Commercial parties choose to resolve their disputes by international arbitration for many reasons, including greater confidentiality, a neutral forum, and increased control over the selection of decision-makers. Until recently, however, parties were required to go to national courts to request interim measures of protection—such as security, asset freezes, or orders for the protection of evidence—before the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.
In response to a perceived need for a mechanism for awarding interim relief within the arbitral system itself (rather than national courts), in 2006 the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) incorporated emergency arbitrator proceedings into its rules. In the following nine years, almost every major international arbitration institution has followed suit.1 Emergency arbitrator provisions are now the norm, including for new entrants in the field.2 Were these amendments a response to a genuine need for emergency relief in international arbitration? Are emergency arbitrators being used, and are their decisions enforceable?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
