The New SCC Emergency Arbitrator Rules - Chapter 33 - Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Franke
Patricia Shaughnessy is an Associate Professor and Supervisor of the Master of International Commercial Arbitration Law program at the Department of Law, Stockholm University. She is also a member of the Board of the SCC Institute.
Originally from Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Franke
Under the leadership of Ulf Franke, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) has experienced exponential growth and has become a leader in the global arbitration community. The SCC has developed modern procedures for effectively administering arbitration and in 2007 updated its rules to ensure that its rules reflect international best practices and cater to its users. On 1 January 2010 the SCC launched a new procedure that makes it possible to obtain emergency relief prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and even prior to the commencement of arbitral proceedings. This new procedure provides SCC users an opportunity to obtain early interim measures that will ensure the efficacy of an eventual arbitral award. This article discusses the new procedure, called the “Emergency Arbitrator Rules” (the Emergency Rules). By providing a new form and forum for obtaining interim measures, the Emergency Rules will contribute to the development of arbitration as a “stand-alone” system of dispute resolution. The new Emergency Rules may also contribute to the ongoing controversy that has surrounded the development of legislation and rules dealing with interim measures in the context of arbitration.
A. Arbitral Interim Measures Impact the Development of Arbitration
Arbitration has become widely accepted by the business and legal communities around the globe, as well as by policy makers, legislators, and judges. As arbitration has grown in use, arbitral proceedings have grown more complicated, costly, combative, and time-consuming. Arbitration has also “grown up” to become a full-fledged competitor to litigation and its users increasingly want and expect it to provide a “standalone”, full-service system of adjudication.