Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

I. INTRODUCTION
Initially, the power to determine the prevailing procedural
rules belongs exclusively to the parties and so it is the parties
themselves who establish the foundations of their arbitration
even before the controversy has arisen, either expressly or by
reference to institutional arbitration rules or national legislation
on arbitration. It is widely accepted in most institutional and
national arbitral rules that there is a broad power conferred upon
the arbitral tribunal, according to which the arbitrator may lead
the procedure by determining the best suitable provisions to
conduct the arbitration.
This possibility to adjust and maneuver the procedural rules
of the arbitration in order to achieve better results concerning the
outcome of the case is vital when conducting the proceeding itself,
but it becomes even more important in cases where the arbitral
tribunal faces special circumstances and even obstacles, which
impede the continuance of the arbitration and simultaneously do
not allow the tribunal to terminate it prematurely. Accordingly,
the discretionary power conferred upon the arbitral tribunal to
decide on the procedure’s continuance or suspension has been
widely recognized.
Consequently, the suspension of the arbitral proceeding is
ultimately the tribunal’s decision. Normally parties do not agree
on a special provision referring to the suspension of a proceeding,
given that they are aware that the power to rule on this issue is
encompassed within the broad discretion of the arbitral tribunal
to conduct the arbitration. Under this perspective, the suspension
is not only a faculty comprehended within the tribunal’s wide