MIA MI INTE RNATIONA L A RB ITRATION S OC IE TY _______________________________________             The New ICC Rules    L...
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 ...
Making of the New IC C Rules                               •3
Making of the New IC C RulesNew 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 o...
Making of the New IC C RulesG uiding Principles•“if it ain’ t b roke, d on’ t fix it!”  •    O nly ne ce s s ary ch ange s...
Making of the New IC C RulesThe 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 ...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations                                                  •7
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations  - IntroductionG uiding Principles•O ne of th e p rim ary goals was re d u...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - IntroductionC urrent Is s ues Fac ing A rbitration•Arb itration h as b...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - IntroductionA pproach of New Rules to A ttac k Thes e Is s ues•N e w R...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - C hallenges to J uris dictionUnder 98 Rules C hallenges to J uris dict...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - C hallenges to J uris diction2 S ets of J uris dictional C hallenges F...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - C hallenges to J uris diction New A rt. 6(3)                          ...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - New C as e Management Provis ions• IC C Rules are open ended in nature...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - New C as e Management Provis ions New A rt. 22                        ...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - New C as e Management Provis ions New A rt. 22                        ...
Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations   - New C as e Management Provis ions New A rt. 24                        ...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions                                              •18
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - IntroductionNew Realities C onfront the IC C•30% of all new IC C c as es i...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - J oinder New A rt. 7                                New A rt. 7 •S imilar ...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - J oinder New A rt. 7                                                New A ...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - C ros s C laims New A rt. 8                                  New A rt. 8 •...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - Multiple C ontracts New A rt. 9                                           ...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - J uris diction New A rt. 6(4)                                             ...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - J uris dictionJ uris dic tional elements looked at by the C ourt•E xis ten...
Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions   - C ons olidation New A rt. 10                                              ...
E mergency A rbitrator Provis ions                                     • 27
E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions   - IntroductionHis toric al A ntecedent•Rules Governing Pre-arbitral Referee • in e x...
E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions   - S pecific Provis ions New A rt. 29                                                ...
E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions   - S pecific Provis ions New A rt. 29                                               N...
E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions   - S pecific Provis ions New A rt. 29                                                ...
E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions   - S pecific Provis ions New A ppendix V                                             ...
Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tates                                                   • 33
Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tate E ntities   - IntroductionIC C A rbitrations involving S tates or S tate e...
Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tate E ntities   - S pecific changes to Rules                                  ...
Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tate E ntities   - S pecific changes to Rules S even changes to Rules          ...
Luis M. O’NaghtenC h air, Inte rnational Litigation and Arb itration P ractice , Ake rm anS e nte rfittA reas of experienc...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

259 views
195 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
259
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Making of the New IC C Rules •3
  4. 4. Making of the New IC C RulesNew 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 Cb 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
  5. 5. Making of the New IC C RulesG 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 ofaward 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
  6. 6. Making of the New IC C RulesThe 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 sarb itrations with s tate e ntitie s •6
  7. 7. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations •7
  8. 8. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - IntroductionG 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 itrationp 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 raftings 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
  9. 9. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - IntroductionC 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 tos 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
  10. 10. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - IntroductionA 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 ods 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 ane 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
  11. 11. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - C hallenges to J uris dictionUnder 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 tariats 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 sInte 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 eof 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 uTrib u nal • 11
  12. 12. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - C hallenges to J uris diction2 S ets of J uris dictional C hallenges Face the IC C , the framework of theNew 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
  13. 13. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - C hallenges to J uris diction 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
  14. 14. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - 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
  15. 15. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - New C as e Management Provis ions 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
  16. 16. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - New C as e Management Provis ions New A rt. 22 New A rt. 22 (5) 2.Parties undertake to comply with 2.The parties undertake to comply with any Tribunals 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
  17. 17. Reducing Time and C os ts in IC C A rbitrations - New C as e Management Provis ions New A rt. 24 New A rt. 24 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
  18. 18. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions •18
  19. 19. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - IntroductionNew 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 veryc 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
  20. 20. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - J oinder New A rt. 7 New A rt. 7 •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
  21. 21. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - J oinder New A rt. 7 New A rt. 7 •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
  22. 22. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - C ros s C laims New A rt. 8 New A rt. 8 •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
  23. 23. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - Multiple C ontracts New A rt. 9 New A rt. 9 •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
  24. 24. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - 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
  25. 25. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - J uris dictionJ 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
  26. 26. Multi-Party and Multi-C ontract Provis ions - C ons olidation New A rt. 10 New A rt. 10 •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
  27. 27. E mergency A rbitrator Provis ions • 27
  28. 28. E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions - IntroductionHis 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
  29. 29. E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions - S pecific Provis ions New A rt. 29 New A rt. 29 •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
  30. 30. E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions - S pecific Provis ions New A rt. 29 New A rt. 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
  31. 31. E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions - S pecific Provis ions New A rt. 29 New A rt. 29 •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.
  32. 32. E mergenc y A rbitrator Provis ions - S pecific Provis ions 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
  33. 33. Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tates • 33
  34. 34. Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tate E ntities - IntroductionIC 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
  35. 35. Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tate E ntities - 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.
  36. 36. Provis ions Regarding A rbitrations With S tate E ntities - 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
  37. 37. Luis M. O’NaghtenC h air, Inte rnational Litigation and Arb itration P ractice , Ake rm anS e nte rfittA reas of experience: Lu is M . O N agh te ns p rim ary are a of p ractice isinte rnation al com p le x com m e rcial litigation and arb itration. H e h as re p re s e nte dp 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 rnationalarb 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 ICrange 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 andE u ro p e .Repres entative clients : Lu is h as p rovid e d ad vice to m aj inte rnational orb anks , U nite d S tate s and fore ign m u ltinational corp orations , e ne rgycom p anie s , te le com m u nication firm s , fore ign s ove re igns and p artie s ad ve rs eto 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 onArb 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 eU 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 dIns 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 inth at langu age .E ducation: G e orge town U nive rs ity; C olu m b ia Law S ch ool • 37C ontact info: luis .onaghten@akerman.com or 305.982.5687

×