Arbitration: agreement, tribunal, procedure and award
Arbitration: agreement, tribunal, procedure and award
This domain tests the legal spine of arbitration: a valid agreement, a properly constituted tribunal, fair procedure, and a final award that can be enforced. It also tests the difference between the seat, the venue, the institution and the governing law.
Core rules
- Arbitration agreement: usually in writing; may be a clause or separate agreement; governs scope, seat, number of arbitrators, language and institutional rules.
- Separability and kompetenz-kompetenz: the clause can survive termination of the main contract, and the tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction, subject to court control.
- Tribunal: appointed by parties, institutions or courts; arbitrators must be independent and impartial and disclose conflicts; challenge and removal procedures apply.
- Procedure: party autonomy subject to mandatory law and due process; pleadings, document production, witness evidence, hearings, experts; equal treatment and a right to be heard.
- Award: final and binding, usually reasoned; remedies and costs; setting aside at the seat and enforcement elsewhere under the New York Convention.
Worked example
A clause states: 'Disputes shall be finally settled by arbitration in London under the ICC Rules.' The seat is London, so English arbitration law governs matters such as stay of proceedings, setting aside and supportive court powers. The venue of hearings may be elsewhere. The ICC administers the case and its rules govern procedure, but the rules are not a national law. The tribunal makes a final award. If the losing party resists enforcement in another Convention state, that court may refuse enforcement only on limited grounds, such as invalid agreement, lack of due process, excess of jurisdiction or public policy; it does not review the merits.
Traps
- Confusing seat with venue or institution.
- Saying institutional rules override mandatory law at the seat.
- Thinking an arbitration clause is invalid because the main contract is challenged.
- Assuming 'final' means no challenge at all; setting aside remains possible.
- Missing that enforcement under the New York Convention is not a full appeal.