Commercial parties choose to resolve their disputes by international arbitration for many reasons, including greater confidentiality, a neutral forum, and increased control over the selection of decision-makers. Until recently, however, parties were required to go to national courts to request interim measures of protection—such as security, asset freezes, or orders for the protection of evidence—before the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.
In response to a perceived need for a mechanism for awarding interim relief within the arbitral system itself (rather than national courts), in 2006 the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) incorporated emergency arbitrator proceedings into its rules. In the following nine years, almost every major international arbitration institution has followed suit.1 Emergency arbitrator provisions are now the norm, including for new entrants in the field.2 Were these amendments a response to a genuine need for emergency relief in international arbitration? Are emergency arbitrators being used, and are their decisions enforceable?
