An arbitral tribunal or arbitration tribunal, also arbitration commission, arbitration committee or arbitration council is a panel of unbiased adjudicators which is convened and sits to resolve a dispute by way of arbitration. The tribunal may consist of a sole arbitrator, or there may be two or more arbitrators, which might include a chairperson or an umpire. Members selected to serve on an arbitration panel are typically professionals with expertise in both law and in friendly dispute resolution (mediation). Some scholars have suggested that the ideal composition of an arbitration commission should include at least also one professional in the field of the disputed situation, in cases that involve questions of asset or damages valuation for instance an economist.[1]
The parties to agree on arbitration are usually free to determine the number and composition of the arbitral tribunal. Many jurisdictions have laws with general rulings in arbitration, they differ as to how many arbitrators should constitute the tribunal if there is no agreement.[2] In some legal systems, an arbitration clause which provides for an even number of arbitrators is understood to imply that the appointed arbitrators will select an additional arbitrator as a chairperson, to avoid deadlock arising.[citation needed]
Arbitral tribunals are usually constituted (appointed) in two types of proceedings:
ad hoc arbitration proceedings are those in which the arbitrators are appointed by the parties without a supervising institution, relying instead on the rules that have been agreed upon by the parties and/or procedural law and courts of the place of arbitration to resolve any differences over the appointment, replacement, or authority of any or all of the arbitrators; and
institutional arbitration proceedings are those in which the arbitrators are appointed under the supervision of professional bodies providing arbitration services, such as the American Arbitration Association (which conducts international proceedings through its New York–based division, the ICDR), the Australian Fair Work Commission, the LCIA in London or the ICC in Paris. Depending on their establishing statutes or treaties, these kind of institutions can be capable of supervising the appointment of arbitration commissions in one country or on an international scale. This type of arbitration avoids the need for parties to involve local courts and procedures in the event of disagreement over the appointment, replacement, or authority of any or all of the arbitrators.
Permanent arbitration committees tend to have their own rules and procedures, and tend to be more formal. They also tend to be more expensive, and, for procedural reasons, slower.[3]
Appointment
The parties are generally free to determine their own procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators, including the procedure for the selection of an umpire or chairperson.[4] If the parties decline to specify the mode for selecting the arbitrators, then the relevant legal system will usually provide a default selection process. Characteristically, appointments will usually be made on the following basis:
If the tribunal is to consist of a sole arbitrator, the parties shall jointly appoint the arbitrator not later than (for example) 28 days after service of a request in writing by either party to do so.
If the tribunal is to consist of three arbitrators:
each party shall appoint one arbitrator not later than (for example) 14 days after service of a request in writing by either party to do so, and
the two so appointed shall forthwith appoint a third arbitrator as the chairperson of the tribunal.
If the tribunal is to consist of two arbitrators and an umpire:
each party shall appoint one arbitrator not later than (for example) 14 days after service of a request in writing by either party to do so, and
the two so appointed may appoint an umpire at any time after they themselves are appointed and shall do so before any substantive hearing or forthwith if they cannot agree on a matter relating to the arbitration.
Most arbitration clauses will provide a nominated person or body to select a sole arbitrator if the parties are unable to agree (for example, the President of the relevant jurisdiction's Bar Association, or a recognised professional arbitration organisation such as the LCIA, or a relevant professional organisation). In default of such a provision, where the parties are unable to agree, an application for an appointment is usually made to the court.[5]
Normally a well drafted arbitration clause will also make provision for where a party to the dispute seeks to cause delay by refusing to make or agree an appointment. Often this will allow the "non-defaulting" party to appoint a sole arbitrator and for the arbitration to proceed on that basis.[6]
Chairperson and umpire
Where the tribunal consists of an odd number of arbitrators, one of them may be designated as the umpire or chairperson. The selection of title carries some significance. When an arbitrator is "chairperson", then they will not usually exercise any special or additional powers, and merely have a presidential function as the tribunal member who sets the agenda.[7] Where a member of the tribunal is an umpire, they usually do not exercise any influence on proceedings, unless the other arbitrators are unable to agree— in such cases, then the umpire steps in and makes the decision alone.
Arbitrator advocates
In some legal systems, it used to be common for each party to the dispute to appoint an arbitrator and for those two arbitrators to appoint a third arbitrator (who may or may not be called an umpire). However, the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to the dispute would essentially act as advocates for the party who appointed them, and the umpire would effectively act as a sole arbitrator. Such systems can lead to difficulty, as other countries may be reluctant to enforce an arbitration award where two of the three "arbitrators" are clearly unable to demonstrate impartiality or independence. The standards for enforcing such awards are set out in the New York Convention, as interpreted by local law.[8]
Removal
In most legal systems the parties are free to specify in what circumstances the appointment of an arbitrator may be revoked. In default, most legal systems provide either that (i) the parties to the dispute must act jointly to remove an arbitrator, or (ii) the other members of the arbitral tribunal must act to remove the arbitrator, and/or (iii) the court must act to remove an arbitrator. Most legal systems reserve a power to the court to remove arbitrators who are unfit to act, or are not impartial.
