The New ICC Rules (by L.O\'Naghten 2011)

MIA MI INTE RNATIONA L A RB ITRATION S OC IE TY
_______________________________________

The New ICC Rules

Luis M. O’Naghten
O ctob e r 1 9, 201 1

Index

 Making of the New IC C Rules
 Reducing Time and C os ts in
IC C A rbitrations
 Multi-Party and Multi-C ontrac t
A rbitration: C onforming to
C urrent Prac tic es
 E mergenc y A rbitrator
Provis ions
 Provis ions That A ddres s
Inves tor S tate A rbitrations

•2

Making of the New IC C Rules

•3


New IC C Rules 2 Years in the Making
•O ve r 1 75 p e op le form e d p art of th e Task Force on the R evision of the IC C R ul s
e
• cre ate d O ctob e r 2008
• m e m b e rs from ove r 41 cou ntrie s
• active cons u ltation with N ational C o m m itte e s
•D S C (d rafting s u b com m itte e ) m e t e ve ry m onth
• com p os e d of b o th civil and com m on law cou ns e l,
• as we ll as m e m b e rs o f th e u s e r com m u nity, and
• m e m b e rs of th e S e cre tariat
•N e w R u le s h ad to b e ap p rove d b y th e e ntire IC C C om m is s ion on Arb itratio n, b e fore it we nt to th e IC C
b oard
•N e w R u le s go into e ffe ct on Janu ary 1 , 201 2
• h ttp :/ iccwb o .org/ rt/ itration/ 41 99/ e x.h tm l
/ cou arb id ind

•4


G uiding Principles
•“if it ain’ t b roke, d on’ t fix it!”
• O nly ne ce s s ary ch ange s we re to b e introd u ce d
•K e e p th e d is tingu is h ing fe atu re s of IC C arb itration (e .g., Te rm s of R e fe re nce , s cru tiny of
award s b y th e C ou rt)
•Be as e conom ical as p os s ib le
• m aintain th e u nive rs ality of th e R u le s
• s e t forth b as ic p rincip le s and allow p ractical ap p lication to d e fine s p e cific is s u e s
• ke e p p arty au tonom y
•C od ification of b e s t p ractice s d e ve lop e d u nd e r cu rre nt R u le s

•5


The New Rules
•Inclu d e d p rovis ions d e s igne d to re d u ce th e tim e and cos ts of arb itration
• e .g., cas e m anage m e nt p roce d u re s

•Ad d e d p rovis ions gove rning arb itrations with m u lti-p artie s and m u lti-
contracts
• th e N e w R u le s now re fle ct th e IC C p ractice

•N e w R u le s now inclu d e p rovis ions for an e m e rge ncy arb itrator
•P rovis ions we re re vis e d / u p p le m e nte d to ad d re s s cons id e rations involving
s
arb itrations with s tate e ntitie s

•6

Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations

•7

- Introduction

G uiding Principles
•O ne of th e p rim ary goals was re d u cing th e tim e and cos t of arb itration
p roce e d ings
•U s e r com m u nity form e d p art of b oth th e Tas k F orce and th e D S C (d rafting
s u b com m itte e )
• Joh n S and e rs , VP and As s ociate G e ne ral C ou ns e l of M e rck & C o
• Anke S e s s le r, C h ie f C ou ns e l Litigation, S ie m e ns AG

•Th e ne w IC C R u le s follow u p on th e G uid e for C ontroling Tim e and C osts
l
• m aj ority of arb itration cos ts (82% ) is com p ris e d of cou ns e l and e xp e rt witne s s
fe e s

•8

- Introduction

C urrent Is s ues Fac ing A rbitration
•Arb itration h as b e com e too s tand ard ize d , los ing its fle xib ility to ad ap t to
s p e cific d is p u te s
•Arb itrators not le arning cas e s u ntil clos e to th e final h e aring

