Emergency Arbitration In International Commercial Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis Of Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong And India
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 hours ago
- 1 min read
G R Swastiga, Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli
CHPATER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The idea of emergency arbitration has developed as an important invention in international commercial arbitration, allowing parties to get interim relief in front of the main arbitral tribunal. It discusses an age-old loophole in arbitration mechanism, meaning the necessity for rapid defensive procedures when the subject matter of a dispute is at jeopardy of getting harmed badly prior to the commencement of proceedings. By assigning an emergency arbitrator (EA), arbitral institutions can give exclusive remedy to maintain the status quo, stop asset misappropriation or protect evidence till the tribunal is established completely.
In over 20 years, emergency arbitration has been brought into the procedural rules of leading arbitral centres like the ICC, SIAC, SCC and HKIAC. Yet, the acknowledgement and enforceability of EA orders is mainly based on the nationwide statute and judicial method of each jurisdiction. In the Indian setting, subsequent to the 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act and the Supreme Court’s judgement in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. (2021)1, the legal status of emergency arbitration has perceived gradual development, nonetheless practical and legislative gap still continues to persist. A comparative study with established arbitration hubs offers insights for strengthening India’s system.
For this purpose, Singapore, Sweden, and Hong Kong have been selected as the focus jurisdictions due to their outstanding international reputation, proven effectiveness in EA proceedings, and institutional recognition in global arbitration rankings:
