Can national arbitral institutions find a place under the sun in the international arbitration market?

• the digitalisation of the entire proceedings, from the submission of the arbitration request to the issuance of the award.
• the consolidation of complex multiparty and/or multi-contract proceedings into a single proceeding provided, however, that all the parties have consented to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.
• the modifications of the Emergency Proceedings (“EP”) to limit the exchange of memoranda and exhibits to a single written submission for each party (for those of you not familiar with the CMAP rules the delay to issue an award from the tribunal’s constitution is of 3 months only when EP are applicable – the EP are applicable subject to the consent of all parties).
  the interconnection of the new CMAP rules and the Emergency Decision Rules for arbitration agreements concluded after 1 January 2022 (in the absence of opt out provisions), thus boldly excluding any parallel requests for interim relief before state courts (provided however that such an exclusion is authorised under the applicable law).
• the possibility for the arbitral tribunal to be constituted, if the funds provided by one of the parties are deemed sufficient to move forward despite the other party’s default.
• the introduction of a faculty of the arbitral tribunal to take “all appropriate measures” to prevent the occurrence of conflict of interests during the course of the arbitral proceedings, specifically through the addition or replacement of the parties’ counsels.
• the introduction of an obligation to disclose any recourse to third-party funding.

A more complete review of the above-mentioned revisions to CMAP Rules may be found here.