•9

- Introduction

A pproach of New Rules to A ttac k Thes e Is s ues
•N e w R u le s ad d re s s d e lays cau s e d b y incre as e in ch alle nge s to j ris d iction
u
•N e w R u le s re quire th at an arb itration b e cond u cte d e fficie ntly
• N e w R u le s contain th e p os s ib ility of s anctions to e nforce th is m and ate

•N e w R u le s force arb itrator’s to cons id e r th e b e s t e vid e ntiary m e th od
s u ite d for a cas e e arly on in th e p roce s s
•N e w R u le s p rovid e for a C as e M anage m e nt C onfe re nce and inclu d e s a
ne w ap p e nd ix s u gge s ting te ch niqu e s for m anaging arb itrations e fficie ntly

• 10

- C hallenges to J uris diction

Under '98 Rules C hallenges to J uris diction Were Dealt w Under Rule 6(2)

•6(2) ch alle nge s h ave b e e n incre as ing
• cre ate u nne ce s s ary tim e d e lays
• S e cre tariat's s tu d y re ve ale d th at u p 30% of cas e s h ad a 6(2) ch alle nge
• b u t only 2% of th e s e s u cce e d e d (inclu d ing p artial ne gative d e cis ions )

•A ch alle nge wou ld h ave to b e re s olve d b y th e C ou rt (th e IC C 's
Inte rnational C ou rt of Arb itration)
•C ons e q u e ntly, p artie s fre qu e ntly h ad to s e t forth th e ir p os ition on th e is s u e
of j ris d iction twice : once b e fore th e C ou rt and a s e cond tim e b e fore th e
u
Trib u nal

• 11


2 S ets of J uris dictional C hallenges Face the IC C , the framework of the
New Rules encourage that:
•C h alle nge s b as e d on le gal re as ons for re nd e ring th e arb itration void –
th e s e are b e s t re s olve d b y th e Arb itral Trib u nal
•C h alle nge s wh e re th e re is a re al d ou b t th at an arb itration agre e m e nt e xis ts
– th e s e are b e tte r re s olve d b y th e C ou rt s o as to p re ve nt an inj s tice
u

• 12


New A rt. 6(3) New A rt. 6(3)
•P rovid e for a s cre e ning p roce s s in wh ich If any party against which a cl aim has
th e S e cre tary G e ne ral re fe rs th e ch alle nge s b e e n m ad e d oe s not sub m it an answe r, or
to th e C ou rt or th e Arb itral Trib u nal rais es one or more pleas concerning
the exis tence, validity, or s cope of the
•Th e d e fau lt ru le u nd e r 6(3) is th at a
arbitration ag reement or conce rning
ch alle nge to th e "valid ity, s cop e or
whe the r al the cl s m ad e in the
l am
e xis te nce " of an arb itration agre e m e nt is to
arb itration m ay b e d e te rm ine d toge the r in
go to th e Trib u nal, unl ss th e S e cre tary
e
a singl arb itration, the arb itration shal
e l
G e ne ral d e cid e s to re fe r it to th e C ou rt
p roce e d and any ques tion of juris diction
or of whether the claims may be
determined tog ether in that arbitration
s hall be decided directly by the arbitral
tribunal, unles s the S ecretary General
refers the matter to the Court for its
decis ion purs uant to A rticle 6(4).

• 13

- New C as e Management Provis ions

• IC C Rules are open ended in nature
• e .g., no ru le s on th e nu m b e r of b rie fs , p age lim its , or d is cove ry

• The Rules contemplate that eac h arbitration will be tailor made for
the s pecific dis pute

