Comparison of Icsid and Uncitral-Based Arbitration

3733 Words15 Pages
Differences between ICSID an UNCITRAL Rules Created in 1966, and after a slow start, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (hereinafter, ICSID) has grown more and more popular, to finally become the leading framework for investment arbitration. But other fora of non-ICSID arbitration exist. Among them, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (hereinafter, UNCITRAL) Rules have had a “substantial influence on the development of arbitral practice 1” and many tribunals have adopted these rules as their own. And the ICSID has became the main target of the doctrine who speaks of a “backlash against investment arbitration”. Thus, some have started advising picking the UNCITRAL Rules over the ICSID ones. But can we say that the mighty ICSID was dethroned by the UNCITRAL? Instead of rushing into a decision, one might be well advised to conduct a careful comparison of both systems – which share many similarities but also major differences. For this purpose, this essay will first consider the length and costs of both proceedings before moving on to transparency and confidentiality issues that do not permit to conclude whether the ICSID could loose its position. This essay will conclude with an analysis of the enforcement and review systems. Before starting, it would be good to underline that, although arbitration can be conducted under the ICSID's additional facility rules, this essay deals with the ICSID Convention only, and this issue will therefore be left out. *** The issue of time brings us to consider the length for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. Articles 37(1) of the ICSID Convention (hereinafter, the Convention) encourages parties to constitute the tribunal fast so that they won't use delaying tactics, but there are indications that ICSID arbitrations has lately become both costly and lengthy2. A problem crops up
Open Document