System, actually.
M.B.: After the breakup of the Soviet Union?
S.L.: Yes. And the idea of that council was to consider certain controversial matters which arise in the activities of courts. Various aspects. And then to provide recommendation to the President of Russia, recommending to make certain steps to overcome this difficulty, some defects in the work of our courts. That was the purpose of that meetings. I hope that some recommendations