• 14


New A rt. 22 New A rt. 22
2.C reates a contractual obligation to be §The arb itral tribunal and the p artie s s hall make
expeditious every effort to cond uct the arb itration in an
 th is is a "b e s t e fforts " p rovis ion, not re s u lt exp e d itious and cost e ffe ctive m anne r, having
b as e d reg ard to the com p lexity and val of the
ue
 "h aving re gard " is m e ant to s ignify th at th e re d isp ute.
is N O p rop ortionality to th e "valu e of th e §In ord e r to e nsure e ffe ctive case m anage m e nt,
d is p u te " the arb itral tribunal after cons ulting the
,
3.Tribunal has great powers in this regard, but parties , m ay ad op t such p roce d ural m e asure s
as it consid e rs ap p rop riate, prov ided that they
 m u s t cons u lt w th e p artie s are not contrary to any ag reement of the
 Trib u nal is b ou nd b y an agre e m e nt of th e parties .
p artie s
§U p on the re que st of any p arty, the arbitral
4.When the parties dis agree, the Tribunal can tribunal may make orders concerning the
is s ue orders re confidentiality confidentiality of the arb itration p roce e d ings or
of any othe r m atte rs in conne ction with the
arb itration and m ay take m e asure s for p rote cting
trad e se cre ts and confid e ntial inform ation

• 15

New A rt. 22 New A rt. 22 (5)
2.Parties undertake to comply with 2.The parties undertake to comply with any
Tribunal's orders order made by the arbitral tribunal
 Art. 37(5) allows th e Trib u nal, wh e n
m aking cos t d e te rm inations , to take into New A rt. 37(5)
accou nt wh e th e r a p arty "cond ucte d the §In making decis ions as to cos ts , the
arbitration in an exp e d itious and cost arbitration tribunal may take into account
e ffe ctive m anne r." such circum stance s as it consid e rs re levant,
incl ing the extent to which each party has
ud
 Ap p . III, Art 2(2) d oe s th e s am e th ing for conducted the arbitration in an expeditious
arb itrators and cos t-effective manner.

New A rt. 27 A ppendix III, A rt. 2(2)
• Trib u nal s h all inform th e S e cre tariat and
§In s etting the arbitrator’s fees , the Court
th e p artie s of th e d ate b y wh e n it inte nd s s hall take into cons ideration the dilig ence
to s u b m it its d raft award t th e C ou rt for and efficiency of the arbitrator, the tim e sp e nt,
ap p roval the rap id ity of the p roce e d ings, the com p lexity of
the d isp ute and the tim e l ss of the sub m ission
ine
of the d raft award , so as to arrive at a figure
within the l its sp e cifie d or, in exce p tional
im
circum stance s (Articl 37(2) of the R ul s), at a
e e
figure highe r or l owe r than those l its.
im • 16

2.Tribunal is required to convene a C as e §Whe n d rawing up the Te rm s of R e fe re nce or as
Management C onference: this was a reques t soon as p ossibl the re afte r, the arbitral tribunal
e
made by " us ers " s hall convene a cas e manag ement conference to
 p u rp os e is to re qu ire Trib u nal to s tu d y th e consul the p artie s on the p roce d ural m e asure s that
t
m ay b e ad op te d p ursuant to Articl 22(2). S uch
e
cas e e arly on
m e asure s m ay incl e one or m ore of the case
ud
 Trib u nal can as k p artie s to look at th e cas e m anage m e nt te chnique s d e scrib e d in Ap p e nd ix IV.
m anage m e nt te ch niqu e s in Ap p e nd ix IV
§D uring or folowing such confe re nce, the arbitral
l
3.Tribunal mus t es tablis h a proc edural tribunal s hall es tablis h the procedural timetable
timetable that it inte nd s to folow for the cond uct of the
l
arb itration. The p roce d ural tim e tabl and any
e
4.Method of conducting the C MC : m od ifications the re to shal b e com m unicate d to the
l
 can b e d one b y te le p h on e or vid e o C ourt and the p artie s.
confe re nce §Cas e manag ement conferences may be
 Trib u nal can re qu e s t p articip ation b y a clie nt conducted through a m e e ting in p e rson, by video
re p re s e ntative (th is is ke y b / it force s th e
c conference, telephone or s imilar means of
clie nt to b e p art of th e d e cis io n m aking communication. … The arb itral tribunal … m ay
re que st the atte nd ance at any case m anage m e nt
p roce s s wh e n th e tim e tab le is s e t)
confe re nce of the p artie s in p e rson or throug h an
internal repres entative.

• 17

Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions

•18

- Introduction

New Realities C onfront the IC C
•30% of all new IC C c as es involve more than 2 parties
• in one cas e , 82 p artie s we re s u e d b y one re s p ond e nt
• in anoth e r, one p arty b rou gh t an arb itration p u rs u ant to 7 agre e m e nts

•C onflic ting demands : keep things s imple when dealing with very
c omplex s ituations
•E s tablis hed C ourt prac tices have exis ted to deal with thes e is s ues
• R u le s re vis ion p roce s s is an atte m p t to m ake th e s e p ractice s m ore trans p are nt
and e ncou rage s tab ility

• 19

- J oinder

•S imilar to filing a Reques t for §A party wis hing to join an additional party
to the arbitration s hall s ubmit its reques t for
A rbitration arbitration ag ains t the additional party (the
• e ve ryone is on s im ilar footing “Reques t for J oinder”) to the S ecretariat.
The d ate on which the R e que st for Joind e r is
•Only a party to an arbitration may re ce ive d by the S e cre tariat shal, for al
l l
p urp ose s, b e d e e m e d to b e the d ate of the
file a joinder com m e nce m e nt of arb itration against the
• no inte rve ntion is allowe d ad d itional p arty. Any such j oind e r shal be
l
sub j ct to the provisions of Articl s 6(3)-6(7) and
e e
•C laims mus t be pres ented (s ee A rt. 9. N o ad d itional p arty m ay be j oine d afte r the
confirm ation or ap p ointm e nt of any arb itrator,
7(2)(c)) unl ss al partie s, incl ing the ad d itional p arty,
e l ud
• filing fe e m u s t b e p aid othe rwise agre e . The S e cre tariat m ay fix a tim e
l it for the sub m ission of a R e que st for Joind e r.
im

• 20

- J oinder

•Limitations §A p arty wishing to j an ad d itional p arty to
oin
the arb itration shal sub m it its re que st for
l
• no joind e r afte r 1 s t arb itrator is confirm e d
arb itration against the ad d itional p arty (the
• S e cre tariat can s e t a tim e lim it for th e “ R e que st for Joind e r” ) to the S e cre tariat. The
filing of a R e qu e s t for Joind e r (a d ate on which the R e que st for Joind e r Is
m e as u re inte nd e d to avoid ab u s e of re ce ive d by the S e cre tariat shal, for al
l l
p urp ose s, b e d e e m e d to b e the d ate of the
p roce s s b y continu ally j oining ne w
com m e nce m e nt of arb itration against the
p artie s ad d itional p arty. Any s uch joinder s hall be
•J uris diction s ubject to the provis ions of Articles 6(3)-6(7)
and 9. No additional party may be joined
• joine d p arty is in th e id e ntical p os ition as after the confirmation or appointment of any
any oth e r re s p ond e nt, it can b ring arbitrator, unles s all parties , including the
j ris d ictional d e fe ns e s
u additional party, otherwis e ag ree. The
S ecretariat may fix a time limit for the
s ubmis s ion of a Reques t for J oinder.

• 21

- C ros s C laims

•S imply put, cros s claims are permitted 2. In an arb itration with m ul l p artie s, cl s
tip e aim
m ay b e m ad e by any p arty against any othe r
•Does not deal with juris dictional bas is p arty, sub j ct to the p rovisions of Articl s
e e
for claims 6(3)-6(7) and 9 and p rovid e d that no new cl s aim
m ay b e m ad e afte r the Te rm s of R e fe re nce are
signe d or ap p rove d by the C ourt without the
authorization of the arb itral tribunal p ursuant to
Articl 23(4).
e

• 22

- Multiple C ontracts

•Two s ituations are dealt with: S ub j ct to the p rovisions of Articl s 6(3)-6(7)
e e
• a p arty re lie s on 2 d iffe re nt contracts to file and 23(4), cl s arising out of or in conne ction
aim
arb itration with m ore than one contract m ay b e m ad e in a
singl arb itration, irre sp e ctive of whe the r such
e
• claim ant re lie s one agre e m e nt and cl s are m ad e und e r one or m ore than one
aim
re s p on d e nt re lie s on a s e cond arb itration agre e m e nt und e r the R ul s.
e
•Does not deal with juris dictional bas is
for claims

