71 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No.

1 - Spring 2003

Multi-Tiered Dispute
Resolution Clauses in ICC
Arbitration

By D y a la Introduction and Commentary

J im e n e z
Figueres*
" S p e c ia l C o u n s el f o r A D R & It is n o t u n c o m m o n fo r d isp u te re s o lu tio n cla u se s to p ro v id e fo r m o r e th a n o n e
E x p e r tis e, IC C D is p u te R e s o lu tio n
S e rv ic es , d jz @ ic c w b o .o r g ' m e th o d o f s e ttlin g d is p u te s . A rb itra tio n m ay b e b u t a s e c o n d o r th ird s te p ta k e n
w h e n a tte m p ts to find a n a m ic a b le o r n e g o tia te d s e ttle m e n t a re u n s u c c e s s fu l. In this
1
This com mentary reflects the c a s e , th e q u e s tio n a rise s as to w h e th e r th e p a rtie s a re o b lig e d to g o th ro u g h th e
personal views of the author and p re lim in a ry s ta g e s b e f o r e re fe rrin g th e ir d is p u te to a rb itra tio n . F a ilu re to d o s o has
should not be interpreted as
binding upon ICC. The author le d r e s p o n d e n ts in a n u m b e r o f IC C c a s e s to o b je c t to th e a d m issib ility o f th e
wishes to thank Maria Jose Poblado
G6m ez for her research assistance.
a rb itra tio n r e q u e s t o n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e re q u ir e m e n t to s e e k a s e ttle m e n t b y
2 a m ic a b le m e a n s h ad b e e n d is re g a rd e d o r n o t a d e q u a te ly fulfilled.
Article 6 (2), ICC Rules of
Arbitration: ‘If the Respondent
does not file an Answer, as
W h e n s u c h a n o b je c t io n is m a d e , if th e ICC In te rn a tio n a l C o u rt o f A rb itra tio n is prim a
provided by Article 5, or if any fa c ie satisfie d th a t an a rb itra tio n a g r e e m e n t u n d e r th e IC C R u les o f A rb itra tio n m ay
party raises one or m ore pleas
concerning the existence, validity e x ist,2 it m ay d e c id e th a t th e c a s e sh all p r o c e e d and le a v e it to th e arbitral trib u n al,
or scope of the arbitration o n c e c o n s titu te d , to d e c id e o n th e q u e s tio n o f th e p a r tie s ’ c o m p lia n c e w ith th e
agreement, the Court may decide,
without prejudice to the p ro v isio n s o f th e d is p u te re s o lu tio n cla u se .
admissibility or merits of the plea
or pleas, that the arbitration shall
proceed if it is p t im a f a c i e
T h e fo llo w in g p a g e s c o n ta in e x tra c ts fro m n in e ICC a rb itral aw ards d ea lin g w ith th is
satisfied that an arbitration is su e re n d e r e d b e tw e e n 1 9 8 5 an d 2 0 0 0 .3 In e a c h c a s e , th e re le v a n t p a rt o f th e d isp u te
agreement under the Rules may
exist. In such a case, any decision re s o lu tio n cla u se re fe rrin g to IC C a rb itra tio n is re p ro d u c e d , fo llo w e d b y th e arbitral
as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral trib u n a l’s d e c is io n o n th e fo r c e o f th e p re lim in a ry p ro v isio n a n d th e p a r tie s ’
Tribunal shall be taken by the
Arbitral Tribunal itself. If the Court c o m p lia n c e w ith it.
is not so satisfied, the parties shall
be notified that the arbitration
cannot proceed. In such a case, T h e c a s e s c ite d d o n o t in c lu d e th o s e in w h ic h d is p u te r e s o lu tio n w as in a c c o r d a n c e
any party retains the right to ask w ith th e F ID IC C o n d itio n s o f C o n tra c t fo r W ork s o f Civil E n g in e e rin g C o n s tru c tio n
any cou rt having jurisdiction
whether or not there is a binding ( ‘th e F ID IC C o n d itio n s ’) 4 a n d sim ila r m e th o d s , w h e re th e r e is a c le a r r e q u ir e m e n t Tor
arbitration agreem ent.' p a rtie s to e x h a u s t p re lim in a ry m e a n s b e fo r e p r o c e e d in g to a rb itra tio n . C a se 6 2 7 6 ,
3
Other awards dealing with this and
w h ic h re fe rs to th e F ID IC C o n d itio n s , has n o n e th e le s s b e e n in c lu d e d b e c a u s e it
other issues concerning the p ro v id e s fo r a p rio r s te p o f a m ic a b le s e ttle m e n t, w h ich is a n a ly sed b y th e a rb itral
relationship between ICC ADR and
arbitration are summarized in trib u n a l a n d c o n tr a s te d w ith th e p ro v isio n s c o n c e r n in g r e c o u r s e to th e e n g in e e r.
E. Jolivet, 'Chronique de
jurisprudence arbitrate de la
Chantbre de com m erce
T h e a rb itra l trib u n a ls in th e n in e c a s e s p r e s e n te d h e r e a fte r sh o w re m a rk a b le
Internationale (CCI) : arbitrage CCI c o n s is te n c y in th e ir re a s o n in g . W h e n fa c e d w ith a n o b je c tio n fro m a r e s p o n d e n t
et procedure ADR’, G a z e tte d u
P a la is , Les cahiers de I’arbitrage, a lleg in g th a t th e c la im a n t h a s s u b m itte d th e r e q u e s t fo r a rb itra tio n p rem atu rely,
16-17 November 2001, 3. w ith o u t h a v in g c o m p le te d th e n e c e s s a r y s te p s p rio r to a rb itra tio n , trib u n a ls te n d to
4
a d o p t a tw o -p ro n g e d a p p ro a c h . T h e y first c o n s id e r w h e th e r th e p a rtie s w e re u n d e r
Clause 63 or 67, depending on the
edition of the FIDIC Conditions. a n o b lig a tio n to a tte m p t a m ic a b le d isp u te re s o lu tio n b e fo r e a rb itra tio n . If th e an sw er
 72 IC C In te rn a tio n a l C o u r t o f A r b itr a tio n B u lle tin V o l. 1 1 /N o . 1 - S p r in g 2 0 0 3

