The vices and virtues of so-called soft law in international arbitration have been the subject of much debate. Soft law has been variously seen as friend and foe - an aid to enhance procedural efficiency and fairness, or a threat to freedom and flexibility. Whichever view is preferred, it is undeniable that several instruments of soft law play an important role in contemporary international arbitration practice.

The International Bar Association (IBA) has been a leading purveyor of soft law in international dispute resolution. Its Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration and Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration are the leading examples of the many initiatives it has taken in this field, which also include research into subjects of current interest to practitioners. ICC is regularly consulted during the preparatory work on these instruments and is happy to contribute to such initiatives by reporting on its own experience of references to these instruments in the cases it manages and offering illustrations from cases to help IBA research.

Several of the items in this issue focus on the work of the IBA and its role in ICC arbitration.

First, we have chosen to publish extracts from ICC awards in which considerations of public policy or mandatory rules have arisen as an issue in relation to the future enforceability of the award. These and the accompanying commentary by Charles Nairac, Elina Aleynikova and Manu Thadikkaran are the result of a joint research project by ICC and the IBA Subcommittee on Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards that is intended as a contribution to the subcommittee's study of public policy as a defence against recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention. Given the importance of public policy and mandatory rules in the resolution of international disputes, it is hoped that the awards will be of wider interest, too.

Second, this issue contains extracts from ICC awards, procedural orders and terms of reference relating to the taking of evidence, which is another subject on which the IBA has made an important contribution through its Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, now in their second edition. Our aim is not to provide statistical information on the frequency with which the IBA Rules are referred to in ICC cases, but to offer illustrations from cases that will throw some light on how and in what circumstances such references are made. It may be noted that when referring to the IBA Rules on Evidence, arbitrators frequently point out that they reserve the right to exercise their discretion and are not bound by the Rules.

Third, the role of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration is one of the points discussed in an article by Rocío Digón and myself on the ICC Court's recent experience in dealing with challenges against arbitrators. It follows previous articles on the subject published in the Bulletin and provides an update not only on references to the IBA Guidelines in challenges examined by the Court, but also on the kinds of grounds that are invoked to support a challenge and on changes in the Court's approach to handling challenges resulting from a move towards greater transparency.

No matter how valuable instruments of soft law external to ICC may be in conducting ICC proceedings, the primary instruments governing those proceedings are the relevant ICC Rules. That is why we consider it important to present and explain our Rules to users, which is the purpose of the article by Peter Wolrich, Nael Bunni and Pierre Genton on the newly revised ICC Dispute Board Rules, also published in this issue. One of the aspects of these Rules on which the authors insist is their flexibility. It may be some comfort to the critics of soft law that, far from straightjacketing a practitioner, such instruments leave room for procedural choices giving parties and practitioners every opportunity to exercise their freedom.