• 23

- J uris diction

New A rt. 6(4) New A rt. 6(4)
•S ets forth underlying juris dictional In al case s re fe rre d to the C ourt und e r Articl 6(3), the
l e
C ourt shal d e cid e whe the r and to what exte nt the
l
principles arb itration shal p roce e d . The arbitration s hall proceed
l
• id e ntification of p artie s (e ach m u s t b e b ou nd if and to the extent that the Court is prima facie
b y an agre e m e nt) s atis fied that an arbitration ag reement under the
Rules may exis t. In p articul ar:
• m u ltip le agre e m e nts : p rivity and com p atib ility
§whe re the are m ore than two p artie s to the arb itration,
conce rns
the arb itration shal p roce e d b e twe e n those of the
l
p artie s, incl ing any ad d itional p artie s j
ud oine d p ursuant
•Prima F acie tes t applicable in all cas es to Articl 7, with re sp e ct to which the C ourt is p rim a facie
e
• Art. 6(4)(i) ap p lie s wh e n m ore th an two satisfie d that an arb itration agre e m e nt und e r the R ul s
e
p artie s are conce rne d that b ind s the m al m ay exist; and
l

• Art. 6(4)(ii) ap p lie s wh e n d e aling with m u ltip le §whe re cl s p ursuant to Articl 9 are m ad e und e r
aim e
contracts : b u t h e re th e C ou rt m u s t b oth ap p ly m ore than one arb itration agre e m e nt, the arb itration shal l
p roce e d as to those cl s with re sp e ct to which the
aim
th e p rim a facie te s t and look at e ach p arty
C ourt is p rim a facie satisfie d (a) that the arb itration
agre e m e nts und e r which those cl s are m ad e m ay b e
aim
com p atibl , and (b ) that al p artie s to the arb itration m ay
e l
have gre e d that those cl s can b e d e te rm ine d
aim
toge the r in a singl arb itration.
e
The C ourt’ s d e cision p ursuant to Articl 6(4) is without
e
p re j ice to the ad m issib il or m e rits of any p arty’ s
ud ity • 24
p l a or p l as.
e e

- J uris diction

J uris dic tional elements looked at by the C ourt
•E xis tenc e of arbitration agreement
• for e ach p arty th e C ou rt m u s t d e cid e wh e th e r th at p arty is b ou nd b y at le as t one
agre e m e nt

•C ompatibility among agreement
•Indicators of connec tivity
• id e ntity of p artie s
• re lations h ip b e twe e n contracts (s ingle e conom ic trans action, le gal re lations h ip )
• oth e r factors (e .g. d ate s of agre e m e nts )

• 25

- C ons olidation

•C ons olidation The C ourt m ay, at the re que st of a p arty, consol ate two
id
or m ore arb itrations p e nd ing und e r the R ul s into a
e
• p rom ote s e fficie ncy b y e lim inating p aralle l singl arb itration, whe re :
e
arb itrations and h aving o nly one
c)the p artie s have agre e d to consol ation; or
id
• s ave s m one y
d) al the cl s in the arb itrations are m ad e und e r the
l aim
• p re ve n ts incons is te nt re s u lts sam e arb itration agre e m e nt; or
• u niform ity of e vid e nce e) whe re the cl s in the arb itrations are m ad e und e r
aim
m ore than one arb itration agre e m e nt, the arb itrations are
•The C ourt has the final decis ion: the b e twe e n the sam e p artie s, the d isp ute s in the
arbitral tribunal cannot “ de-cons olidate” arb itrations arise in conne ction with the sam e l gal e
re lationship, and the C ourt find s the arb itration
• th e trib u nal m ay ru le th at it h as no j ris d iction
u agre e m e nts to b e com p atibl .
e
In d e cid ing whe the r to consol ate , the C ourt m ay take
id
into account any circum stance it consid e rs to b e
re levant, incl ing whe the r one or m ore of the arb itrators
ud
have b e e n confirm e d or ap p ointe d in m ore than one of
the arb itrations and , if so, whe the r the sam e or d iffe re nt
p e rsons have b e e n confirm e d or ap p ointe d .
Whe n arb itrations are consol ate d , the y shal b e
id l
consol ate d into the arb itration that com m e nce d first,
id
unl ss othe rwise agre e d by al p artie s.
e l • 26

