It is important to distinguish the seat of arbitration from the place of the hearing:3 whereas the first one is a purely legal notion, with its own set of consequences (see below), the latter is an operational (and geographical) choice. Practically, the parties may choose one country and its arbitration laws as the procedural law of the arbitration, but hold hearings and all other remaining activities in a different country without ever setting foot in the country chosen as the seat.
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, Reasons for the Tribunal's Decision on the Place of Arbitration, 31 December 2001, para. 2; Cases Regarding the Border Closure due to BSE Concerns v. United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2 Regarding the Place of the Hearing on the Preliminary Issue, para. 3.1; Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, Decision on the Place of Arbitration, 13 December 2007, 7 November 2006, para. 17; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. A.14.
ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1, Procedural Order No. 2 Concerning the Place of Arbitration, 11 July 2001, para. 21; Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Procedural Order No. 1 (Place of Arbitration), 03 Apr 2000, para. 4; Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/2, Procedural Order No. 2, para. 26; United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS) v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Decision of the Tribunal on the Place of Arbitration, 17 October 2001, para. 17; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. Government of Canada (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4, Procedural Order No. 1 (Decision of the Tribunal on the Place of Arbitration), 7 October 2009, para. 35.
The parties are generally free to agree on the seat of arbitration.4 Under some rare arbitration rules, the choice of the parties is limited.5 For instance, the ICSID Additional Facility Rules (2006) limit the choice of place of arbitration to the States parties to the New York Convention.6
Failing an agreement between the parties, the seat may be determined by the arbitral tribunal or the administering arbitral institution, in accordance with and subject to the arbitration rules chosen by the parties.7 However, the ICSID Arbitration Rules provide that the Tribunal shall meet at the seat of ICSID, Washington, D.C., failing agreement between the parties to the contrary.8
LCIA Rules of Arbitration, 2014, Art. 16.2; LCIA Rules of Arbitration, 2020, Article 16.2; ICDR Rules of Arbitration, 2014, Art. 17(1); ICC Arbitration Rules, 2017, Art. 18(1); ICC Arbitration Rules, 2021, Art. 18(1); SCC Rules of Arbitration, 2017, Art. 25(1); UNCITRAL Rules, 2010, Art. 18(1); UNCITRAL Model Law, 2006, Art. 20.1; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Final Award, 21 December 2020, para. 645; State Development Corporation "VEB.RF" v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 2019/113 and V2019/088, Partial Award on Preliminary Objections (Case No. V2019/088), 31 January 2021, paras. 17-19.
The ICSID Additional Facility Rules of 2022 no longer limit the choice of forum to the New York Convention.
ICSID Additional Facility Rules, Art. 19; Frauke Nitschke and Kamel Aït-El-Hadj, “Determining the Place of Arbitration in ICSID Additional Facility Proceedings”, ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, Volume 30, Issue 1, Winter 2015, pp. 243–59; Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Venue of the Arbitration, 26 September 2001, para. 5.
The procedural law of the arbitration (lex arbitri) is an outer framework of the arbitration proceedings. Lex arbitri deals with a range of issues, but there are opinions that it mostly provides a “gap-filling” mechanism, absent parties’ agreement or specific provisions in the applicable arbitration rules. Seeing that the choice of the seat may ultimately determine whether the award is enforceable or not, the importance of a proper choice of lex arbitri is imperative, as it deals with the following:
See further Applicable law to the proceedings.
Exceptionally, arbitrations under the ICSID Convention are self-contained.9 The choice of the seat of the arbitration is a matter of pure convenience and carries no legal consequences10 contrary to non-ICSID arbitrations.
Noble Energy, Inc. and Machalapower Cia. Ltda. v. The Republic of Ecuador and Consejo Nacional de Electricidad, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 5 March 2008, para. 228; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Decision on Application for Disqualification of Counsel, 18 September 2008, para. 36.
Apart from the legal aspects of the choice of seat, certain practical aspects can be taken into consideration when choosing a seat of arbitration,11 such as: the role and attitude of the local courts in terms of supervision and assistance,12 implementation of the New York Convention to maximise enforceability,13 geographical location of the subject-matter in dispute,14 ease of transport15 and suitable facilities (i.e. proximity of evidence, costs).16
For example, many bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have a provision which indirectly determines the place of arbitration, by stating that it should be in a State that is a party to the New York Convention.17 Other BITs specifically provide that the place of arbitration shall be a specific place, such as Paris,18 Stockholm,19 The Hague,20 etc.
Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Estonia for the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, adopted the 19 April 1994, Art. VI(5); Kuwait - Portugal BIT (2007), adopted the 23 July 2007, Art. 9.6(b); Sweden - Ukraine BIT (1995), adopted the 15 August 1995, Art. 8.4; Austria - Mexico BIT (1998), adopted on 29 June 1998, Art. 15; Belarus - Mexico BIT (2008), adopted on 4 September 2008, Art. 17.
UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings, p. 10, para. 22; Ethyl Corporation v. The Government of Canada, Tribunal’s Decision on the Place of Arbitration, 28 November 1997, para. 6; Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, Reasons for the Tribunal's Decision on the Place of Arbitration, 31 December 2000, para. 5; United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Decision of the Tribunal on the Place of Arbitration, 17 October 2001, para. 6; Vito G. Gallo v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2008-03, Decision on Place of Arbitration, 4 June 2008, para. 14.
ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1, Procedural Order No. 2 Concerning the Place of Arbitration, 11 July 2001, paras. 18-20; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. Government of Canada (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4, Procedural Order No. 1 (Decision of the Tribunal on the Place of Arbitration), 7 October 2009, para. 14; Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Venue of the Arbitration, 26 September 2001, para. 13; United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Decision of the Tribunal on the Place of Arbitration, 17 October 2001, para. 14; Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, the Written Reason for the Tribunal's Decision of 7th September 2000 on the Place of the Arbitration, 21 December 2000, para. 32; Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 3 regarding the Place of Arbitration, 26 October 2012, para. 40.
Already registered ?