What arbitral institutions (if any) exist? Have there been any amendments to their rules or are there any being considered?
International Arbitration (2nd Edition)
In early 2018, the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration was renamed “the Asian International Arbitration Centre (Malaysia)” (‘AIAC’). The AIAC offers administrative and logistical support for arbitrations in Malaysia. It was established in 1978 under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (‘AALCO’) and became the first regional centre established by AALCO in Asia to provide institutional support as a neutral and independent venue for the conduct of domestic and international arbitration proceedings in Asia.
The AIAC has updated its arbitration rules in early 2018 in line with international legal trends and the aim of optimizing the cost of Malaysian arbitrations. The AIAC Arbitration Rules 2018, which are based upon the UNCITRAL Rules for Arbitration (as revised in 2013), contain various new features which its users should note, including:
- Expeditious appointment of emergency arbitrators;
- Joinder of the arbitral parties;
- Consolidation of disputes; and
- Technical review of arbitral awards.
Additionally, the centre also provides the following rules:
- AIAC i-Arbitration Rules, which are modified rules for the arbitration of disputes arising from commercial transactions premised on Islamic principles. A notable feature of these rules is the reference procedure to a Shariah Advisory Council or Shariah expert whenever the arbitral tribunal has to form an opinion on a point related to Shariah principles; and
- AIAC Fast Track Arbitration Rules, which are simplified procedures aimed at facilitating the rendering of an award in the fastest way with minimal costs.
Apart from the AIAC, certain industry-specific arbitrations are also administered by a number of other Malaysian bodies, including the Institute of Engineers Malaysia, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, Malaysian Rubber Board, Palm Oil Refiners Association of Malaysia, Institute of Surveyors, and the Malaysian Institute of Architects. However, the AIAC remains the preferred arbitral institution in the country.
The principal arbitral institution existing in Chile is the Santiago Arbitration and Mediation Center (CAM Santiago), founded in 1992 by the Santiago Chamber of Commerce. Since its installment, CAM Santiago has provided dispute resolution services for national arbitrations under its own Domestic Arbitration Rules.
Later, in 1998 is started to provide mediation services as a voluntary method for dispute resolution and finally in 2006 CAM Santiago created the International Arbitration Center with its own set of Rules of International Commercial Arbitration, in accordance with the international standards for these type or procedures.
At the present, CAM Santiago is considering to introduce during 2018 a series of amendments to the Domestic Arbitration Rules in order to reduce the duration of the arbitral proceedings. Specifically, the amendments pursue to expedite the arbitrator’s appointment process and also to introduce a new and more expedite procedure for claims under certain value (USD $21.000 approximately), in which the time limits and the arbitrator’s fees will be reduced in accordance with the value of the dispute.
The most relevant arbitral institution in Portugal is the Commercial Arbitration Centre (“CAC”) of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (http://www.centrodearbitragem.pt/index.php?lang=en). The CAC Rules of Arbitration are recent, as they date back to March 2014, and have recently been amended to include the “Fast Track Arbitration Rules”, which have entered into force in March 2016.
There are other noteworthy arbitral institutions, such as:
i. Concordia (http://www.concordia.pt/)
ii. Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo (http://www.centroarbitragemlisboa.pt/)
iii. Arbitrare (https://www.arbitrare.pt/en/centro_a.php)
iv. Portuguese Arbitral Tribunal for Sports (https://www.tribunalarbitraldesporto.pt/)
One possible body for arbitration in Luxembourg is the Arbitration Centre of the Chamber of Commerce of Luxembourg (‘the Arbitration Centre’), which offers facilities and may handle institutional arbitration cases. The Arbitration Centre applies its own arbitration rules that are similar to the International Chamber of Commerce (‘ICC’) rules(‘ICC Rules’) and is governed by an Arbitration Council. Every arbitration initiated at the Arbitration Centre is governed by the arbitration rules of the Centre.
Some arbitration proceedings in Luxembourg take place under the rules of CEPANI, the oldest and largest Belgian arbitration and mediation centre, located in Brussels.
The Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Basel, Berne, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, Neuchâtel, and Zurich established the Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution offering arbitration services governed by the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration ("Swiss Rules").