E mergency A rbitrator Provis ions

• 27

E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions
- Introduction

His toric al A ntecedent
•Rules Governing Pre-arbitral Referee
• in e xis te nce s ince 1 990
• s e ld om u s e d
• re qu ire d p artie s to “op t-in”

• 28

- S pecific Provis ions

•E mergency A rbitrator provis ion applies by 2.A party that needs urg ent interim or cons ervatory
default – i.e., mus t “ opt-out” if party does not meas ures that cannot await the cons titution of an
want it to form part of arbitration agreement arbitral tribunal (“Emerg ency Meas ures ”) m ay m ake
an ap p l ication for such m e asure s p ursuant to the
• E m e rge n cy M e as u re is d e fine d as s om e th ing E m e rge ncy Arb itrator R ul s in Ap p e nd ix V. A ny s uch
e
“u rge nt” th at cannot wait th e cons titu tion of application s hall be accepted only if it is received by
th e trib u nal the S ecretariat prior to the trans mis s ion of the file to
the arbitral tribunal p ursuant to Articl 1 6 and
e
• ap p lie s on ly if file h as not b e e n trans m itte d to irre sp e ctive of whe the r the p arty m aking the ap p lication
th e Trib u nal has al ad y sub m itte d its R e que st for Arb itration.
re

•Only s ignatories to arbitration agreements can §Articl s 29(1 )– 29(4) and the E m e rge ncy Arb itrator
e
us e provis ion R ul s se t forth in Ap p e nd ix V (cole ctive l the
e l y
“ E m e rge ncy Arb itrator P rovisions” ) s hall apply only to
• lim itation inte nd e d to p rote ct agains t ab u s e parties that are either s ig natories of the arbitration
• p rovid e s p rote ction to re s p ond e nts th at m ay ag reement under the Rules that is relied upon for the
application or s ucces s ors to s uch s ig natories .
s e e k to ch alle nge j ris d iction u nd e r 6(3)
u
• not ap p licab le to inve s tor s tate d is p u te s

• 29


•E mergency A rbitrator decis ion is an 2. The emerg ency arbitrator’s decis ion s hall take the
form of an order. The p artie s und e rtake to com p l with
y
order, not an award any ord e r m ad e by the e m e rge ncy arb itrator.
• it d oe s n ot h ave to go th rou gh th e C ou rt’s
3. The e m e rge ncy arb itrator’ s ord e r s hall not bind the
s cru tiny p roce d u re arbitral tribunal with res pect to any ques tion, is s ue
• U N C ITR AL M od e l Law j ris d ictio n m ay ve ry
u or dis pute determined in the orde r. The arb itral tribunal
we ll re cognize an award m ay m od ify, te rm inate or annul the ord e r or any
m od ification the re to m ad e by the e m e rge ncy arb itrator.
• p artie s m u s t ab id e b y award

•A rbitral Tribunal not bound by s uch an
award

• 30


•E mergency A rbitrator provis ions s hall §The E m e rge ncy Arb itrator P rovisions s hall not apply
if:
not apply when:
c)the arb itration agre e m e nt und e r the R ul s was
e
• agre e m e nts m ad e b e fore Jan. 1 , 201 2
concl e d before the date on which the Rules came
ud
• th e p artie s h ave op te d -ou t of th e p rovis ions into force;
• p artie s h ave agre e d to oth e r p re -arb itral d)the parties have ag reed to opt out of the E m e rge ncy
p roce d u re s Arb itrator P rovisions; or
• co nce s s io n to F ID IC e) the parties have ag reed to another pre-arbitral
procedure that p rovid e s for the granting of conse rvatory,
•Parties not prevented from going to inte rim or sim il m e asure s.
ar
judicial courts 6.The Emerg ency Arbitrator Prov is ions are not
• not inte nd e d to d is co u rage o r p re ve nt ap p lications to intended to prevent any party from s eeking urg ent
nation al cou rts fo r p rovis ional re lie f interim or cons ervatory meas ures from a competent
• re m ains p e rm is s ib le for a p arty to ap p ly to a judicial authority at any time prior to making an
com p e te nt j d icial au th ority for inte rim or
u application for s uch meas ures , and in appropriate
cons e rvatory m e as u re s b e fore th e trib u nal is circums tances even thereafter, purs uant to the
cons titu te d Rules . Any ap p l ication for such m e asure s from a
com p e te nt j icial authority shal not b e d e e m e d to b e
ud l
an infringe m e nt or a waive r of the arb itration agre e m e nt.
Any such ap p l ication and any m e asure s take n by the
j icial authority m ust b e notifie d without d e l to the
ud ay • 31
S e cre tariat.


New A ppendix V New A ppendix V, A rt. 1(6)
•New appendix contains the E mergency 2.The Pres ident s hall terminate the emerg ency
arbitrator proceeding s if a Reques t for A rbitration
A rbitrator Rules has not been received by the S ecretariat from the
• An ap p lication for e m e rge ncy m e as u re s m ay applicant within 10 days of the S ecretariat’s receipt
b e file d e ve n b e fore th e filing of a R e qu e s t for of the Application, unl ss the e m e rge ncy arb itrator
e
d e te rm ine s that a longe r p e riod of tim e is ne ce ssary.
Arb itration (se e , Art. 29(1 ) “… Any such
ap p lication shal b e acce p te d onl if it is
l y
re ce ive d by the S e cre tariat p rior to the
transm ission of the fil to the arb itral tribunal
e
p ursuant to Articl 1 6 and irres pective of
e
whether the party making the application
has already s ubmitted its Reques t for
Arbitration.” )
• e m e rge ncy arb itrator p roce e d ings will b e
te rm inate d if a R e qu e s t fo r Arb itration is not
re ce ive d with in 1 0 d ays o f an Ap p lication

•32

Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tates

• 33

Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tate E ntities
- Introduction

IC C A rbitrations involving S tates or S tate entities
•Increas ed us e of IC C Rules regarding dis putes involving S tates
• 1 0% of all IC C cas e s involve s tate s
• 40% are cons tru ction d is p u te s with th e re m aining b e ing contractu al d is p u te s
• s ince 2009 incre as e u s e of IC C R u le s in d is p u te s re gard ing BITs

•IC C Tas k Force regarding Inves tor S tate Dis putes
• h e ad e d u p b y E d u ard o S ilva R om e ro
• cons u lte d with s e ve ral s ove re igns re gard ing IC C R u le s
• Tas k F orce m ad e s p e cific re com m e nd ations to R u le s R e vis ion Tas k F orce

•34

- S pecific changes to Rules

New Provis ions
S even changes to Rules 2.A rt. 1(2): “ The C ourt d oe s not itse l re sol d isp ute s. It
f ve
ad m iniste rs the res olution of dis putes by arb itral
2.IC C no longer limited to “ bus ines s tribunal in accord ance with the R ul s of Arb itration of
s, e
dis putes ” the IC C (the “ R ul s” ).”
e
3. N ot p art of N e w R ul s, but b e ing consid e re d by C ourt
e
3.S tate challenges to juris diction go to and S e cre tary G e ne ral as a p ractice to b e ad op te d
C ourt directly
4.A rt. 13(4): The Court may als o appoint directly to
act as arbitrator any p e rson whom it re gard s as suitabl
e
4.When S tates are involved, the s election whe re :
of s ole arbitrators and Tribunal
e)one or more of the parties is a s tate or claims to be
Pres idents ’ to be done directly by C ourt a s tate entity
5.E xplicit requirement that arbitrators 6.A rt. 11(1): E ve ry arb itrator m ust b e and re m ain
mus t be “ impartial” and mus t dis clos e impartial and ind e p e nd e nt of the p artie s invol d in the
ve
arb itration.
circums tances that may give ris e to
A rt. 11(2): B e fore ap p ointm e nt or confirm ation, a
doubt as to impartiality.
p rosp e ctive arbitrator s hall s ig n a s tatement of
acceptance, availability, impartiality and
independence. The p rosp e ctive arb itrator shal d iscll ose
in writing to the S e cre tariat any facts or circum stance s
which m ight b e of such a nature as to cal into que stion
l
the arb itrator’ s ind e p e nd e nce in the eye s of the p artie s,
as well as any circums tances that could g iv e ris e to • 35
reas onable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality.

