Emergency arbitration: Mere innovation or vast improvement

Abstract

Effectiveness of emergency arbitration is a disputable question, which was touched by several commentators since it was first introduced in 2006. Concerns have been raised in relation to the enforceability of emergency reliefs under the New York Convention and the risk of concurrent jurisdiction between emergency arbitrators and national courts in granting interim measures prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. A more specific concern is related to the suitability of introducing this mechanism, to investment arbitration. This article argues that adopting an international instrument for enforcing emergency reliefs will be the best solution. As for investment arbitration, emergency arbitrators are no less important in this type of arbitration than in commercial arbitration. However, certain features of emergency arbitration shall be tailored to meet the distinct nature of investment cases. Although certain amendments are needed to enhance the effectiveness of this relatively new mechanism, the future of emergency arbitrator is still optimistic. Therefore, to avoid any duplication of fora, courts are expected to respect emergency arbitrator’s jurisdiction and only intervene when the latter is not capable of granting a relief.