In addition, Switzerland hosts many dispute resolution institutions, including the Dispute Settlement Bodies of the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center, the United Nations Compensation Commission and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) is also located in Switzerland (Lausanne).
Apart from the CAS Rules (Code of Sports-related Arbitration), which underwent minor modifications that entered into force on 1 January 2017, the rules of the aforementioned institutions have not been amended in 2017.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is the most well-known arbitral institution in France and, arguably, in the world. It recently amended its Arbitration Rules, which entered into force on March 1, 2017 (applicable to arbitration agreements concluded after that date).
Other prominent Paris-based arbitration institutions include the:
- French Arbitration Association (Association française d'arbitrage). Its latest arbitration rules became effective on 1 January 2017.
- Paris Centre for Mediation and Arbitration (Centre de médiation et d'arbitrage de Paris). Its latest arbitration rules became effective on 1 March 2012.
- International Arbitration Chamber of Paris (Chambre arbitrale internationale de Paris). Its latest arbitration rules became effective on 1 September 2015.
There are also specialized arbitration centers for shipping and insurance disputes, such as the:
- Paris Maritime Arbitration Chamber (Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris). Its latest arbitration rules became effective on 11 June 2014.
- French Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Centre (Centre français d'arbitrage de réassurance et d'assurance). Its arbitration rules are also those of the Paris Centre for Mediation and Arbitration.
The most prominent German arbitration institution is the DIS (German Institution of Arbitration, Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit). Its ancestor was established already in 1920 and the DIS, in its current form, in 1992.
The DIS Arbitration Rules have been in force since 1998. They were supplemented by the Rules for Expedited Proceedings in 2008 and by the Rules for Corporate Law Disputes in 2009. However, the DIS Arbitration Rules are currently being extensively revised. The new version, which will be published within the next months, will make the DIS a more proactive institution. Inter alia the following planned changes will impact the conduction of DIS proceedings:
- No advance on costs will be charged to validly initiate DIS arbitration. This makes DIS arbitrations easier to initiate e.g. if the request for arbitration is submitted on the last day of the respective limitation period.
- A challenge of an arbitrator is not only possible due to lacking impartiality, independence or fulfillment of parties’ requirements, but also in the event that the arbitrator does not accomplish his/her tasks according to the DIS Arbitration Rules or is incapable of accomplishing them.
In addition, the DIS also offers a broad range of other ADR-rules, e.g. the Adjudication Rules, the Conflict Management Rules, or the DIS Rules on Expert Determination. All these DIS rules can be found in English at http://www.disarb.org/de/16/regeln/uebersicht-id0.
Other arbitration institutions include the German Maritime Arbitration Association (GMAA), the Chinese European Arbitration Centre (CEAC), which is headquartered in Hamburg, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Germany, as well as several Chambers of Commerce, e.g. the Frankfurt International Arbitration Center.
There are two international arbitral institutions in Ukraine – the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the "ICAC") and the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the "MAC"). The ICAC New Arbitraiton Rules were approved on 27 July 2017, are currently widely discussed, and will be effective as of 1 January 2018. The major amendments are as follows:
- introduction of the expedited arbitral proceedings;
- more detailed regulation of the issue of the interim measures, including the requirements for the motion for interim measures, modification or termination of interim measures, cross-undertakings.
- introduction of obligatory determination of the amount of the claim, even if the claim or its part is non-monetary;
- regulation of the issue of the procedural succession.
The two main arbitration institutions in Panama are the “Centro de Arbitraje y Conciliación de Panamá (CeCAP)” and the “Centro de Solución de Conflictos (CESCON)”.
A few years ago, both CeCAP and CESCON adopted new arbitration rules, which entered into effect on August 1, 2015.
It is also usual for parties to agree that the arbitration be conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, even if the arbitration is to be administered by one of the aforementioned arbitration institutions.
The main On-Shore arbitral institutions, in order of case volume, are the:
Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”), which applies the DIAC Rules (2007) (the “DIAC Rules”); and
Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (“ADCCAC”), which applies the Procedural Regulations of Arbitration (the “ADCCAC Rules”).
There exists, within the remaining Emirates, a number of other arbitration centres, for example in:
Ras Al Khaimah: The Ras Al Khaimah Centre of Reconciliation and Commercial Arbitration;
Ajman: The Ajam Centre for Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration; and
Sharjah: The Tahkeem Sharjah International Arbitration Centre.