- S pecific changes to Rules

S even changes to Rules New Provis ions
2.A pplicable law s ection recognizes that 2.A rt. 21(2): “ The arb itral tribunal shal take account of
l
the p rovisions of the contract, if any, b e twe e n the
bus ines s us ages and contract law may p artie s and of any re l
evant trad e usage s.”
not apply (becaus e an inves tor s tate
§A rt. 29(5): Articl s 29(1 )– 29(4) and the E m e rge ncy
e
arbitration may not involve a contract Arb itrator R ul s se t forth in Ap p e nd ix V (cole ctive l the
e l y
dis pute) “ E m e rge ncy Arb itrator P rovisions” ) s hall apply only to
parties that are either s ig natories of the arbitration
3.E mergency arbitrator excluded from ag reement under the Rules that is relied upon for the
application or s ucces s ors to s uch s ig natories .
inves tor s tate dis putes
4.A ppendix IV (a): “ B ifurcating the p roce e d ings or
4.Pos s ibility of bifurcation of juris diction re nd e ring one or m ore p artial award s on ke y issue s,
is included in the techniques for cas e whe n d oing so m ay ge nuine l b e exp e cte d to re sul in a
y t
m ore e fficie nt re solution of the case .”
management in A ppendix IV

• 36

Luis M. O’Naghten
C h air, Inte rnational Litigation and Arb itration P ractice , Ake rm an
S e nte rfitt
A reas of experience: Lu is M . O 'N agh te n's p rim ary are a of p ractice is
inte rnation al com p le x com m e rcial litigation and arb itration. H e h as re p re s e nte d
p artie s in d is p u te s b e fore U nite d S tate s cou rts and b e fore inte rnational
arb itration p ane ls (u nd e r IC C , AAA/ D R , and U N C ITR AL ru le s ) in a wid e
IC
range of d is p u te s , inclu d ing m atte rs in s e ve ral cou ntrie s in Latin Am e rica and
E u ro p e .
Repres entative clients : Lu is h as p rovid e d ad vice to m aj inte rnational
or
b anks , U nite d S tate s and fore ign m u ltinational corp orations , e ne rgy
com p anie s , te le com m u nication firm s , fore ign s ove re igns and p artie s ad ve rs e
to fore ign s ove re igns . H is p ractice focu s e s on inte rnational financial frau d s ,
e ne rgy and te le com m u nication d is p u te s , and corp orate com m e rcial d is p u te s .
Profes s ional activities : Lu is is a m e m b e r of th e IC C C om m is s ion on
Arb itration, th e IC C Tas k F orce for th e R e vis ion of th e IC C R u le s , ch air of th e
U S C IB 's Arb itration F lorid a S u b -C om m itte e , and is a fe llo w in th e C h arte re d
Ins titu te of Arb itrators . H e is flu e nt in S p anis h and h as h and le d arb itrations in
th at langu age .
E ducation: G e orge town U nive rs ity; C olu m b ia Law S ch ool
• 37
C ontact info: luis .onaghten@akerman.com or 305.982.5687

The New ICC Rules (by L.O\'Naghten 2011)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie The New ICC Rules (by L.O\'Naghten 2011)

Ähnlich wie The New ICC Rules (by L.O\'Naghten 2011) (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

The New ICC Rules (by L.O\'Naghten 2011)