is y es, th e y th e n lo o k at th e facts to d e te rm in e w h e th e r o r n o t th is o b lig a tio n has

b e e n fulfilled.

A rb itra to rs h av e fo u n d th a t w h e re th e w o rd in g o f th e d isp u te re s o lu tio n cla u se m ak es

th e u s e o f A D R o p tio n a l, a p arty is e n title d to s u b m it a r e q u e s t fo r a rb itra tio n
w h e n e v e r it w ish e s. T h e w o rd s ‘m a y ’ - as u s e d in th e a rb itra tio n cla u se in ca s e 1 0 2 5 6
- a n d ‘h o w e v e r ’ - as u se d in th e a rb itra tio n c la u s e in c a s e 4 2 2 9 - lea v e n o d o u b t th at
th e p a rtie s w ish e d to b e b o u n d o n ly b y th e o b lig a tio n to s u b m it th e ir d isp u tes to
a rb itra tio n , th e s e c o n d o p tio n c o n te m p la te d in th e cla u se . V a g u en ess in th e w ord in g
o f c la u s e s h a s a ls o led a rb itra l trib u n a ls to d e c id e th a t p a rtie s did n o t w ish to b e
fo r c e d in to a m ic a b le s e ttle m e n t. O n th e o th e r h a n d , w h e n a w o rd e x p re ssin g
o b lig a tio n is u s e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a m ic a b le d isp u te re s o lu tio n te c h n iq u e s ,
a rb itra to rs h a v e fo u n d th a t th is m a k e s th e p ro v isio n b in d in g u p o n th e p a rtie s. T h is is
illu stra te d in ca s e 9 9 8 4 , w h e re th e w o rd ‘sh a ll’ re q u ire s th e p a rtie s first to s e e k an
a m ic a b le so lu tio n . In c a s e s w h e re th e a rb itra to rs fo u n d th e a m ic a b le d isp u te
re s o lu tio n p ro v isio n s to b e co m p u lso ry , b e fo r e ta k in g ju ris d ic tio n th e y c a rrie d o u t a
fa ctu a l analy sis to d e te r m in e w h e th e r a p p r o p ria te e ffo rts h ad b e e n m a d e to re so lv e
th e d is p u te am icably.