UAE Off-Shore Jurisdictions
The Dubai International Financial Centre / London Court of International Arbitration Centre (“DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre”) which applies the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules 2016 (the “DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules”).
Amendments to Institutional Rules
The DIAC has proposed rules, intended to replace the current DIAC Rules. These rules propose:
procedures for appointing an emergency arbitrator; and
expedited arbitration procedures.
The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (the “SCC”) was established in 1917 and is today one of the world’s leading forums for dispute resolution. The SCC handles around 200 cases a year, whereof more than 50 percent are international cases.
Both the SCC Arbitration Rules and the SCC Rules for Expedited arbitration have recently been amended and the new set of rules entered in to force 1 January 2017. Some of the main changes were new rules regarding joinder of additional parties and multi-contract disputes, the introduction of a summary procedure and further emphasis on efficiency and expeditiousness, especially in relation to arbitration costs. Furthermore, a new appendix concerning investment treaty disputes has been added.
To date, the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce is the most used institution for international arbitration in Spain.
However, other arbitral institutions ─such as the Court of Arbitration of the Official Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Madrid─ have also got a trustworthy reputation inside our territory. The latest modifications to the rules of the Court of Arbitration of Madrid took place two years ago. Concretely, the former rules expired on the 28th of February 2015, entering the actual rules into force on the 1st of March 2015.
There are two arbitral institutions currently active in Serbia – Permanent Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia (SCC) and Belgrade Arbitration Center. The arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has celebrated its 70th anniversary this year. In 2016, this arbitral institution has seen a major revamp – until then, there was a duality of institutions at the SCC, Foreign Trade Arbitration which had competence over international disputes, and Permanent Elected Court which had competence over disputes between domestic subjects. In 2016, these two institutions were merged into Permanent Arbitration, and new rules on procedure were adopted.
In addition to the long-standing arbitration institution at SCC, in 2013, a new arbitral institution, Belgrade Arbitration Center, was founded in Belgrade, with the aim of promoting and popularizing arbitration in domestic market. The rules of BAC introduced some novel solutions in Serbia compared to the rules of arbitration at SCC. These include the rule that each party will pay its share of the advance of costs of arbitration (unlike arbitration rules of SCC which provide that claimant must pay the entire advance). BAC rules regulate for the first time in Serbia the issue of confidentiality of arbitration proceedings, providing that the proceedings and award shall be confidential. Also, BAC rules introduce rules on appointment of arbitrators in case of multi-party arbitration, and provide that in case when there are several persons on one side, they are to jointly appoint their arbitrator.
The CIAC (“Construction Industry Arbitration Commission”) and PDRCI (“Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Inc.”) are the arbitral institutions commonly used to resolve large commercial disputes in the Philippines.
The subject matter of arbitration proceedings conducted by the CIAC is limited to disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines. Arbitration proceedings in the CIAC have been considered by the Philippine Supreme Court as part of traditional judicial proceedings. Therefore, the decisions of CIAC may be appealed to the Court of Appeals and thereafter, to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law. The CIAC rules were last amended in 2011.
PDRCI is the arbitral organization that most commonly administers arbitration proceedings, involving all kinds of subject matter, primarily commercial arbitration. The rules of the PDRCI have just been recently amended and these became effective in 2015.
However, it is also noteworthy that the ICC International Court of Arbitration, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) are arbitration institutions that are commonly specified in contracts in the Philippines that have an international component.
Presently, in India various Institutions are functional which provides for Institutional Arbitration, like:
(i) Delhi International Arbitration Centre
(ii) Mumbai Centre of International Arbitration
(iii) The International Centre of Alternative Dispute Resolution
(iv) Indian Council of Arbitration
The Rules of these institutions has recently been amended in terms with the amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the year 2015.
