Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arbitral Procedure: Case Management and Selecting the Place of Arbitration

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

  • 298 Accesses

Abstract

Managing an investment arbitration requires a specific understanding of the rules applicable to the arbitration and the unique features of an investment arbitration, including the selection of the place of arbitration, issues in relation to document production, and the use of a tribunal secretary. These procedural issues should be considered at the outset of an arbitration during the procedural meeting in order to ensure an efficient running of an arbitration proceeding. This chapter examines in detail the various considerations parties as well as the arbitral tribunal will need to take into account when establishing a roadmap and procedural timetable for the investment arbitral proceeding.

By Chiann Bao, Independent Arbitrator, Arbitration Chambers, Honorary Senior Fellow, British Institute of International and Comparative Law. The author would like to thank Carla Martini for her invaluable assistance with the preparation of this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Legum B (2010) An overview of investment arbitration procedure. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to the key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, pp 91–103, p 92

  2. 2.

    World Bank. Practice note for respondents in ICSID arbitrations, p 9. https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/Practice%20Notes%20for%20Respondents%20-%20Final.pdf

  3. 3.

    Id.

  4. 4.

    World Bank (2019) The ICSID caseload statistics, Issue 2019-2. Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/ICSID_Web_Stats_2019-2_(English).pdf

  5. 5.

    Energy Charter Secretariat, Decision of the Energy Charter Conference, 19 July 2016, CCDEC 2016 12 INV. Available at https://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/CCDECS/2016/CCDEC201612.pdf

  6. 6.

    Chew S, Reed L, Thomas CJ QC (2018) Report: survey on obstacles to settlement of investor-state disputes. NUS Centre for international law working paper 18/01. https://cil.nus.edu.sg/publication/survey-on-obstacles-to-settlement-of-investor-state-disputes/

  7. 7.

    Id., 1.

  8. 8.

    See https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/Services/Cost-of-Proceedings.aspx and https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/arbitrators/Managing-Case-Finances.aspx

  9. 9.

    Goldsmith A, Melchionda L (2012) Third-party funding in international arbitration: everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask: Part 2. Int Bus Law J 2:221–243

  10. 10.

    ICSID Working Paper #4, proposed Rule 14. Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/WP_4_Vol_1_En.pdf

  11. 11.

    OECD (2012) Dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements: a large sample survey. http://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/50291678.pdf

  12. 12.

    Id.

  13. 13.

    ICC Rules, Art 22 sec 4; UNCITRAL Rules, Art 17; ICSID Working Paper 3, Draft Rule 2.

  14. 14.

    ICSID Rules, Art. 52(1)(d).

  15. 15.

    ICSID Rules, Article 13; Article 21 of the ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules; 2016 UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings, paras. 11–13. Available at https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-notes/arb-notes-2016-e-pre-release.pdf

  16. 16.

    See for example, the ICSID template Procedural Order No. 1. Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/process/Draft%20Procedural%20Order%20No%201.pdf

  17. 17.

    The ICSID Secretariat will circulate a draft agenda listing items to be discussed by the parties.

  18. 18.

    Commission J, Moloo R (eds) (2018) Procedural issues in international investment arbitration. Oxford International Arbitration Series, Oxford, p 147

  19. 19.

    Commission J, Moloo R (eds) (2018) Procedural issues in international investment arbitration. Oxford International Arbitration Series, Oxford, p 147. For example, Mexico’s investment treaties with Slovakia, Belarus, and China provide that “the arbitral tribunal shall determine the seat of arbitration.” The Dominican Republic Central America Free Trade Agreement (5 August 2004), Article 10.20, requires that the legal seat must be in the territory of “a State that is party to the New York Convention.”

  20. 20.

    Vito G. Gallo v. Government of Canada, Decision on the Place of Arbitration (UNCITRAL), 4 June 2008, para. 15.

  21. 21.

    Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/2, Procedural Order No. 2, 24 November 2016, paras. 32–33 (tribunal selected Washington, D.C., as it was “widely regarded as a neutral forum, appropriate to serve as a seat of arbitration on the basis that it had been selected in number NAFTA arbitrations brought by U.S. nationals against Mexico in the past”).

  22. 22.

    Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-17, Procedural Order No. 3, 28 March 2013, para. 39.

  23. 23.

    PCA Rules, Article 18(2).

  24. 24.

    2016 ICSID Report, 59–60.

  25. 25.

    See ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics (2018). Available at http://files-eu.clickdimensions.com/iccwboorg-avxnt/files/web_icc_disputeresolution2018statistics.pdf?m=11.6.2019%2011%3A46%3A22&_cldee=YWdvaW5zQHZlbGF3LmNvbQ%3D%3D&recipientid=contact-780a89b59404e911a99f000d3ab38ab1-e7a8451ec8964a3399514c904bfdf1e2&esid=5a1d9a87-22a1-43b0-8004-4bc0ca257142

  26. 26.

    See UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings.

  27. 27.

