Explanatory Note to the UNCITRAL
Expedited Arbitration Rules
1. Expedited arbitration is a streamlined and simplified pro-
cedure with a shortened time frame, which makes it possible
for the parties to reach a final resolution of the dispute in a
cost- and time-effective manner. The UNCITRAL Expedited
Arbitration Rules (hereinafter the “Expedited Rules”) provide
a set of rules which parties may agree for expedited arbitration.
The Expedited Rules balance on the one hand, the efficiency
of the arbitral proceedings and on the other, the need to preserve
due process and fair treatment.
2. Article 1(5) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (herein-
after the “UARs”) incorporates the Expedited Rules, which are
presented as an appendix to the UARs. The phrase “where the
parties so agree” in that paragraph emphasizes the need for
the parties’ express consent for the Expedited Rules to apply
to the arbitration.
3. In the following, any reference to “article(s)” is to that in
the Expedited Rules, unless otherwise expressly indicated.
A. Scope of application
Article 1
4. Article 1 provides that express consent of the parties is
required for the application of the Expedited Rules.
5. Parties are free to agree on the application of the Expedited
Rules at any time even after the dispute has arisen (see model
arbitration clause in the annex to the Expedited Rules). For
example, parties that had concluded an arbitration agreement
or had initiated arbitration under the UARs before the effective
date of the Expedited Rules (19 September 2021) can sub-
sequently agree to refer their dispute to arbitration under the
Expedited Rules. Likewise, a party may propose to the other
party or parties that the Expedited Rules shall apply to the
arbitration.
6. However, parties should be mindful of the consequences
when changing from non-expedited to expedited arbitration. For
example, a notice of arbitration communicated in accordance
with article 3 of the UARs might not meet the requirements in
article 4 of the Expedited Rules, whereby the claimant has to
communicate proposals for the designation of an appointing
authority and for the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the parties to agree on how such require-
ments could be met, should they agree to refer their dispute to
arbitration under the Expedited Rules after the proceedings had
begun. Similarly, if a three-member arbitral tribunal was con-
stituted in accordance with the UARs, the parties may wish to
consider appointing a sole arbitrator in accordance with article
8. If the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is changed, the
parties may also need consider the status of statements and
evidence submitted to the former tribunal.
7. Article 1 provides that the UARs generally apply to
ex pedited arbitration, unless and as modified by the Expedited
Rules. The phrase “as modified by these Expedited Rules”
means that rules in the UARs and the Expedited Rules need to
be read in conjunction for the proper conduct of the proceed-
ings. The rules in the UARs are either supplemented or replaced
by those in the Expedited Rules. For the avoidance of doubt,
the footnote to article 1 provides a list of articles in the UARs
that would not apply in the context of expedited arbitration.
However, parties retain the flexibility to tailor the rules to their
proceedings.
8. As the Expedited Rules are presented as an appendix to the
UARs, reference to “the Rules” or “these Rules” in the UARs
(see articles 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 2(6), 4(2), 6(3), 6(4), 6(5), 10(3),
17(1), 17(2), 30(1), 30(2), 32 and 41(4)(b) of the UARs) include
the Expedited Rules in the context of expedited arbitration.
9. In relation to article 1(2) of the UARs, parties to an arbitra-
tion agreement concluded before the entry into force of the
Expedited Rules will not be presumed to have referred their
dispute to the Expedited Rules, even though the Expedited
Rules are presented as an appendix to the UARs. This is
because the Expedited Rules only apply when so expressly
agreed by the parties. On the other hand, if a subsequent version
of the Expedited Rules were to be prepared, article 1(2) of the
UARs would apply, which means that the Expedited Rules in
effect on the date of commencement of the expedited arbitration
would apply, unless the parties have agreed on the current or
any other version of the Expedited Rules.
Article 2
10. Even when the parties had initially agreed to refer their
dispute to arbitration under the Expedited Rules, the circum-
stances may be such that the Expedited Rules are not appropri-
ate to resolve the particular dispute. Article 2 addresses such
circumstances, with paragraph 1 allowing parties to agree to
withdraw from expedited arbitration.
11. In accordance with paragraph 2, a party that had agreed
to refer the dispute to arbitration under the Expedited Rules
may subsequently request withdrawal from expedited arbitra-
tion, when the circumstances evolved in a manner that would
make expedited arbitration no longer suitable for resolving the
dispute (see also para. 91 below). While there is no time limit
within which a party can request withdrawal, the arbitral tribu-
nal should consider at which stage of the proceedings the
request is being made.
12. The phrase “in exceptional circumstances” means that the
party requesting withdrawal should provide convincing and jus-
tified reasons for the request and that the arbitral tribunal should
uphold the request only in certain circumstances. It introduces
a high threshold for allowing a unilateral withdrawal from expe-
dited arbitration.
13. When making the determination, the arbitral tribunal
should consider whether the Expedited Rules are no longer
appropriate for the resolution of the dispute. It may wish to
take into account, among others, the following:
– The urgency of resolving the dispute;
– The stage of the proceedings at which the request is made;
– The complexity of the dispute (for example, the anticipated
volume of documentary evidence and the number of
witnesses);
– The anticipated amount in dispute (the sum of claims made
in the notice of arbitration, any counterclaim made in the
response thereto as well as any amendment or supplement);
– The terms of the parties’ agreement to expedited arbitration
and whether the current circumstances were foreseeable at
the time of the agreement; and
– The consequences of the determination on the
proceedings.
14. The above is a non-exhaustive list of elements that can
be taken into account and it would not be necessary for the
arbitral tribunal to consider all the elements therein.
15. When making the determination, the arbitral tribunal, in
accordance with article 17(1) of the UARs, may decide that the
Expedited Rules in their entirety would no longer apply or that
certain articles would no longer apply to the arbitration. When
deciding that certain articles of the Expedited Rules would no
longer apply, the arbitral tribunal should make clear to the par-
ties how the arbitration would be conducted and on the basis
of which articles.
16. If the arbitral tribunal is not yet constituted, the determina-
tion would need to be made after it is constituted. However, if
the parties are not able to reach an agreement on the arbitrator
or if there is a disagreement between the parties on (i) whether
the Expedited Rules apply or (ii) whether the criteria in the
arbitration agreement triggering the application of the Expedited
Rules are met, the appointing authority may be involved in
constituting the arbitral tribunal in accordance with article 10(3)
of the UARs. The appointing authority will make a prima facie
decision on whether the arbitration would be conducted under
the Expedited Rules. However, the ultimate determination on
the application of the Expedited Rules would be left to the
arbitral tribunal.
17. When the Expedited Rules no longer apply to the arbitration
pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2, the arbitral tribunal shall conduct
the arbitration in accordance with the UARs. However, this does
not mean that the arbitral tribunal, if already constituted, would
have to be re-constituted in accordance with the UARs. Instead,
the arbitral tribunal shall remain in place in accordance with
paragraph 3. There may, however, be instances where the parties
agree to replace an arbitrator or reconstitute the arbitral tribunal.
There may also be instances where the arbitrator resigns, for
example, if the arbitrator appointed under the Expedited Rules
believes that his or her schedule of future commitments does not
allow for the conduct of non-expedited arbitration.
18. Unless the arbitral tribunal decides otherwise, the non-
expedited proceeding should resume at the stage where the
expedited proceeding was when the parties agreed to withdraw
or the arbitral tribunal made the determination. Decisions made
during the expedited proceeding should remain applicable to
the non-expedited proceedings, unless the arbitral tribunal
decides to depart from its earlier decisions or from a decision
made by the previous tribunal.
B. General provision on expedited arbitration
19. Considering that a fair and efficient resolution of the dis-
pute is a common goal of arbitration under both the UARs and
the Expedited Rules, article 3 highlights the expeditious nature
of the proceedings under the Expedited Rules and emphasizes
the obligation of the parties and the arbitral tribunal to act
expeditiously.
20. Paragraph 1 is a reminder to parties that when referring
their dispute to arbitration under the Expedited Rules, they are
agreeing to cooperate in ensuring the efficiency of the proceed-
ing as well as for a swift resolution of the dispute, particularly
in an ad hoc setting where there is no administering institution
to further expedite the process.
21. Paragraph 2 should be read along with article 17(1) of the
UARs. Therefore, arbitral tribunals in expedited arbitration have
the same duty to conduct the proceedings so as to avoid unnec-
essary delay and expense and to provide a fair and efficient
process to resolve the dispute. The arbitral tribunal should also
comply with any due process requirements.
22. When conducting arbitration under the Expedited Rules,
arbitral tribunals should be mindful of the objectives of the
Expedited Rules, of the parties’ intentions and expectations
when they chose the Expedited Rules and of the time frames
therein, particularly those in article 16 with regard to the render-
ing of the award. The annex to the Expedited Rules includes a
model statement which parties could request the arbitrator to
add to the statement of independence. The model statement
highlights that the arbitrator would conduct the arbitration expe-
ditiously and in accordance with the time frames in the UARs
and the Expedited Rules.
23. Designating and appointing authorities as well as arbitral
institutions administering arbitration under the Expedited Rules
should also be mindful of the objectives of the Expedited Rules
as well as any applicable time frames (see para. 58 below).
24. Paragraph 3 emphasizes the discretion provided to the
arbitral tribunal to make use of a wide range of technological
means to conduct the proceeding, including when communicat-
ing with the parties and when holding consultations and hear-
ings. It also mentions that consultations and hearings can be
held without the physical presence of the participants and in
different locations. The inclusion of such a rule in the Expedited
Rules does not imply that the use of technological means is
available to arbitral tribunals only in expedited arbitration. The
rule aims to assist the arbitral tribunal in streamlining the pro-
ceedings and avoiding unnecessary delay and expense, both of
which are in line with the objectives of expedited arbitration.
The arbitral tribunal should be mindful that the use of techno-
logical means is subject to the rules in the UARs to provide
for a fair proceeding and to give each party a reasonable oppor-
tunity to present its case. Thus, the arbitral tribunal should also
be mindful of any due process requirements. In that light, the
arbitral tribunal should give the parties an opportunity to express
their views on the use of such technological means and consider
the overall circumstances of the case, including whether such
technological means are at the disposal of the parties.
C. Notice of arbitration, response thereto, statements
of claim and defence
Article 4
25. Article 4 addresses the initiation of recourse to arbitration
by the claimant and modifies articles 3(4) and 20(1) of the UARs.
26. Two elements, which are optional under article 3(4) of the
UARs, are required in the notice of arbitration under the Expe-
dited Rules. This is to facilitate the speedy constitution of the
arbitral tribunal in expedited arbitration. In accordance with
paragraph 1, the claimant is required to propose an appointing
authority (unless the parties have previously agreed thereon)
and the appointment of the arbitrator. It is important for the
claimant to include such information in its notice of arbitration
because the 15-day time frames in articles 6 and 8 begin with
the receipt by the respondent of the respective proposals.
27. A proposal for the appointment of the arbitrator does not
mean that a party needs to put forward the name of the arbitra-
tor; rather, a party may suggest a list of suitable candidates or
qualifications, or a mechanism to be used by the parties for
agreeing on the arbitrator. This would also cater for cases where
the parties agreed to more than one arbitrator in expedited
arbitration.
28. To further expedite the process, paragraph 2 requires the
claimant to communicate its statement of claim along with its
notice of arbitration. This modifies the rule in article 20(1) of
the UARs, which provides that the statement of claim should
be communicated within a period of time to be determined by
the arbitral tribunal.
29. In summary, when initiating recourse to expedited arbitra-
tion, the claimant needs to include the following in its notice
of arbitration and the statement of claim:
– A demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration (UARs
art. 3(3)(a));
– The names and contact details of the parties (UARs arts.
3(3)(b) and 20(2)(a));
– Identification of the arbitration agreement that is invoked
(UARs art. 3(3)(c)) and a copy thereof (UARs art. 20(3));
– Identification of any contract or other legal instrument out
of or in relation to which the dispute arises (UARs art. 3(3)
(d)) and a copy thereof (UARs art. 20(3)) – in the absence
of such contract or instrument, a brief description of the rel-
evant relationship (UARs art. 3(3)(d));
– A brief description of the claim and an indication of the
amount involved, if any (UARs art. 3(3)(e));
– The relief or remedy sought (UARs arts. 3(3)(f) and 20(2)
(d));
– A proposal as to the language and place of arbitration, if
the parties have not previously agreed thereon (UARs art.
3(3)(g));
– A proposal for the designation of an appointing authority,
unless the parties have previously agreed thereon (Expedited
Rules art. 4(1)(a));
– A proposal for the appointment of an arbitrator (Expedited
Rules art. 4(1)(b));
– A statement of the facts supporting the claim (UARs art.
20(2)(b));
– The points at issue (UARs art. 20(2)(c));
– The legal grounds or arguments supporting the claim
(UARs art. 20(2)(e)); and
– As far as possible, all documents and other evidence relied
upon by the claimant, or references to them (UARs art.
20(4)).
30. In light of article 7 which provides a default rule of a sole
arbitrator, the claimant would not need to propose the number
of arbitrators in its notice of arbitration, unless it wishes to
suggest the constitution of an arbitral tribunal of more than one
arbitrator.
31. With respect to the last item on the above list, the objec-
tive is to require the presentation of the complete case for the
sake of efficiency. It does not, however, mean that all evidence
has to be communicated at this stage, which may be burden-
some and counterproductive. This is highlighted by the words
“as far as possible” and the claimant may decide to make refer-
ence to the evidence to be relied upon. For example, witness
statements need not be submitted at this stage. The claimant
could instead identify in its statement of claim: (i) any witness
whose testimony it would rely on; (ii) the subject matter of the
testimony; and (iii) any subject matter for which the claimant
intends to submit expert reports. It would be preferable to deter-
mine which evidence is to be submitted during the consultation
between the arbitral tribunal and the parties (see para. 62 below).
32. The claimant may elect to treat its notice of arbitration as
its statement of claim, as long as the notice of arbitration com-
plies with the requirement of the statement of claim (see second
sentence of article 20(1) of the UARs). In that case, the claimant
would be communicating a single document combining its
notice of arbitration and statement of claim.
33. Paragraph 3 requires the claimant to communicate its
notice of arbitration and statement of claim to the arbitral tri-
bunal as soon as it is constituted. In the case that the arbitral
tribunal consists of more than one arbitrator, the claimant
would, in practice, communicate its notice of arbitration and
statement of claim to each of the arbitrators upon his or her
appointment.
Article 5
34. Article 5 addresses the actions required by the respondent
upon receipt of a notice of arbitration and a statement of claim
from the claimant. It envisages a two-stage reply with a shorter
time frame for the response to the notice of arbitration (here-
inafter the “response”) and a longer one for the statement of
defence. This is to facilitate the speedy constitution of the arbi-
tral tribunal and to provide sufficient time for the respondent
to prepare its case.
35. The respondent is required to communicate a response
within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. Article 5(1) thus
modifies article 4(1) of the UARs, which provides for a 30-day
time frame. A shorter time frame is imposed on the response,
as it addresses procedural issues, in particular those relating to
the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
36. The response shall respond to the information set forth in
the notice of arbitration. As article 4(1) of the Expedited Rules
requires a claimant to include in its notice of arbitration propos-
als on an appointing authority and on the appointment of the
arbitrator, the respondent is required to include a response to
those proposals. If the respondent disagrees with the proposals,
the respondent is free to make its own proposals in accordance
with article 4(2)(b) and (c) of the UARs.
37. In summary, the respondent would need to provide, within
15 days of the receipt of the notice of arbitration, the following
in the response:
– The name and contact details of each respondent (UARs
art. 4(1)(a));
– A response to the information set forth in the notice of
arbitration, pursuant to article 3(3)(c) to (g) of the UARs
(UARs art. 4(1)(b)); and
– A response to the information set forth in the notice of
arbitration, pursuant to article 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Ex pedited
Rules (Expedited Rules art. 5(1)).
38. To provide the respondent with sufficient time to prepare
its statement of defence and to ensure equality of the process,
the respondent has 15 days from the constitution of the arbitral
tribunal to communicate its statement of defence. Article 5(2)
introduces a 15-day time frame in contrast to article 21(1) of
the UARs, which provides that the statement of defence shall
be communicated within a period of time determined by the
arbitral tribunal. If the respondent requests for additional time,
the arbitral tribunal may extend the 15-day time frame in
accordance with article 10.
39. The respondent may elect to treat its response to the notice
of arbitration as its statement of defence, as long as the response
complies with the requirement of article 21(2) of the UARs (see
second sentence of article 21(1) of the UARs).
D. Designating and appointing authorities
40. The appointing authority has a significant role in expedit-
ing the proceedings, especially with regard to the constitution
of the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, it is important that the parties
agree on the choice of an appointing authority (see model arbi-
tration clause, paragraph (a)). When the parties have not agreed
on that choice, article 6 of the Expedited Rules provides a
mechanism for the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court
of Arbitration (PCA) to designate an appointing authority or to
serve as one, both of which would lead to an earlier engagement
of the appointing authority.
41. Article 6(1) simplifies the process provided for in article
6(2) of the UARs by allowing a party to request the Secretary-
General of the PCA to serve as the appointing authority. It
provides a streamlined and flexible process, while providing a
level of discretion to the Secretary-General of the PCA.
42. The process is accelerated by allowing any party to engage
with the Secretary-General of the PCA any time after 15 days
have lapsed from the receipt by all parties of a proposal on an
appointing authority. In practice, this means that a claimant that
has included in its notice of arbitration a proposal for an
appointing authority in accordance with article 4(1) is able to
make the request to the Secretary-General of the PCA imme-
diately upon the lapse of the 15-day time frame in article 5(1).
43. It should, however, be noted that article 5(1) provides the
respondent 15 days to respond to the notice of arbitration, which
should also include a response to the proposal for an appointing
authority. Therefore, it would be prudent for the claimant to
consider such response before engaging the Secretary-General
of the PCA. In any case, the Secretary-General of the PCA in
exercising its functions under article 6(1) would be required to
give the parties an opportunity to present their views, including
any proposals on the appointing authority.
44. Similar to article 6(1), article 6(2) modifies article 6(4) of
the UARs and allows a party to request the Secretary-General
of the PCA to designate a substitute appointing authority or to
serve as one, where the appointing authority refuses or fails to
act. However, this would not be possible when the Secretary-
General of the PCA is already serving as the appointing
authority.
45. Paragraph 3 provides a level of discretion to the Secretary-
General of the PCA to address practical questions that could
arise, for example, (i) when a party has previously rejected or
rejects a proposal for the Secretary-General of the PCA to serve
as appointing authority; (ii) when a party requests the Secretary-
General of the PCA to serve as appointing authority and the
other party requests it to serve as designating authority; and
(iii) when a party requests the Secretary-General of the PCA
to either designate an appointing authority or to serve as an
appointing authority.
46. Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of article 6 of the UARs
continue to apply to expedited arbitration.
E. Number of arbitrators
47. Article 7 provides that an arbitral tribunal composed of a
single arbitrator is the default rule in expedited arbitration. As
such, article 7(1) of the UARs is replaced by article 7 of the
Expedited Rules. Parties, however, can agree on more than one
arbitrator, in light of the particulars of the dispute and if col-
lective decision-making is preferred. However, they should be
mindful that proceedings involving an arbitral tribunal com-
posed of more than one arbitrator may be less expeditious (see
para. 59 below).
48. When the parties have referred their dispute to arbitration
under the Expedited Rules and there is no separate agreement
on the number of arbitrators, the appointing authority should
not have any role in determining that number and should
appoint a sole arbitrator in accordance with articles 7 and 8.
While the appointing authority may make a prima facie decision
on whether the arbitration is to be conducted under the Expe-
dited Rules, the ultimate determination on the application of
the Expedited Rules would be left to the arbitral tribunal (see
para. 16 above).
49. Article 7(2) of the UARs continues to apply in expedited
arbitration when the parties agreed to constitute the arbitral
tribunal with more than one arbitrator.
F. Appointment of the arbitrator
50. Article 8 addresses how a sole arbitrator is to be appointed
in expedited arbitration. If the parties agreed on more than one
arbitrator, articles 9 and 10 of the UARs apply.
51. Paragraph 1 encourages the parties to reach an agreement
on the sole arbitrator.
52. Paragraph 2 provides a mechanism in the absence of an
agreement by the parties on a sole arbitrator. Any party may
request the engagement of the appointing authority 15 days after
a proposal for the appointment of a sole arbitrator has been
received by all other parties. This is shorter than the 30-day
time frame in article 8(1) of the UARs. The involvement of the
appointing authority can only be triggered by a request by one
of the parties.
53. Considering that the claimant is required to include a pro-
posal for the appointment of a sole arbitrator in the notice of
arbitration (see article 4(1) and para. 27 above), if there is no
agreement within 15 days after the respondent’s receipt of the
notice of arbitration, the claimant would be able to make a
request to the appointing authority, if previously agreed by the
parties. If a proposal is not included in the notice, the 15-day
time frame would commence when the proposal is made.
54. It should, however, be noted that article 5(1) provides the
respondent 15 days to respond to the notice of arbitration, which
should also include a response to the claimant’s proposal for
the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Therefore, it would be
prudent for the claimant to consider the response before engag-
ing with the appointing authority. If the respondent foresees
that an agreement cannot be reached, it could also engage with
the appointing authority at the same time it communicates the
response to the notice of arbitration.
55. If there is no agreement by the parties on the appointing
authority and the sole arbitrator 15 days after the receipt of the
notice by the respondent, any party may request the Secretary-
General of the PCA to designate the appointing authority or to
serve as appointing authority in accordance with article 6(1).
In the latter case, a party can also request the appointment of
a sole arbitrator in accordance with article 8(2), which would
likely facilitate a speedy constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
56. Article 8(2) of the UARs, which mentions a list-procedure
for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, also applies to expedited
arbitration.
57. In exercising the functions under the Expedited Rules, the
appointing authority and the Secretary-General of the PCA
should be mindful of article 6(5) of the UARs, which requires
them to give the parties and the arbitrators (if appointed and
when appropriate) an opportunity to present their views. Any
proposal made and comments thereon by the parties on the
appointment of a sole arbitrator should thus be taken into
account.
58. When appointing an arbitrator for expedited arbitration,
the appointing authority shall make an effort to secure not only
an independent and impartial arbitrator in accordance with arti-
cle 6(7) of the UARs but also an arbitrator who is available
and ready to conduct the arbitration expeditiously in accordance
with article 3(2) of the Expedited Rules. The appointing author-
ity may wish to require the prospective arbitrator to make a
statement as provided in the annex to the Expedited Rules.
59. The time frames in article 9 of the UARs on the constitu-
tion of a three-member arbitral tribunal apply to expedited arbi-
tration. However, parties may wish to reduce the time frames
therein to expedite the constitution of a three-member arbitral
tribunal.
G. Consultation with the parties
60. Consultation between the arbitral tribunal and the parties
at an early stage of the proceedings is particularly key to an
efficient and fair organization of expedited arbitration. The
terms “consult” and “consultation” are used in article 9 to high-
light the interactive nature of the engagement between the arbi-
tral tribunal and the parties when discussing how the arbitration
would be conducted. In general, the phrase “after inviting the
parties to express their views” is used throughout the UARs as
well as in articles 2, 3, 10, 11, 14 and 16 of the Expedited
Rules to refer to a situation where the arbitral tribunal is
required to give the parties an opportunity to express their sup-
port, concerns or objections before the arbitral tribunal takes a
decision on a certain matter.
61. Article 9 requires the arbitral tribunal to consult the parties
on how to organize the proceedings. It thus conveys the expecta-
tion that the arbitral tribunal will engage actively with the par-
ties rather than to simply invite them to express their views. A
case management conference is one way of conducting such
consultation and can be an important procedural tool, particu-
larly in expedited arbitration, as it permits an arbitral tribunal
to give parties a timely indication as to the organization of the
proceedings and the manner in which it intends to proceed.
62. A number of issues could be discussed during consulta-
tions so as to create a basis for a common understanding of the
proceedings, for example: (i) a list of points at issue including
those that need to be addressed with priority; (ii) the need for
further written statements and evidence; (iii) whether and how
to conduct further consultations as well as hearings, including
whether they would be in person or using technological means,
including remotely; (iv) other procedural issues as well as the
timetable. Similarly, if the parties indicate that they intend to
present witnesses, whether statements by witnesses shall be in
writing and the time for the presentation of the witness state-
ments could be discussed during consultations.
63. Article 9 introduces a short time frame within which the
arbitral tribunal should consult the parties as it is useful for this
to be done at the very early stages of the proceedings. The
arbitral tribunal should conduct the consultation with the parties
promptly after and within 15 days of its constitution. In certain
cases, the respondent might not yet have communicated its
statement of defence as it is to be communicated within
15 days of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal (see article
5(2)). Nonetheless, it would be useful for the arbitral tribunal
to consult the parties at an early stage based on the notice of
arbitration, response thereto as well as the statement of claim.
Upon receipt of the statement of defence from the respondent,
further consultations may be required, particularly if an agree-
ment on a provisional timetable has been deferred pending the
arbitral tribunal’s review of the statement of defence or if the
agreed timetable requires an update following such review.
64. Consultations may be conducted through a meeting in
person, in writing, by telephone or videoconference or other
means of communication as provided for in article 3(3). Con-
sidering that sufficient flexibility is provided to the arbitral tri-
bunal, it should not be burdensome to meet the 15-day time
frame in article 9.
65. In accordance with article 17(2) of the UARs, the arbitral
tribunal should establish the provisional timetable. In so doing,
the arbitral tribunal should be mindful of the time frames in
the Expedited Rules, in particular those in article 16. Similarly,
following the consultations, the arbitral tribunal should com-
municate to the parties the outcome of the consultations to
ensure that the parties are fully aware of the time frames and
avoid delays.
H. Time frames and the discretion of the arbitral
tribunal
66. Article 10 addresses the discretion of the arbitral tribunal
with regard to time frames in expedited arbitration. It should be
read along with the second sentence of article 17(2) of the UARs.
67. Article 10 clarifies that the arbitral tribunal may extend or
abridge any period of time prescribed under the UARs and the
Expedited Rules or agreed by the parties. Even after a time
frame has been fixed in accordance with article 10, flexibility
is provided to adjust the time period when the adjustment is
justified. However, this discretion is subject to article 16, which
provides a specific rule with regard to the time frames for ren-
dering the award and their extensions (see paras. 84–92 below).
68. Article 10 clarifies and reinforces the discretionary power
of the arbitral tribunal to adapt the proceedings to the circum-
stances of the case, further limiting the risk of challenges at
the enforcement stage. In other words, it provides the arbitral
tribunal with a robust mandate to act decisively without fearing
that its award could be set aside for a breach of due process.
69. While shorter time frames constitute one of the key char-
acteristics of expedited arbitration, arbitral tribunals should
preserve the flexible nature of the proceedings and comply with
due process requirements.
70. With regard to the consequences of non-compliance by
the parties with the time frames, article 30 of the UARs on
default applies to expedited arbitration. With regard to late sub-
missions, considering that flexibility is provided to the arbitral
tribunal in setting and modifying time frames, the arbitral tri-
bunal can reject or disregard such submissions, while such dis-
cretion should be exercised with care.
I. Hearings
71. Article 11 emphasizes the discretionary power of the arbi-
tral tribunal to not hold hearings in expedited arbitration in the
absence of a request by any party. It should be read together with
article 17(3) of the UARs, which provides that: (i) the arbitral
tribunal shall hold hearings if any party so requests at an appro-
priate stage of the proceedings; and (ii) in the absence of such
a request, the arbitral tribunal shall decide whether to hold hear-
ings. Parties themselves may agree to hold hearings, in which
case that agreement is binding on the arbitral tribunal.
72. A hearing may cause delays particularly if the scheduling
of the parties and the arbitral tribunal need to be coordinated.
A hearing may be useful, however, when witness testimony and
expert opinions are critical for the arbitral tribunal’s deci-
sion-making. Moreover, a direct exchange between the parties
and the arbitral tribunal at a hearing (whether in person or
remotely) may facilitate a better understanding of the case and
make the proceedings more efficient.
73. Considering the short time frame of six months for ren-
dering the award in expedited arbitration, the arbitral tribunal
may wish to decide at an early stage of the proceedings whether
to hold hearings. A request to hold a hearing at a later stage
may delay the proceedings and may have a negative impact on
the arbitral tribunal complying with that time frame.
74. As parties have a right to request the holding of a hearing,
article 11 requires the arbitral tribunal to invite the parties to
express their views on whether hearings are to be held. This
may also be done during the consultation with the parties (see
para. 62 above). If a party so requests at that stage, the arbitral
tribunal will need to hold a hearing in accordance with article
17(3) of the UARs. In the absence of such a request prior to
and during the consultation, the arbitral tribunal may go ahead
and decide to not hold a hearing.
75. This means that the proceedings shall be conducted on
the basis of documents and other materials. A request by a party
to hold a hearing after a decision by the arbitral tribunal to not
hold one can be denied as the request might no longer be con-
sidered as being made at “an appropriate stage of the proceed-
ings” (see article 17(3) of the UARs). Insofar, article 11 could
have the effect of limiting the time frame during which a request
for holding a hearing can be made.
76. As provided for in article 3(3) of the Expedited Rules and
article 28(4) of the UARs, the arbitral tribunal may utilize any
technological means to hold hearings without the physical pres-
ence of the parties or witnesses, including remotely. The
remaining paragraphs of article 28 of the UARs also apply to
the conduct of hearings in expedited arbitration. The arbitral
tribunal has a broad discretion on how to conduct the hearings
in a streamlined manner. Efforts should be made to limit the
duration of the hearings, the number of witnesses as well as
cross-examination and at the same time, to maintain due
process.
J. Counterclaims and claims for the purpose of
set-off
77. Article 12 preserves the right of the parties to make coun-
terclaims and claims for the purpose of set-off (hereinafter
referred to as “counterclaims”), but introduces certain qualifica-
tions, which can be lifted by the arbitral tribunal. This is to
ensure that counterclaims do not result in delays in expedited
arbitration.
78. Article 12 replaces article 21(3) of the UARs and intro-
duces a higher threshold for counterclaims. Paragraph 1 requires
the respondent to make any counterclaim at the latest in its
statement of defence. A counterclaim can be made at a later
stage of the proceedings, but only when the arbitral tribunal
considers it appropriate under the circumstances.
K. Amendments and supplements to a claim or
defence
79. Article 13 replaces article 22 of the UARs. It introduces
a higher threshold for parties to make amendments and supple-
ments to a claim or defence, including a counterclaim or a claim
for the purposes of set-off (hereinafter referred to as “amend-
ments”) in the context of expedited arbitration. Nonetheless, it
provides flexibility in its application to different circumstances.
Accordingly, a party is not allowed to make amendments unless
the arbitral tribunal considers it appropriate to allow such
amendments. When determining whether to allow amendments,
the arbitral tribunal should take into account at which stage of
the proceedings such a request for the amendment is made,
prejudice to other parties in allowing the amendment and any
other circumstances.
80. Counterclaims and amendments might result in the expe-
dited arbitration no longer being appropriate for resolving the
dispute. In such a circumstance, parties may agree that that the
Expedited Rules shall no longer apply to the arbitration or a
party may request the arbitral tribunal to determine that the
Expedited Rules shall no longer apply in accordance with article
2 (see paras. 10–14 above).
L. Further written statements
81. Article 14 emphasises the discretionary power of the arbitral
tribunal under article 24 of the UARs to limit further written
statements. It clarifies that the arbitral tribunal may decide that
the statement of claim and the statement of defence are sufficient
and that no further written statements are required from the par-
ties. It should, however, not be interpreted that arbitral tribunals
do not have such discretion under article 24 of the UARs.
M. Evidence
82. Article 15 clarifies the discretionary power of the arbitral
tribunal with regard to taking of evidence in expedited arbitra-
tion. Article 27(3) of the UARs provides that the arbitral tribu-
nal may require the parties to produce documents and other
evidence during the proceedings. The first sentence of article
15(1) clarifies that the arbitral tribunal may decide which docu-
ments or other evidence are to be produced by the parties. The
second sentence reaffirms the discretionary power of the arbitral
tribunal to not provide for a procedure where a party requests
another party to produce documents (often referred to as the
“document production” phase). The inclusion of article 15(1)
in the Expedited Rules should, however, not be interpreted as
meaning that arbitral tribunals do not have such discretion under
article 27(3) of the UARs.
83. Article 15(2) provides that in expedited arbitration, state-
ments by witnesses shall be presented in written form and
signed by them. Paragraph 2 thus replaces the second sentence
of article 27(2) of the UARs. While the rules for meeting the
requirements of “in writing” and “signature” through electronic
communication vary depending on the jurisdiction, it should be
noted that article 9(2) and (3) of the United Nations Convention
on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Con-
tracts provides a functional equivalence rule.
N. Period of time for making the award
84. Article 16 provides the time frame for making the award,
which refers to the final award. Paragraph 1 provides for a six-
month time frame for making the award and a mechanism for
extending that time frame in certain circumstances. The six-
month time frame for rendering the award commences with the
constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Parties are free to agree on
a time frame different from that in paragraph 1, which may be
shorter or longer depending on their needs.
85. The general discretion provided to arbitral tribunals under
article 10 to extend or abridge any period of time prescribed
under the Expedited Rules and those agreed by the parties is
subject to article 16. The first sentence of article 16(2) specif-
ically authorizes the arbitral tribunal to extend the time frame
for rendering the award established pursuant to paragraph 1,
but only in exceptional circumstances and after inviting the
parties to express their views. It would be up to the arbitral
tribunal to determine whether the circumstances are exceptional
or not. While the arbitral tribunal should generally indicate the
reasons when extending the time frame, paragraph 2 does not
require reasons so as to provide flexibility to the arbitral tribu-
nal, particularly when the extended time period is rather short.
86. The second sentence of paragraph 2 provides that the
maximum overall time frame, including any extended period,
should be no longer than nine months from the date of the
constitution of the arbitral tribunal. This responds to the expec-
tations of the parties that an award would be rendered within
a short time period, one of the key features of expedited arbitra-
tion. Paragraph 2, however, does not impose limitations on the
number of extensions within the overall time frame. As parties
are free to modify any time frame in the Expedited Rules, para-
graph 2 also does not prevent the parties from agreeing on a
time frame that is longer than nine months.
87. In case the arbitral tribunal considers that it is at risk of
not rendering an award within the time frame provided for in
paragraph 2, paragraph 3 provides a mechanism whereby that
time period could be extended for one last time. This mecha-
nism intends to address a situation where the arbitral tribunal
is at risk of not being able to render an award within the time
frame, for example, due to unusual circumstances arising near
the end of the time frame or if only a short period of time
beyond that time frame is required for rendering the award.
88. Parties and the arbitral tribunal should be mindful of the
consequence when the time frame in paragraph 2 lapses with-
out an award being rendered. Depending on the applicable law,
this may result in the termination of the proceedings or the
award rendered subsequently being the subject of possible
annulment. In some jurisdictions, such an award might also be
refused enforcement. To avoid such situations, paragraph 3 per-
mits the arbitral tribunal to propose to the parties a final
extended time limit, stating the reasons for the proposal. In so
doing, it must also fix a time period within which the parties
should express their views on the proposal. The proposed exten-
sion would only be permitted when all parties agree to the
extension within the fixed time period. It will be the responsibil-
ity of the arbitral tribunal to ascertain that the agreement to its
proposal is expressed without ambiguity. For example, if in
response to the proposal, a party agrees only to a time frame
shorter than that proposed by the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral
tribunal may invite the other parties to express their agreement
to such shorter time frame. In addition, if one party agrees to
the proposal within the fixed time period and the other party
agrees after the time period has lapsed, the arbitral tribunal may
wish to consult the parties to confirm whether it could assume
that there was agreement by the parties, thus avoiding a possible
application of paragraph 4.
89. Paragraph 3 does not set a maximum time frame that can
be proposed by the arbitral tribunal. Nonetheless, to obtain the
agreement of the parties, the extended time frame requested by
the arbitral tribunal should be reasonable taking into account
any concerns of the parties, and be sufficient for the arbitral
tribunal to render the award.
90. Considering that in certain jurisdictions, extension of the
time frame could only be granted upon the agreement or con-
sent of the parties or by an entity other than the arbitral tribunal,
paragraphs 2 and 3 underline that parties, by agreeing to the
application of the Expedited Rules, are granting the arbitral
tribunal the authority to extend the time period established in
paragraphs 1 and 2.
91. Paragraph 4 alerts the parties and the arbitral tribunal to
the mechanism provided for in article 2(2) of the Expedited
Rules in case there is no agreement by the parties to the exten-
sion proposed by the arbitral tribunal. In such a case, any party
may make a request to the arbitral tribunal that the Expedited
Rules no longer apply to the arbitration. Indeed, the arbitral
tribunal may wish to suggest this possibility along with its pro-
posal to extend the time period in accordance with paragraph
3 as the consequence. Doing so could avoid a situation where
none of the parties makes the request under paragraph 4 despite
there being no agreement by the parties on the extension. Para-
graph 4 could be particularly useful if one of the parties inten-
tionally delays the proceedings as well as the issuance of the
award within the time frame and does not agree to the
extension.
92. After inviting the parties to express their views, the arbitral
tribunal may determine that the Expedited Rules shall no longer
apply to the arbitration, which in effect lifts any time limit for
rendering the award in the Expedited Rules including those
agreed by the parties. As the arbitral tribunal would have stated
the reasons in proposing the extension under paragraph 3, the
arbitral tribunal might consider that exceptional circumstances
exist as required under article 2(2) and would not need to repeat
the reasons when determining that the Expedited Rules shall
not longer apply. Should the arbitral tribunal make the deter-
mination under paragraph 4, the arbitral tribunal will remain in
place and continue to conduct the arbitration but will do so in
accordance with the UARs.
93. Article 16 should also be read together with articles 37
and 38 of the UARs, which respectively provide that the inter-
pretation and the correction form part of the award. If the final
award was made within the time frame in article 16, any sub-
sequent interpretation or correction to that award after the lapse
of the time frame shall not affect the timeliness of the final
award for the purposes of article 16. Similarly, an additional
award made in accordance with article 39 of the UARs after
the lapse of the time frame in article 16 shall not affect the
timeliness of the award made within that time frame.
94. It should be noted that article 16 does not aim to address
the instances of de jure or de facto impossibility of the arbitrator
to perform his or her functions. In such a situation, articles
12(3), 13 and 14 of the UARs will likely lead to the termination
of the arbitrator’s services and his or her replacement. In the
case of replacement, article 15 of the UARs provides that the
proceedings shall resume at the stage where the arbitrator who
was replaced ceased to perform his or her functions. In practice,
this would have the effect of suspending the time period in
article 16 of the Expedited Rules from the time the replaced
arbitrator ceased to perform his or her functions to the date of
replacement. If the new arbitrator considers that the remaining
time would not be sufficient to render an award, he or she could
rely on article 16 to extend the time frame. Also, if an arbitrator
is temporarily unable to perform his or her functions and is not
replaced, the arbitrator as well as the parties could rely on
article 16 to extend the time frame and cope with any delay
that may have occurred during such a period.
95. A similar solution applies if the arbitral tribunal suspends
the proceedings in accordance with article 43(4) of the UARs,
due to non-payment of the required deposits. In that case, the
time period in article 16 would cease to run during the
suspension.
96. Article 16 should be read together with article 34 of the
UARs, in particular paragraph 3, which provides that the parties
may agree that no reasons need to be given in the award. This
could reduce the time required by the arbitral tribunal in
rendering the award and allow the arbitral tribunal to meet the
time frame in the Expedited Rules. However, unless the parties
have agreed that no reasons are to be given, arbitral tribunals
in expedited arbitration shall state the reasons upon which the
award is based. Requiring the arbitral tribunal to provide a rea-
soned award can assist its decision-making and provide comfort
to the parties as they will find that their arguments have been
duly considered and would be aware of the basis upon which
the award was rendered. The absence of reasoning in an award
could have an impact on the control mechanism and its scope,
as such reasoning might be necessary for the court or any other
competent authority to consider whether some of the grounds
for setting aside the award or refusing its recognition and
enforcement exist.
O. Model arbitration clause for expedited arbitration
97. The annex to the Expedited Rules contains a model arbi-
tration clause for parties to agree to expedited arbitration under
the Expedited Rules. The model arbitration clause notes that
the parties should consider adding the appointing authority, the
place and the language of arbitration.
98. When considering whether to refer a dispute that has
arisen or could arise in the future to arbitration under the Expe-
dited Rules, the parties should take into account, among others,
the following elements:
– The urgency of resolving the dispute;
– The complexity of the transactions and the number of par-
ties involved;
– The anticipated complexity of the dispute;
– The anticipated amount of the dispute;
– The financial resources available to the party in proportion
to the expected cost of the arbitration;
– The possibility of joinder or consolidation; and
– The likelihood of an award being rendered within the time
frames provided in article 16 of the Expedited Rules.
P. The Expedited Rules and the Transparency Rules
99. The suitability of the Expedited Rules for investment arbi-
tration is a question left to the disputing parties, as express
consent of the parties is required for the Expedited Rules to
apply (see paras. 2, 4 and 5 above). States could refer to and
consent to the Expedited Rules in their respective investment
treaty, based on which an investor claimant may consent to refer
a dispute under the Expedited Rules. However, a reference to
the UARs in investment treaties (regardless of whether the refer-
ence was included prior to or after the effective date of the
Expedited Rules) should not be construed as consent by the
State Parties to the Expedited Rules as express consent is neces-
sary for the application of the Expedited Rules.
100. According to article 1(4) of the UARs (as adopted in
2013), the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based
Investor-State Arbitration (“Transparency Rules”) form part of
the UARs. Article 1 of the Transparency Rules addresses the
applicability of the Transparency Rules to “investor-State arbi-
tration initiated under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules”. As
the Expedited Rules are presented as an appendix to the UARs,
an investor-State arbitration initiated under the Expedited Rules
should be considered as being initiated under the UARs and
therefore, the Transparency Rules could apply.
101. If the investor-State arbitration is initiated pursuant to an
investment treaty concluded before 1 April 2014, the Transpar-
ency Rules would only apply when the disputing parties have
agreed to their application or the States Parties to the treaty
have agreed to their application after 1 April 2014. Therefore,
even if the disputing parties agree to the application of the
Expedited Rules, the proceedings would not be subject to the
Transparency Rules unless above-mentioned conditions are met.
102. If the investor-State arbitration is initiated pursuant to an
investment treaty concluded on or after 1 April 2014, the Trans-
parency Rules would apply unless the States Parties to the treaty
have agreed otherwise. In other words, if States Parties to the
treaty have not agreed otherwise and the disputing parties agree
to the application of the Expedited Rules, the proceedings
would be subject to the Transparency Rules.
103. Parties that have agreed to refer an investor-State dispute
to arbitration under the Expedited Rules may agree that the
Transparency Rules shall not apply to the arbitration. For exam-
ple, States could include a reference to the Expedited Rules in
their investment treaties, while opting out of the Transparency
Rules, for example, by making a reference to (i) the 2010 ver-
sion of the UARs as modified by the Expedited Rules or (ii)
the Expedited Rules without article 1(4) of the UARs.
104. However, the flexibility for the disputing parties to opt
out of the Transparency Rules in investor-State arbitration initi-
ated pursuant to an investment treaty concluded on or after 1
April 2014 which includes a reference to the UARs will be
restricted, if the States Parties to that treaty have not opted out
of the Transparency Rules. For example, if two States conclude
a treaty after 1 April 2014 allowing an investor to refer a dispute
to the UARs and the States have not opted out of the Transpar-
ency Rules, it would not be possible for a claimant investor
and the respondent State to agree to the Expedited Rules with-
out being subject to the Transparency Rules.
Q. Time frames in the Expedited Rules
105. The following provides an overview of the different time
frames in the Expedited Rules. In the “time frame” column, “A
+ number (days(d)/months(m))” indicates “within” the number
of days/months from stage A (in certain cases, receipt thereof).