T h e aw ard in c a s e 6 2 7 6 p o in ts o u t th e d ifficu lty s o m e tim e s e n c o u n te r e d w h e n

c o n d u c tin g s u c h a factu al an aly sis: ‘E v ery th in g d e p e n d s o n th e c irc u m s ta n c e s and
c h ie fly th e g o o d fa ith o f th e p a r tie s .’ In th a t c a s e , th e c la u s e did n o t s ta te clearly h o w
an d b y w h e n th e p a rtie s h a d to c o m p ly w ith th e ir o b lig a tio n to s e e k an a m ica b le
s e t tle m e n t o f th e d isp u te. A m o n g o th e r th in g s, th e trib u n a l lo o k e d at le tte rs o f
p ro p o s a ls a n d a c tio n s b e fo r e a u th o ritie s to c o n c lu d e th a t an e ffo rt to re s o lv e th e
d is p u te a m ica b ly h a d in d e e d b e e n m a d e . In o th e r c a s e s th e a rb itra tio n c la u se has
p ro v id e d t h e a rb itra to rs w ith y a rd stick s w h e re b y to ju d g e w h e th e r th e p a rtie s h av e
c o m p lie d w ith th e ir o b lig a tio n s, e.g. th e tim e lim it o f 3 0 days to find an a m ica b le
s o lu tio n laid d o w n in c a s e 8 4 6 2 . In th e e n d , o f c o u rs e , a rb itra to rs have th e fre e d o m
to m a k e w h a te v e r d e c is io n is m o s t a p p r o p ria te in th e c irc u m s ta n c e s . T h e im p o rta n c e
o f g o o d w ill in a m ic a b le d isp u te r e s o lu tio n m a y in th e p a st s o m e tim e s h a v e led
a rb itra to rs to b e lie v e th a t re fu sin g to allo w a re q u e s t fo r a rb itra tio n w h e n it w as q u ite
o b v io u s th a t th e p a rtie s w e re to o d ivid ed to e n te r ta in a n a m ic a b le s e ttle m e n t m ay n o t
h av e b e e n in th e p a r tie s ’ b e s t in te re s ts .

W h e n in tro d u c in g its A D R R ules in Ju ly 2 0 0 1 , ICC p u b lis h e d fo u r a lte rn a tiv e ICC ADR

cla u s e s w h ic h m ay b e in s e rte d b y p a rtie s in th e ir c o n tra c ts . A lth o u g h th e r e h av e as
y e t b e e n n o ICC a rb itra tio n c a s e s re q u irin g trib u n a ls to d e c id e o n th e a d m issib ility o f
an a rb itra tio n r e q u e s t b a s e d o n an a rb itra tio n cla u se in c o rp o ra tin g o n e o f th e fo u r
s u g g e s te d IC C A D R c la u s e s , o n e is te m p te d to s p e c u la te h o w a rb itra to rs m ig h t re a ct
in s u c h c a s e s . T h e ir r e s p o n s e w ill o f c o u r s e d e p e n d o n th e cla u se w h ich h as b e e n -
c h o s e n , as th e s e vary as to th e o b lig a tio n p la c e d u p o n th e p arties.
5
‘The parties may at any time, without
prejudice to any other proceedings,
T h e first c la u s e ,5 e n title d ‘O p tio n a l A D R ’, sim p ly s ta te s th a t th e p a rtie s ‘may at any
seek to settle any dispute arising out of tim e . . . s e e k to s e ttle a n y d isp u te a risin g o u t o f o r in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e p re s e n t
o r in connection with the present
contract in accordance with the ICC
c o n tr a c t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e IC C AD R R u le s ’ (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). If p a rtie s have
ADR Rules.' u se d th is c la u se , a n o b je c t io n to th e a d m issib ility o f an a rb itra tio n re q u e s t m a d e
6
w ith o u t a n y p rio r a tte m p t to re s o lv e th e d isp u te a m ica b ly is lik ely to b e d ism isse d , as
'In the event of any dispute arising out
of or in connection with the present th e p a rtie s a re u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n w h a ts o e v e r to s e ttle am icably.
contract, the parties agree in the first
instance to discuss and consider
submitting the m atter to settlement
T h e s e c o n d ICC A D R c la u s e 6 re q u ire s th e p a rtie s to ‘discuss an d consider su b m ittin g
proceedings under the ICC ADR Rules.' th e m a tte r to s e ttle m e n t p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r th e IC C A D R R u le s’ (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).
 73 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No. 1 - Spring 2003