Resignation
It is generally accepted that one cannot force a person to continue as an arbitrator against their will, and arbitrators may resign if they are unwilling to proceed with the arbitration. Where the arbitrator becomes aware of facts that might be seen to affect his or her impartiality, they are often under a duty to resign. The parties are generally free to agree with the arbitrator what should happen with respect to (i) the arbitrator's fees, and (ii) any liability of the arbitrator (such as wasted costs), if the arbitrator should resign, with or without cause.
Death
The authority of an arbitrator is personal, and an appointment ceases upon death.
Unless the parties have otherwise provided, the death of a party does not usually revoke the appointment of any arbitrator appointed by the deceased, and any agreement relating to the appointment is enforceable in the usual way against the personal representatives of the deceased.
Filling a vacancy
If a vacancy arises (through resignation or death, or otherwise) then the parties are free to agree:
whether, and if so, how, the vacancy shall be filled
whether, and if so, to what extent, the previous proceedings shall stand
what effect, if any, the arbitrator's ceasing to hold office has on any appointment or order made by that arbitrator (alone or jointly)
Most legal systems provide that, in default of agreement, a new arbitrator shall be appointed using the provision for appointments which applied to the original arbitrator that has vacated office;[9] the tribunal itself (once reconstituted) should determine whether, and if so, to what extent, previous proceedings stand; and the appointments and orders made by the previous arbitrator are unaffected.
Fees and expenses
The parties may make provision for the arbitrator's fees (although in some jurisdictions, whether the parties are agreeing to submit an existing dispute to arbitration, they may not provide that each party bears its own costs). However, the position may be different between, on the one hand, as between the arbitrators and the parties, and on the other hand, as between the parties themselves.
Although the parties may provide differently in the appointment of the arbitrator, the usual rule is that the parties are jointly and severally liable for the arbitrator's fees. If the arbitrator is not paid, then they may sue either or both parties for unpaid fees.[10]
In many jurisdictions, after making the award, the tribunal will order that the losing party pays the legal costs of the winning party, and this may include the arbitrator's fees. This does not affect the joint and several liability referred to above, but it does mean that the winning party may maintain a separate action against the losing party for the unpaid costs, or to be reimbursed for arbitrator's fees that the winning party has been forced to pay, but which the losing party was ordered to pay.
Immunity from suit
It is generally accepted that an arbitrator is not liable for anything done or omitted to be done in the discharge of his or her duties as an arbitrator unless bad faith is shown. At common law this point was thought to have been left open,[11] but in most jurisdictions it is accepted that arbitrators should enjoy immunity provided that they act in good faith in the same manner (and for much the same reasons) as judges, and some jurisdictions have clarified this by statute.[12]
Jurisdiction
In most legal systems, the arbitral tribunal is able to rule upon its own jurisdiction (often referred to as the doctrine of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" in international law). This enables the arbitral tribunal to determine for itself whether:
an arbitration agreement is valid,
whether the tribunal has been properly constituted under applicable law, and
what matters are to be determined by the arbitration under the agreement.
The doctrine, although European in origin, has been recognised at common law,[13] and has now been widely codified into national law.[14]
Hearing
An "arbitration hearing" can be either procedural or evidentiary. As in court systems, a "procedural hearing" focuses exclusively on how the proceedings are to be conducted. An "evidentiary hearing" is the equivalent to what in the courts of many countries would be called a trial, with the presentation of evidence in the form of documents and witnesses. Although evidentiary hearings are generally available as a means to assist the arbitral tribunal in deciding contested factual issues, arbitration rules do not usually require them and leave the means of decided disputed factual issues to the discretion of the tribunal. Many decisions of arbitral tribunals are made without any hearing at all.
Where it may be appropriate to do so, arbitral tribunals can make decisions solely upon documentary evidence, which may or may not be accompanied by witness statements, which in the US are referred to as affidavits. Witness statements represent the testimony a witness would give if called to testify, and on which the witness is subject to questioning by the arbitral tribunal and, at times, cross examination by the other party.
Specific types of arbitration, for example, may rely exclusively on documents to decide disputes, such as in the growing field of online dispute resolution. As part of their organizational bylaws or standard terms and conditions, some organizations may also provide that disputes shall be arbitrated without an oral hearing and upon documentary evidence only, an example being certain trade associations, such as GAFTA.
Duties
The duties of a tribunal will be determined by a combination of the provisions of the arbitration agreement and by the procedural laws which apply in the seat of the arbitration. The extent to which the laws of the seat of the arbitration permit "party autonomy" (the ability of the parties to set out their own procedures and regulations) determines the interplay between the two.
However, in almost all countries the tribunal owes several non-derogable duties. These will normally be:
to act fairly and impartially between the parties, and to allow each party a reasonable opportunity to put their case and to deal with the case of their opponent (sometimes shortened to: complying with the rules of "natural justice");[15] and
to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular case, so as to provide a fair means for resolution of the dispute.[16]
Procedure
Matters of procedure are normally determined either by the law of the seat of the arbitration, or by the tribunal itself under its own inherent jurisdiction (depending on national law). Procedural matters normally include:
Provisions relating to appeals vary widely between different jurisdictions, but most legal systems recognise that the right to appeal (or, technically, the right to seek to set aside) an award in an arbitration should be limited.
Usually such challenges are made on one of two bases:
that the tribunal did not have substantive jurisdiction to determine the matter; or
there was a serious irregularity on the part of the tribunal. Examples of serious irregularities may include:
failure of the tribunal to act in accordance with the rules of natural justice, or allowing a fair hearing;
the tribunal exceeding its powers (other than by exceeding its jurisdiction);
failure of the tribunal to conduct proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;
failure of the tribunal to deal with all the issues put to it for resolution;
uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;
the award being procured by fraud, or otherwise being procured in a way contrary to public policy;
failure to comply with the requirements for the form of the award (e.g. in writing or in a specific language);
irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings.
In some jurisdictions it is also possible to appeal against an award on a point of law, however, such appeals normally require either the permission of the other parties, or the leave of the court.[17]
Specialised Institutes of Arbitration
Specialised arbitration organizations have been formed in order to settle disputes in the matter of specialised issues, they work in only a very limited field but are highly specialised in the work they do. For this purpose they have made a special rules, procedures and regulations which they follow during the proceedings of arbitration. These institutions prove very useful in the cases where a very deep and specialised knowledge is needed in settlement, which in turn can be cost effective and time saving.
↑ J. Gregory Sidak, Economists as Arbitrators, 30 EMORY INT'L L. REV. 2105 (2016), https://www.criterioneconomics.com/economists-as-arbitrators.html; Joshua B. Simmons, Valuation in Investor-State Arbitration: Toward a More Exact Science, 30 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 196 (2012).
↑ Under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (adopted by various countries around the world), the default number is three (Article 10(2)). However, some countries have provided that the default number is one (see for example, section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom).
↑ For example, all arbitral awards issued by the ICC have to be reviewed internally before being handed down, which helps certainty and improves the quality of awards, but leads to delay and expense.
↑ See for example, Article 11(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and section 16(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom or The Federal Arbitration Act (USA).
↑ See for example, Article 11(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom.
↑ Often reinforced by the law, see for example, section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom
↑ Although in some cases the chairperson will have a casting vote if the tribunal is unable to agree on a matter.
↑ See for example, Article 15 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and section 27 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom.
↑ In some jurisdictions this is mandatory, see for example section 28 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom
↑ See Sutcliffe v Thackrah [1974] AC 727 and Arenson v Aresnon [1977] AC 405
↑ See for example, section 29 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom and section 28 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 of Australia
↑ See Christopher Brown Ltd v Genossenschaft Osterreichischer Waldbesitzer R GmbH [1954] 1 QB 8
↑ See for example, Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom.
↑ See for example Article 18 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
↑ For example, in England these are codified in section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996
↑ See for example section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of the United Kingdom
Related Research Articles
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a non-UN intergovernmental organization located in The Hague, Netherlands. Unlike a judicial court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides services of arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes that arise out of international agreements between member states, international organizations or private parties. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade. The PCA is constituted through two separate multilateral conventions with a combined membership of 122 states. It is not a United Nations agency, but a United Nations observer.
Online dispute resolution (ODR) is a form of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. In this respect it is often seen as being the online equivalent of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). However, ODR can also augment these traditional means of resolving disputes by applying innovative techniques and online technologies to the process.
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention, was adopted by a United Nations diplomatic conference on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other contracting states. Widely considered the foundational instrument for international arbitration, it applies to arbitrations that are not considered as domestic awards in the state where recognition and enforcement is sought.
In contract law, an arbitration clause is a clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process. Although such a clause may or may not specify that arbitration occur within a specific jurisdiction, it always binds the parties to a type of resolution outside the courts, and is therefore considered a kind of forum selection clause.
International arbitration is arbitration between companies or individuals in different states, usually by including a provision for future disputes in a contract.
The Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot or Vis Moot is an international moot competition. Since 1994, it has been held annually in Vienna, Austria, attracting more than 300 law schools from all around the world and spurring the creation of more than 20 pre-moots each year before the actual rounds are held in Vienna. It is the largest arbitration moot competition, and second-largest moot overall, in the world; considered a grand slam or major moot. A sister moot, known as the Willem C. Vis (East) Moot, is held in Hong Kong just before the rounds in Vienna. It was established in 2003 and attracts around 150 teams every year, making it the second largest commercial arbitration moot and also a grand slam moot. It uses the same moot problem as the Vis Moot, as does the various pre-moot friendlies.
An arbitration award is a determination on the merits by an arbitration tribunal in an arbitration, and is analogous to a judgment in a court of law. It is referred to as an 'award' even where all of the claimant's claims fail, or the award is of a non-monetary nature.
Ex aequo et bono is a Latin phrase that is used as a legal term of art. In the context of arbitration, it refers to the power of arbitrators to dispense with consideration of the law but consider solely what they consider to be fair and equitable in the case at hand. However, a decision ex aequo et bono is distinguished from a decision on the basis of equity, "Whereas an authorisation to decide a question ex aequo et bono is an authorisation to decide without deference to the rules of law, an authorisation to decide on a basis of equity does not dispense the judge from giving a decision based upon law, even though the law be modified".
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that resolves disputes outside the judiciary courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration decision or award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding.
Emmanuel Gaillard was a prominent practicing attorney, a leading authority on international commercial arbitration, and a law professor. He founded the international arbitration practice of the international law firm Shearman & Sterling before launching Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes, a global law firm dedicated to international arbitration, in 2021. He frequently acted as an arbitrator in international commercial or investment disputes.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or external dispute resolution (EDR), typically denotes a wide range of dispute resolution processes and techniques that parties can use to settle disputes with the help of a third party. They are used for disagreeing parties who cannot come to an agreement short of litigation. However, ADR is also increasingly being adopted as a tool to help settle disputes within the court system.
Justice Jean-Paul Beraudo is a lawyer, academic and author of legal works. He was Justice at the French Supreme Court and vice-chairman of the International Court of Arbitration. He lectures on International Private Law and International Trade Law at Panthéon-Sorbonne University and on Company law at Sciences-Po, Paris. The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) appointed him correspondent for France and a member of the scientific committee.
Investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), or an investment court system (ICS), is a set of rules through which countries can be sued by foreign investors for certain state actions affecting the investments (FDI) of that investor by that state. This most often takes the form of international arbitration between the foreign investor and nation. For the rules to be effective, they must have been agreed upon between the states concerned.
The Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) is an independent non-profit organization based in Beijing offering services in arbitration, mediation, and other dispute resolution mechanisms. The BAC was established in 1995 following the passage of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with the theories of other ADR channels, the BAC encourages arbitration and mediation forums as "win-win" alternatives to litigation. The BAC serves both domestic and international clients. An article in Business China declared the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) as "the only local arbitration commission which meets or surpasses global standards.”
The Arbitration Act 1996 is an Act of Parliament which regulates arbitration proceedings within the jurisdiction of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Arbitration Act 1979 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that reformed arbitration law in England and Wales. Prior to 1979, arbitration law was based on the Arbitration Act 1950, which allowed use of the "case stated" procedure and other methods of judicial intervention, which marked English arbitration law as significantly different from that of other jurisdictions. The prior law significantly increased the cost and time required for arbitration, which made England an unpopular jurisdiction to conduct such negotiations in. As a result, while London maintained its traditional position as a centre for arbitration in insurance, admiralty and commodities trading, it failed to attract more modern forms of trade. Following pressure from industry groups, the Lord Chancellor introduced the Arbitration Bill into Parliament, having it passed hours before the dissolution of James Callaghan's government. It was given royal assent on 4 April 1979, and commenced working on 1 August 1979.
The South China Sea Arbitration was an arbitration case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China (PRC) under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning certain issues in the South China Sea, including the nine-dash line introduced by the mainland-based Republic of China since as early as 1947. A tribunal of arbitrators appointed the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as the registry for the proceedings.
Kompetenz-kompetenz, or competence-competence, is a jurisprudential doctrine whereby a legal body, such as a court or arbitral tribunal, may have competence, or jurisdiction, to rule as to the extent of its own competence on an issue before it. The concept arose in the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Since then, kompetenz-kompetenz has often been important in international arbitration.
Arbitration in the British Virgin Islands is regulated principally by the Arbitration Act, 2013 which came into force on 1 October 2014. Prior to that date, arbitration was regulated by the Arbitration Cap, 1976.
The Arbitration Act 2005 is a Malaysian law which was enacted to reform the law relating to domestic arbitration, provide for international arbitration, the recognition and enforcement of awards, and for related matters.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