    See, ICSID (2019) ICSID annual report. Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/ICSID_AR19_EN.pdf

  28. 28.

    ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 20; SCC Arbitration Rules, Article 21; SIAC Rule 19; PCA Arbitration Rules 2012, Article 19.

  29. 29.

    HKIAC Administrated Arbitration Rules, Article 15.

  30. 30.

    See more at https://sccinstitute.com/scc-platform/

  31. 31.

    Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Procedural Order No. 3, 18 Jan. 2005, para. 25.

  32. 32.

    The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Award, (6 May 2013), para. 181.

  33. 33.

    UNCITRAL Rules, Article 26.

  34. 34.

    ICSID Rule 39.

  35. 35.

    Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Provisional Measures (8 May 2009), ¶ 39; See Biwater Gaff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 1, 31 March 2006; Rahim Moloo, Procedural Issues in International Investment Arbitration, 45.

  36. 36.

    Abaclat v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No. 11, 27 June 2012, paras. 16–17, 40.

  37. 37.

    Kang S (2020) Jurisdictional objections and defenses (Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, and Ratione Temporis). In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore

  38. 38.

    See Canada-Jordan BIT (2009), Article 15.4: “the Tribunal shall not require a Party to furnish or allow access to information the disclosure of which would impede law enforcement or would be contrary to the Party’s law protecting Cabinet confidences, personal privacy or the financial affairs and accounts of individual customers of financial institutions, or which it determines to be contrary to its essential security.” Also see USMCA, Article 32.2: “Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to: (a) require a Party to furnish or allow access to information the disclosure of which it determines to be contrary to its essential security interests ….”

  39. 39.

    IBA Rules, Article 9.2(f).

  40. 40.

    See Pope & Talbot v Canada, where the tribunal found the objection to production of a range of documents to be valid on the basis that “cabinet confidence” did protect state secrets, but rejecting the application of Canadian law in general to broaden the scope of privilege, explaining that it was inapplicable to an international arbitral tribunal. In the same vein, the arbitral tribunal in Biwater Gauff v Tanzania, rejected the state’s objection to the production of certain documents on the basis of “public interest immunity,” a principle set out under Tanzanian law, as Tanzanian law did not apply to the arbitral tribunal. Also see UPS Inc. v. Canada, Decision of the Tribunal Relating to Canada’s Claim of Cabinet Privilege (8 October 2004). Available at http://naftaclaims.com/Disputes/Canada/UPS/UPSDecisionReCabinetPrivilege.pdf para. 7. However, tribunals have also upheld States’ objections with regard to production of documents that were part of the government’s policy decision-making process (Glamis Gold, Ltd v. The United States of America, Decision on Objections to Document Production, July 20, 2005, paras. 24–25).

  41. 41.

    Chaisse J (2015) The issue of treaty shopping in international law of foreign investment – structuring (and restructuring) of investments to gain access to investment agreements. Hast Bus Law Rev 11(2):225–306

  42. 42.

    Lamb S, Pape S, Hamzi L, Scogings E (2018), Procedural issues. In: Global Arbitration Review (ed) The guide to damages in international arbitration, 2 edn. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1151333/procedural-issues, p 6

  43. 43.

    Lamb S, Pape S, Hamzi L, Scogings E (2018), Procedural issues. In: Global Arbitration Review (ed) The guide to damages in international arbitration, 2 edn. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1151333/procedural-issues, p 6

  44. 44.

    UNCITRAL Article 27(2);

  45. 45.

    https://www.ciarb.org/media/6824/partyappointedexpertsinternationalarbitration.pdf

  46. 46.

    Article 21.1 of the LCIA Rules; Article 29(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules.

  47. 47.

    Lamb S, Pape S, Hamzi L, Scogings E (2018), Procedural issues. In: Global Arbitration Review (ed) The guide to damages in international arbitration, 2 edn. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1151333/procedural-issues, p 10

  48. 48.

    See 2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process. http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2012_International_Arbitration_Survey.pdf, p 3

  49. 49.

    Siemens AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award dated 17 January 2007, p. 115, para. 360

  50. 50.

    National Grid plc v. The Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Award dated 3 November 2008, pages 12–13 paras. 47–49.

  51. 51.

    Lamb S, Pape S, Hamzi L, Scogings E (2018), Procedural issues. In: Global Arbitration Review (ed) The guide to damages in international arbitration, 2 edn. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1151333/procedural-issues, p 10

  52. 52.

    Both Ends Discussion Paper, The Mauritius Convention Boosting transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. Available at https://www.bothends.org/uploaded_files/document/LR_Mauritius_Convention.pdf

  53. 53.

    Methanex v. United States, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Petition for Amicus Standing of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (25 August 2000). See also United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Canada, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Application for Amicus Status of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Council of Canadians (20 October 2005), Application for Leave to File Submissions as Amicus Curiae of the United States Chamber of Commerce (20 October 2005), and Letter of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Council of Canadians Responding to UPS’s Observations Concerning Application for Amicus Curiae standing (3 November 2005); Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Quechan Indian Nation Application for Leave to File a Non-Party Submission (19 August 2005).

