May 24, 2012

ICC Releases New Rules of Arbitration

On September 12, 2011, the International Chamber of Commerce released a revised version of its Rules of Arbitration, which were drafted and have been in use since 1998. The revised Rules will apply to ICC arbitrations commenced after January 1, 2012, and are intended to meet the growing complexity of international business and ensure that the process is conducted in an “expeditious and cost-effective manner.” 

The revision process, which began in 2008, resulted in revisions to the existing Rules, as well as an expansion of the Rules to address discrete issues. Some of the more important changes include the following: 

Commencement

The Rules are now updated to include more substantive information at the initiation of arbitration. While the prior Rules permitted parties to submit a Request for Arbitration that was brief and largely unsupported with the idea that more could be learned through discovery, the revised Rules require the party to provide the “basis on which the claims are made” as well as the “amounts of any quantified claims.” 

Emergency Arbitrator 

Probably the most significant change to the Rules is the inclusion of provisions permitting a temporary Emergency Arbitrator to be appointed. In arbitrations commenced under an arbitration agreement entered after January 1, 2012, parties may seek “urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the constitution of an arbitral tribunal” even before arbitration has been formally commenced. The arbitral tribunal, once constituted, may modify or annul any order entered by the Emergency Arbitrator. 

The costs of the new provisions are substantial: a minimum fee of USD40,000 applies to any application for emergency relief, although the Emergency Arbitrator may assess those costs to another party. The new provisions do ensure quick relief. An Emergency Arbitrator is to be appointed within two working days of the submission of the application, and the Emergency Arbitrator is required to issue an order within fifteen days. 

Notably, though the parties would agree to be bound by any order made by the Emergency Arbitrator, any such order would not be a final arbitration award that could be enforced by local courts under the New York Convention. As a result, these new provisions - while significant - are expressly not intended to replace a party’s ability to seek urgent interim measures in local courts.

Multi-Party Arbitrations 

The new Rules also significantly improve parties’ ability to arbitrate multiple claims or claims against multiple parties. Whereas under the current Rules, only parties to an arbitration agreement or clause may participate and may be bound by the award, the revised Rules are much broader. Any party now may request that an additional party join the arbitration, so long as that request is made before any arbitrators have been confirmed. Further, when the arbitration involves more than two parties, any party may now make a claim against any other party, so long as such claims are made before the Terms of Reference are signed or approved. Finally, claims concerning multiple contracts under separate arbitration agreements can be brought in one proceeding, and under certain circumstances, multiple related arbitrations pending under the ICC Rules may be consolidated into a single proceeding.

Confidentiality 

While the revised Rules still do not automatically make all arbitrations confidential, the revisions do include provisions permitting the tribunal to enter orders concerning confidentiality at the request of either party. As a result, parties entering into arbitration agreements should consider discussing confidentiality in their arbitration agreements or clauses. 

Administration

The revised Rules emphasize the cost-effectiveness of the arbitration process, including through a number of revisions expressly dedicated to controlling costs. First, the revised Rules require the tribunal to hold a case management conference and adopt procedural measures to ensure efficient management of the proceedings. Second, the revised Rules allow the tribunal to take into account - when deciding to whom costs should be assessed - which parties have conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Finally, the revised Rules refer to the ICC’s recent publication, “Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration,” and the Rules include an Appendix, which provides examples of case management techniques for the tribunal and the parties. 

As with all Rule revisions, the true impact of those revisions will not be entirely clear until the Rules are in use. And of course, more specific procedures (such as those governing the Emergency Arbitrator) simply may be contrary to the parties’ desires. As a result, parties should be diligent to include any necessary variations in the arbitration clauses or agreements. However, in general, these revisions appear to continue the ICC’s commitment towards maintaining an efficient, cost-effective process, and they have been much-anticipated for that reason.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Jacob A. Manning is a member of the Litigation Department. Jacob maintains a diverse litigation practice, and represents a wide variety of parties in civil litigation in state and federal courts in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. He has successfully represented clients before appellate courts in each jurisdiction.

In particular, Jacob focuses a significant portion of his practice on construction law and represents owners—particularly public entities—contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers in litigation as well as during contract negotiations. Jacob...

304-230-1604

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.