H e re it m ay b e e x p e c te d th a t a rb itra to rs will carry o u t a n analy sis o f th e p a rtie s ’

‘d is c u s s io n s ’ an d ‘c o n s id e r a tio n s ’ in d e c id in g w h e th e r o r n o t th e a rb itra tio n r e q u e s t
h a s b e e n s u b m itte d p rem atu rely .

T h e th ird 7 a n d fo u rth 8 IC C AD R cla u s e s lay d o w n a c le a r o b lig a tio n to su b m it th e

d isp u te to th e ICC AD R R u les. U n d e r th e th ird cla u se , if th e d isp u te is n o t s e ttle d
w ith in a s p e c ifie d tim e lim it, th e o b lig a tio n to u s e th e IC C AD R R u les ex p ires. The
fo u rth c la u s e is sim ila r to th e th ird , b u t p ro v id e s fo r th e d is p u te to b e re fe rre d to
a rb itra tio n u n d e r th e ICC R u les o f A rb itra tio n if n o t s e ttle d u n d e r th e ICC AD R R ules
w ith in th e s e t tim e lim it. W h e n fa c e d w ith e ith e r o f th e s e tw o cla u se s, arbitral
trib u n a ls will n e e d to e x a m in e th e fa cts to d e te r m in e w h e th e r th e o b lig a tio n to su b m it
th e d isp u te to th e ICC A D R R u les w as m e t b e fo r e th e r e q u e s t fo r a rb itra tio n w as
s u b m itte d .

‘In the event of any dispute arising

out of o r in connection with the
present contract, the parties agree
to submit the m atter to settlement
proceedings under the ICC ADR
Rules If the dispute has not been
settled pursuant to the said Rules
within 45 days following the filing
of a Request for ADR or within
such other period as the parties
may agree in writing, the parties
shall have no further obligations
under this paragraph.'
8
'In the event of any dispute
arising out of or in connection
with the present contract, the
parties agree to submit the matter
to settlement proceedings under
the ICC ADR Rules. If the dispute
has not been settled pursuant to
the said Rules within 45 days
following the filing of a Request for
ADR or within such other period
as the parties may agree in writing,
such dispute shall be finally settled
under the Rules of Arbitration of
the International Chamber of
Commerce by one or m ore
arbitrators appointed in
accordance with the said Rules of
Arbitration.’
 74
Details not indispensable
fo r the intelligibility o f
these extracts may have
been expunged from the
original text. Names o f
parties have been
replaced in English by
'[Claimant] ’ an d
'[Defendant]’ /
‘[Respondent]’ a n d the
equivalent in French.
Each text is reproduced
in its original language.
IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No. 1 - Spring 2003
Extracts from ICC Arbitral Awards
Relating to Multi-Tiered Dispute
Resolution Clauses
Case 42 29
Interim Aw ard of 26 June 1985
Dispute resolution clause
« T o u t d iffe re n d r e la tif au p r e s e n t m a r c h e p o u rra e tr e re g ie a l ’a m ia b le p a r trois (3 )
c o n c ilia te u r s d o n t u n d e s ig n e p a r c h a c u n e d es p a rtie s e t le tr o is ie m e d ’u n co m m u n
a c c o r d p a r le s d e u x a u tre s.
T o u te fo is, le M a itre d e l ’o u v ra g e e t P E n tre p re n e u r a u ro n t le d ro it d e s o u m e ttr e le
d iffe re n d a la C h a m b re d e c o m m e r c e in te rn a tio n a le p o u r e tr e tra n c h e d e fin itiv e m e n t
p o u r s e lo n le r e g le m e n t d ’arb itra g e .
Arbitral tribunal’s decision
« La p a rtie d e fe n d e r e s s e s o u tie n t e n c o r e q u e la d e m a n d e [du d e m a n d e u r] se ra it
ir re c e v a b le au m o tif d ’a b o rd q u e le d iffe re n d n e p o u rra it e tre so u m is a l’a rb itra g e q u e
c o n jo in te m e n t p a r le m a itre d e l’o u v ra g e e t l ’e n tre p re n e u r, au m o tif e n s u ite q u e la
d e m a n d e d ’a rb itra g e d ev a it e tr e p r e c e d e e d ’u n e p r o c e d u r e p re a la b le d e co n c ilia tio n
q u i n ’a pas e t e m ise e n o e u v re e n P e s p e c e .
P o u r s o u te n ir p a r a ille u rs q u e la c la u s e c o m p r o m is s o ir e o rg a n isa it u n e p ro c e d u r e
p re a la b le d e c o n c ilia tio n , q u i n ’a u ra it p a s e t e r e s p e c t e e e n P e s p e c e , d e te lle s o r te
q u e la d e m a n d e s e r a it ir r e c e v a b le , la p a rtie d e fe n d e r e s s e tire a rg u m e n t d u p r e m ie r
a lin e a d e la c la u s e c o m p r o m is s o ir e [...] I
II n ’e s t p a s d o u te u x q u ’u n p r e a la b le d e c o n c ilia tio n , in s e r e d a n s u n e c la u s e
c o m p r o m is s o ir e , p e u t e t r e r e n d u o b lig a to ir e p a r la p re v is io n d e s p a rtie s , e t e n ce
ca s la d e m a n d e d ’a rb itra g e f o r m e e s a n s r e s p e c t d u p re a la b le d e c o n c ilia tio n e s t
ir r e c e v a b le , m a is le c a r a c te r e o b lig a to ir e du p re a la b le d o it a lo rs e t r e e x p r e s s e m e n t,
e t c e r ta in e m e n t in d iq u e . O r e n P e s p e c e , la r e d a c tio n d e s cla u s e s c o m p r o m is s o ir e s
in d iq u e , au c o n tr a ir e , q u e le s p a r tie s n ’o n t p as v o u lu re n d r e o b lig a to ir e la
p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n , e t q u ’e lle s o n t p re v u d e u x m o d e s a lte rn a tifs e t n o n
s u c c e s s ifs d e s o lu tio n d e le u rs litig e s e v e n tu e ls . D ’u n e p a rt P a lin e a p r e m ie r p re v o it
q u e « to u t d iffe re n d [...] p o u r r a e t r e re g ie a l ’a m ia b le [...] » c e qu i s e m b le in d iq u e r
 75 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No. 1 - Spring 2003

q u e la s a is in e d es c o n c ilia te u r s e s t u n e fa c u lte n o n u n e o b lig a tio n . D ’a u tre p a rt e t

s u r to u t, l’a lin e a 2 d e la c la u s e c o m p r o m is s o ir e , o rg a n is a n t le r e c o u r s a la C o u r
d ’A rb itra g e d e la C C I e s t a in si re d ig e : « Toutefois [’a d m in is tra tio n e t 1’e n tr e p r is e
a u r o n t le d r o it d e s o u m e ttr e [...] » L’e m p lo i du m o t « to u te fo is » p a ra it b ie n
in d iq u e r q u e le s p a rtie s o n t p re v u le re c o u r s a l ’a rb itra g e c o m m e u n e a lte rn a tiv e au
r e c o u r s a la c o n c ilia tio n , p o s s ib le d a n s to u s les ca s, e t sa n s r e c o u r s p re a la b le au
m e c a n is m e d e c o n c ilia tio n .

Le T rib u n a l A rbitral p e u t r e g r e tt e r q u e la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e n ’ait p as e u re c o u r s a

la p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n q u i e u t p e u t-e tr e p e rm is la s o lu tio n du co n flit. M ais il
d o it c o n s t a te r q u ’a u c u n e d is p o s itio n c o n tr a c tu e lle n e l ’y o b lig e a it.

Le T rib u n al A rbitral r e je tt e r a d o n e le s m o y e n s d ’ir r e c e v a b ilite p r e s e n te s p a r la p a rtie

d e fe n d e r e s s e . »

Case 5 8 7 2
Interim Aw ard of 25 April 1988

Dispute resolution clause

‘T h is A g re e m e n t sh all b e a p p lie d an d in te rp re te d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith and shall b e
g o v e r n e d b y Sw iss law a p p lic a b le in G e n e v a (C a n to n o f V aud) . . .

F o r all q u e s tio n s o f u n re so lv e d d isp u te o r d is a g re e m e n t, w h ic h m ay h e r e a fte r arise

b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s c o n c e r n in g th is A g re e m e n t, th e ru le s o f th e A rb itra tio n C o u rt o f
th e In te rn a tio n a l C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e in G e n e v a sh a ll b e a p p lie d to a p p o in t the
A rb itra to n B o a rd . S e a t o f a rb itra tio n will b e G e n e v a , S w itz erla n d . .

[In this case, Defendant alleged that Swiss law provided fo r binding conciliation
p rior to arbitration an d that a written record o f the failu re o f an am icable
settlement was required before recourse could be h ad to arbitration. ]

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

‘T h e C o n c o rd a t d o e s n o t p ro v id e fo r a p re lim in a ry c o n c ilia tio n p ro c e d u r e p rio r to a n y

r e c o u r s e to a rb itra tio n , u n le ss th e P a rties p ro v id e o th e rw ise .

T h e A g re e m e n t, c o n tra ry to [D e fe n d a n t] ’s c o n te n tio n , d o e s n o t p ro v id e for

c o m p u ls o r y c o n c ilia tio n and , failing c o n c ilia tio n , fo r a p ro c e s -v e rb a l sta tin g su ch
failu re, b e f o r e an y a c tio n m ay b e filed w ith th e A rbitrator.

C o n tra ry to th e C o n c o rd a t, th e G e n e v a C o d e d e P ro c e d u re (art. 5 0 ) d o e s p ro v id e for

s u c h c o m p u ls o r y c o n c ilia tio n , w h ic h is, p ro v id e d an a c tio n is la te r b ro u g h t b e fo r e th e
1 S ta te C o u rts, a sta rtin g p o in t o f Us pendens.
P Jolidon, C o m m e n tc iir e d u
C o n c o r d a t s u is s e s u r l' a r b it r a g e
(Berne, 1984). B u t th e C o n c o rd a t as lex specialis re la tin g to a rb itra tio n s u p e rs e d e s an d ta k es
2 p r e c e d e n c e o v e r th e C a n to n s ’ p ro c e d u ra l law s (art. 1 (1 ) C o n c o rd a t; art. 4 5 7 G en e v a
WL. Craig, WW Park, J. Paulsson,
I n t e r n a t io n a l C h a m b e r o f
C o d e d e P ro c e d u re ; Jo lid o n , op. c it } , p a g e 5 9 ; C raig, Park, P a u lsso n , op. cit .2 ,
C o m m e r c e A r b itr a tio n (Paris 1984). p a g e 8 0 ).
IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No. 1 - Spring 2003

Is c o n c ilia tio n p rio r to an y re c o u r s e to a rb itra tio n c o m p u ls o ry u n d e r Sw iss law?

A n sw er: N o .’

Case 62 76
P artial Aw ard of 29 January 1990

Dispute resolution clause

A ny d iffe r e n c e s a risin g o u t o f th e e x e c u tio n o f th e C o n tr a c t sh a ll b e s e ttle d frie n d ly
a n d a c c o r d in g to m u tu a l g o o d w ill b e tw e e n th e tw o p a rtie s ; if n o t, it sh a ll b e s e ttle d
in a c c o r d a n c e w ith C la u se 6 3 o f th e G e n e r a l C o n d itio n s o f C o n t r a c t .’