  54. 54.

    NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (31 July 2001). Available at http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/NAFTA-Interpr.aspx?lang=en

  55. 55.

    See Chaisse J, Donde R (2018) The state of investor-state arbitration – a reality check of the issues, trends, and directions in Asia-Pacific. Int Lawyer 51(1):47–67

  56. 56.

    ICSID Rule 37(2)(b).

  57. 57.

    Apotex Inc v. The Government of the United States (ICSID Case No. UNCT/10/2), Procedural Order No. 2, para. 34.

  58. 58.

    Apotex Inc v. The Government of the United States (ICSID Case No. UNCT/10/2), Procedural Order No. 2, para. 36.

  59. 59.

    Philip Morris v. Uruguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7), Award. Also see Biwater Gauf Ltd v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22), where the tribunal extensively referred to the amicus submission, thus showing certain contribution to the development of ISDS and investment law.

  60. 60.

    Butler N (2019) Non-disputing party participation in ICSID disputes: faux amici? Neth Int Law Rev 66:143–178, p 159

  61. 61.

    Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Canada (PCA Case No. 2012-17, Procedural Order No. 2, 18 January 2013, para. 16).

  62. 62.

    ICSID Convention, Article 41. See also Rule 45(5) of the Additional Facility Rules which provides that “[u]pon the formal raising of an objection relating to the dispute, the Tribunal may decide to suspend the proceedings on the merits.”

  63. 63.

    Article 44 of the ICSID Rules, Article 35 of the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, and Article 15.1 of the UNCITRAL Rules.

  64. 64.

    Suez and ors v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010, para. 245.

  65. 65.

    Commission J, Moloo R (eds) (2018) Procedural issues in international investment arbitration. Oxford International Arbitration Series, Oxford, p 80. See also the statement made by ICSID Secretary General, Meg Kinnear, in Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: an Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11 (2006): “In complex arbitrations, bifurcation allows the dispute parties and the tribunal to focus first on the merits of the case, to save costs and time and perhaps to settle on the quantum of damages or other discrete issues. It is especially useful to determine issues of jurisdiction or applicable law on a preliminary basis if they can be decided without tribunal fact-finding or on the basis of agreed-upon facts.”

  66. 66.

    Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States of America, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No. 2 (Revised), 31 May 2005, para 12.

  67. 67.

    Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Preliminary Award of Jurisdiction and Admissibility, pp. 86, 90.

  68. 68.

    OECD, Investor-State Dispute Settlement Public Consultation: 16 May–23 July 2012, 30 August 2012. Available at https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/ISDSconsultationcomments_web.pdf, p 23; ICSID (2014) ICSID annual report. available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/ICSID_AR14_ENG.pdf, p 30

  69. 69.

    Lamb S, Pape S, Hamzi L, Scogings E (2018) Procedural issues. In: Global Arbitration Review (ed) The guide to damages in international arbitration, 2 edn. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1151333/procedural-issues. See Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award dated 25 November 2015.

  70. 70.

    Greenwood L (2019) Revisiting bifurcation and efficiency in international arbitration proceedings. J Int Arbitr 36(4):421–430, pp 423–424

  71. 71.

    Pope & Talbot Inc v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Statement of Claim, paras. 96–104. SD Myers Inc v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Statement of Claim, para. 33; Second Partial Award, paras., 117–122.

  72. 72.

    Commission J, Moloo R (eds) (2018) Procedural issues in international investment arbitration. Oxford International Arbitration Series, Oxford, p 79.

  73. 73.

    ICSID Working Paper #4, proposed Rule 42. Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/WP_4_Vol_1_En.pdf

  74. 74.

    Yukos Universal Limited v Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No AA. 227

  75. 75.

    The Hague District Court, Russian Federation v. Hulley Enterprises Limited et al, Pleading Notes Prof. A.J. Van den Berg, February 9, 2016, paras. 105–106. Available at http://res.cloudinary.com/lbresearch/image/upload/v1455205591/rf_pleading_notes_9_february_2016_final_edited_111116_1546.pdf

  76. 76.

    Id.

  77. 77.

    P v Q [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm) 68

  78. 78.

    https://www.arbitration-icca.org/publications/Young_ICCA_Guide_on_Arbitral_Secretaries.html

  79. 79.

    Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the, Award rendered on 20 August 2007, Additional Opinion of Professor JH Dalhuisen under Article 48(4) of the ICSID Convention, paras. 5–26.

  80. 80.

    Parra A (1998) The role of the ICSID secretariat in the administration of arbitration proceedings under the ICSID convention. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 13(1):85–100, p 86

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arbitration Chambers, Hong Kong, China

    Chiann Bao

Authors
  1. Chiann Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiann Bao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. School of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Bao, C. (2020). Arbitral Procedure: Case Management and Selecting the Place of Arbitration. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_65-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_65-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation