ICC Arbitration Rules

ICC Arbitration Rules
Name	ICC Arbitration Rules
Established	1922
Jurisdiction	International Chamber of Commerce
Type	International commercial arbitration rules
Headquarters	Paris
Parent organization	International Chamber of Commerce

Contents

ICC Arbitration Rules The ICC Arbitration Rules are a set of procedural regulations issued by the International Chamber of Commerce to govern arbitration under the International Court of Arbitration; they provide mechanisms for appointment of arbitrators, conduct of proceedings, and award enforcement while interacting with institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the European Union, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and national courts like the Cour de cassation (France), the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. They shape arbitral practice alongside instruments including the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention and domestic statutes such as the Federal Arbitration Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

History and development

The Rules originated in the early twentieth century when the International Chamber of Commerce established the International Court of Arbitration in the aftermath of World War I and during the interwar period influenced by actors such as Gustave Ador and institutions like the League of Nations. Major revisions occurred in 1955, 1975, 1998, 2012 and 2017 reflecting developments after events such as the Cold War, the expansion of European Union internal markets, and the emergence of arbitration centers including the London Court of International Arbitration and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. Influential arbitrators and scholars—figures like Julian Lew, Albert Jan van den Berg, Gary Born, Jan Paulsson, and Emilios Christodoulidis—shaped revisions alongside courts such as the Cour d'appel de Paris and the Federal Court of Australia. The Rules’ evolution paralleled treaty negotiations in forums like the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and case law from the International Court of Justice and domestic decisions from the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland and the High Court of Singapore.

The Rules apply when parties incorporate them by reference in contracts, awards, or submission agreements alongside laws such as the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and they interact with institutional frameworks like the World Bank procurement rules, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development guidelines, and state arbitral regimes including the Code civil (France) and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. They govern disputes involving corporate entities such as Siemens, Vodafone, Shell, and BP, state-owned enterprises like Petrobras and Rosneft, and multinationals active across jurisdictions including China, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Brazil, and Australia. Application issues have been contested in cases before tribunals associated with institutions such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the ICSID, and national courts including the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany).

The Rules provide procedures for initiation of arbitration, constitution of the tribunal, preliminary conferences, case management conferences, document production, witness statements, expert reports, hearings, confidentiality, and issuance of awards, touching on standards present in instruments like the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and influenced by decisions from the International Court of Justice. Provisions address appointment of sole arbitrators or panels, the role of the ICC Court of Arbitration in scrutinizing awards, deadlines consistent with norms from the European Convention on Human Rights, disqualification grounds tied to precedents such as rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States and the Cour de cassation (France), and evidentiary matters that mirror practice at institutions like the London Court of International Arbitration and the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. Rules also reference emergency measures comparable to those in the UNCITRAL Rules and interaction with enforcement regimes under the New York Convention and domestic courts such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Recent iterations introduced emergency arbitrator procedures and clarified provisional measures to align with practices at centers like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, and the American Arbitration Association. The emergency arbitrator mechanism has been the subject of litigation in national venues including the High Court of Singapore, the Cour d'appel de Paris, the Federal Court of Australia, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and has influenced treaty arbitration contexts such as ICSID proceedings. Provisional measures interplay with injunctive relief sought in courts like the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany), and have been applied in disputes involving companies such as Glencore, TotalEnergies, and ENI.

The Rules set a schedule for administrative fees and arbitrator fees calculated with reference to the amount in dispute and comparable scales used by the London Court of International Arbitration and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The ICC Court of Arbitration exercises discretion in appointment and challenges, coordinating with national courts when enforcement or annulment is sought before tribunals such as the Cour de cassation (France), the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court of India. Cost allocation provisions and security for costs have been litigated in contexts involving firms such as Baker McKenzie, Skadden, Freshfields, and White & Case and adjudicated in cases before the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Singapore.

The 2017 revision and subsequent updates responded to global developments after events including the Global Financial Crisis (2007–2008) and technological advances highlighted by institutions like the World Economic Forum and companies such as IBM and Microsoft. Amendments introduced expedited procedures, clarified emergency arbitrator rules, refined cost provisions, and addressed electronic communications in line with standards from the UNCITRAL Model Law and the European Union digital initiatives. Stakeholders including ICC National Committees, prominent arbitration practitioners from firms like Clifford Chance and Latham & Watkins, and academics associated with universities such as Harvard University, University of Oxford, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, and National University of Singapore contributed to reforms.