The LAM provides that arbitration proceedings are administered when they are conducted subject to the Law and the rules of procedure issued by an arbitration center. The LAM also sets out that, in order to facilitate the application of the Law, chambers of production, associations, unions, and nonprofit foundations and institutions may organize arbitration centers that may operate upon their registration with the Ecuadorian Federation of Chambers of Commerce. Arbitration centers must also be registered with the National Council of the Judicature. Currently nationwide there are fifteen arbitration centers. The most prestigious are those created by the Quito and Guayaquil Chambers of Commerce, the Chamber of Construction of Quito, and the Ecuadorian-American Chamber of Commerce. At least the major arbitration centers are considering changes to their rules. Generally speaking, the projected changes to said rules are aimed at expediting the arbitration proceedings through fast track arbitration. Under such amendments to the arbitration rules, the parties would be allowed to include in the arbitration agreement provisions: i) shortening the term for the issuance of arbitral awards, ii) providing for a single-arbitrator panel (in particular, in the case of small claims arbitration), and iii) the power of the arbitration courts or of the presiding arbitrator to issue procedural rules in order to speed up the arbitration proceedings. The main arbitration centers are also studying possible rules about evidence taken by means of electronic devices (internet, skype, etc.). These amendments would save time and involve lower arbitration costs for the parties.
A particular feature of arbitration in Norway is the extensive use of ad hoc arbitration rather than institutional arbitration. One institution, which is used from time to time, is the Arbitration Institute of the Oslo Chamber of Commerce (OCC). The OCC adopted new rules for arbitration and mediation as of 1 January 2017. The new rules include updated procedures for fast-track arbitration and a remuneration schedule that caps the remuneration payable to the arbitral tribunal.
The most prominent arbitration organization is the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) www.crcica.org.eg.
CRCICA applies the UNCITRAL rules with some amendments.
The only arbitral institution in Croatia is the Permanent Arbitration Court established at the Croatian Chamber of Economy. Rules of conduct of the Arbitration Court are the Rules of Arbitration of the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Croatian Chamber of Economy, or so called Zagreb Rules. Zagreb Rules entered into force in 2011 and were subsequently amended in 2015 and 2017.
The most prominent arbitral institutions in Cyprus are the Cyprus Arbitration and Mediation Centre and the Cyprus Eurasia Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Centre (“CEDRAC”). These centres provide their own set of arbitration rules, however, their use is currently limited.
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators – Cyprus Branch (CIArb) has also adopted its own Arbitration Rules which may be applied in domestic and international arbitrations.
In Italy there are over a hundred arbitration institutions, which have been established by local Chambers of Commerce, professional orders, trade associations, etc. However, numerous institutions are almost inactive. The most active is the Milan Chamber of Arbitration (“CAM”), a branch of the local Chamber of Commerce, which has gained an international reputation. Also the Italian Arbitration Association (“AIA”) based in Rome is a very active.
The arbitral institutions in Nigeria include:
(i) Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK) Nigerian Branch;
(ii) Lagos Court of Arbitration;
(iii) Lagos Multi-door Courthouse;
(iv) Maritime Arbitrators Association of Nigeria;
(v) Nigerian Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;
(vi) Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, Lagos;
(vii) Abuja Multi-door Courthouse; and
(viii) International Centre for Arbitration & Mediation, Abuja.
Some of these institutions have in the past amended or introduced new rules on arbitration. Most of these institutions have not recently amended their rules and there are no current plans to amend these institutions’ rules.
In 1975, the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) was founded (as part of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Commerce) and has played a significant role in international arbitration since. Austria’s location “between east and west” has contributed to the establishment of Vienna as a frequently used seat of arbitration under the auspices of the Vienna Rules as the procedural provisions sponsored by VIAC are called.
Until recently, the VIAC could only administer international arbitration (and regional institutions of the Chambers of Commerce administered domestic arbitrations); since mid 2017, also purely domestic cases can be resolved using VIAC.
The main arbitral institutions that are headquartered in the United States are (i) the American Arbitration Association (AAA, www.adr.org) and its International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR, www.icdr.org) (‘AAA/ICDR’); (ii) JAMS (www.jamsadr.com); (iii) the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR, www.cpradr.org); and (iv) the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC, www.sice.oas.org). In addition, the International Chamber of Commerce (headquartered in France), and the World Intellectual Property Association (headquartered in Switzerland), maintain branch offices in New York. None of these institutions have amended their rules in the most recent three-year period.
The principal such institutions in Greece are: (a) The Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry, (b) The Hellenic Chamber of Shipping, (c) The Piraeus Association for Maritime Arbitration, (d) The Regulatory Authority for Energy. Reference is to be made also to the Technical Chamber of Greece. However, pursuant to well-established case law the scope of its authority is limited only to stricto sensu technical disputes.
Institutional arbitrations established within the structure of various Chambers are provided for under article 902 GrCC. This rule entails a delegation of legislative authority which allows for Presidential Decrees which establish the so - called permanent Arbitration Institutions within the Chambers and delineate their Rules. However, said delegation is fairly limited. Article 902 GrCC provides that articles 867 – 900 GrCC still apply and stipulates only certain matters which may be regulated differently by virtue of said P.Ds. In light of this arrangement, the respective Arbitral Institutions and their Rules are not to be seen as autonomous, in the sense that Chambers are not entirely free to tailor institutional arbitration proceedings the way they see fit in order to meet the evolving needs of their members and to adjust to the ever-changing business environment. The Presidential Decrees controlling said institutional arbitrations are (a) P.D. 31/1979 as regards Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry, (b) P.D. 447/1969 as regards the Hellenic Chamber of Shipping, and, (c) P.D. 723/1979 as regards the Technical Chamber of Greece.
Τhe institutional arbitration before the Regulatory Authority for Energy is controlled by article 37 of L. 4001/2011. Again, this rule provides for the application of articles 867 – 900 GrCC and/or of the provisions of L. 2735/1999 (depending on the domestic or international nature of arbitration) and introduces specific rules only as to certain matters. Subsequently to the enactment of said law, the Regulatory Authority issued also (by virtue of Decision No. 261/30-3- 2012) a Regulation controlling the arbitration proceedings in the context prescribed by article 37 L. 4001/2011, referring to the application of the provisions of the GrCCP and/or L. 2735/1999. Hence, the comment made above as to the nonexistent self-sufficiency of institutional arbitration rules applies also here.
The Piraeus Association for Maritime Arbitration (PAMA) on the contrary, being a private non-profit legal entity established in 2005 in order to promote the resolution of maritime disputes by arbitration in Piraeus has put in place an autonomous set of rules which is described by its drafters as being “in accordance with international standards and the UNCITRAL Model Law for International Commercial Arbitration as adopted by Greece”.
To our knowledge no amendments to said institutional arbitration rules are currently considered. This should not come as a surprise given what has already been noted.
In Israel there are several arbitral institutions, including the Center for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CADR), the Arbitration Federation Institute, and the Israeli Institute of Commercial Arbitration (IICA). These institutes do not belong to the State institutes but are rather independent bodies.
A number of arbitral institutions are based in the United Kingdom, including: London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) and Reinsurance Arbitration Society (ARIAS (UK)). In addition, various commodity organisations based in the United Kingdom have published arbitral rules, including the Grain & Feed Trade Association (Gafta) and the London Metal Exchange (LME).
The LCIA issued revised Arbitration Rules in 2014 and the new LMAA terms came into effect in May 2017.
The main arbitration body in Romania is the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania, which also coordinates the activity of the courts of arbitration attached to the regional chambers of commerce and industry, each county in Romania having such a chamber of commerce and industry.
The Court of International Commercial Arbitration (further herein referred to as “CICA”) has its own set of rules of arbitration. However, these rules are to be supplemented with the ordinary provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as the latter are compatible with the arbitration and the nature of the disputes. The Arbitration Rules of CICA have been substantially modified in June 2014, when new and modern rules entered into force. A new set of rules are currently under debate and public consultation, but no specific date for their finalization and enter into force was provided.
Another arbitral institution established only in 2010 is the Court of Arbitration attached to the German-Romanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
There are several arbitral institutions in Turkey : ITOTAM, ISTAC, Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges Court of Arbitration, the Arbitration Centres of Ankara Chamber of Industry and İzmir Chamber of Commerce, Arbitration Centre of Turkish Bar Associations. Additionally, several laws regulate different methods of arbitration designed to ease the work-load of the state judicial system : the Law on Customer Protection regulates Arbitration Committee for Consumer Problems, for example. The Turkish Football Federation undertakes arbitral function with its Dispute Resolution Board and Arbitration Committee. In the field of labor law, the High Council of Arbitrators of Turkey was established with the goal of creating an effective method to resolve disputes arising from collective labor agreements.