Conference programme

Emergency arbitration has become a widely adopted mechanism in institutional arbitration rules, offering parties an expedited route to obtain urgent interim relief before a tribunal is constituted. More than a decade has passed since major arbitral institutions first incorporated emergency arbitration procedures into their rules. This panel will reflect on how emergency arbitration has been used by parties and administered by institutions, exploring pros and cons, frequent challenges and recurring issues. It will also examine how expectations surrounding emergency arbitration are evolving, and whether the mechanism continues to serve its intended purpose effectively.

This Oxford-style panel will delve into two issues, with a panellist defending the motion and the other rebutting it.

Motion one: ‘This house believes that specialised arbitration rules or protocols tailored to specific types of disputes are useful and more effective in delivering just outcomes.’

In recent years, arbitral institutions have introduced specialised arbitration rules tailored to specific types of disputes – such as insolvency-related disputes, artificial intelligence (AI) disputes and e-sports disputes. Some of these rules are accompanied by panels of specialised arbitrators. While it remains to be seen whether these developments will play a more prominent role in the future of arbitration, the panellists will consider whether these initiatives are a sign of progress or a step too far.
 
Motion two: ‘This house believes that the current framework of international arbitration is (in)adequate to address allegations of corruption in cross-border commercial disputes.’

Once typically confined to investor–State disputes, corruption allegations are now increasingly common in commercial arbitration as well. In this debate, the speakers will examine the key challenges arbitrators face when addressing such allegations – including the appropriate standard of proof, how to handle these claims in a manner that preserves the enforceability of the award, the approach to taking evidence and the consideration that must (or can) be given to findings or rulings from criminal proceedings.