A rtic le 6 3 o f t h e G e n e r a l C o n d itio n s o f C o n tra c t:

‘If a n y d is p u te o r d iffe r e n c e o f a n y k in d w h a ts o e v e r s h a ll a ris e b e tw e e n th e

E m p lo y e r o r th e E n g in e e r a n d th e C o n tr a c to r in c o n n e c tio n w ith , o r a risin g o u t o f
th e C o n tr a c t, o r th e ca rry in g o u t o f th e W o rk s ( w h e th e r d u rin g th e p r o g r e s s o f th e
W o rk s o r a f te r th e ir c o m p le tio n a n d w h e th e r b e f o r e o r a fte r th e te rm in a tio n ,
a b a n d o n m e n t o r b r e a c h o f th e C o n tr a c t) it sh a ll, in th e first p la c e b e r e fe r r e d to and
s e ttle d b y th e E n g in e e r w h o , w ith in a p e r io d o f 9 0 days a fte r b e in g r e q u e s te d b y
e ith e r p a rty to d o so , sh a ll g iv e w ritte n n o tic e o f h is d e c is io n to th e E m p lo y e r an d
C o n tra c to r. S a v e as h e r e a f te r p ro v id e d , s u c h d e c is io n in r e s p e c t o f e v e ry m a tte r so
r e fe r r e d sh a ll b e final a n d b in d in g u p o n E m p lo y e r a n d th e C o n tr a c to r u n til th e
c o m p le t io n o f th e W o rk an d sh a ll fo rth w ith b e g iv e n e ffe c t to b y th e C o n tra c to r, w h o
s h a ll p r o c e e d w ith all d u e d ilig e n c e w h e th e r h e o r th e E m p lo y e r re q u ire s
a r b itr a tio n , as h e r e in a f te r p ro v id e d , o r n o t. I f th e E n g in e e r h a s g iv e n w ritte n n o tic e
o f h is d e c is io n to th e E m p lo y e r a n d th e C o n tr a c to r a n d n o cla im to a rb itra tio n has
b e e n c o m m u n ic a te d to h im b y e ith e r th e E m p lo y e r o r th e C o n tr a c to r w ith in a
p e r io d o f 9 0 d ays fro m r e c e ip t o f s u c h n o tic e , th e sa id d e c is io n sh a ll re m a in final
a n d b in d in g u p o n th e e m p lo y e r a n d th e C o n tra c to r. If th e E n g in e e r sh a ll fail to give
n o tic e o f h is d e c is io n , as a fo re s a id , w ith in a p e r io d o f 9 0 days a fte r b e in g r e q u e s te d
as a fo r e s a id , o r if e ith e r th e E m p lo y e r o r th e C o n tr a c to r b e d is s a tis fie d w ith any
s u c h d e c is io n , th e n a n d in a n y s u c h c a s e e ith e r th e E m p lo y e r o r th e C o n tr a c to r m ay
w ith in 9 0 d ays o f re c e iv in g n o tic e o f s u c h d e c is io n , o r w ith in 9 0 days a fte r th e
e x p ir a tio n o f th e first n a m e d p e r io d o f 9 0 days (as th e c a s e m ay b e ) re q u ir e th a t th e
m a tte r o r m a tte r s in d is p u te b e r e fe r r e d to a r b itr a tio n as h e r e in a fte r p ro v id e d . All
d is p u te s o r d iffe r e n c e s in r e s p e c t o f w h ic h t h e d e c is io n (if an y ) o f th e E n g in e e r has
n o t b e c o m e fin al a n d b in d in g as a fo re s a id s h a ll b e fin ally s e ttle d u n d e r th e R u le s o f
C o n c ilia tio n a n d A rb itra tio n o f th e In te r n a tio n a l C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e b y o n e o r
m o r e a r b itr a to r s a p p o in te d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e said R u les. . . .’

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

‘T h e T rib u n a l m u s t a s c e r ta in th a t th e c la im a n t h a s duly s a tisfie d th e tw o

p r e c o n d itio n s fo r a rb itra tio n , n a m e ly first th e r e s o r t to a m ic a b le s e t tle m e n t an d
s e c o n d ly th e s u b m is s io n o f th e d is p u te to th e E n g in e e r.
77 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No. 1 - Spring 2003

W ith re g a rd to p r io r r e s o r t to a m ic a b le s e ttle m e n t, th e T rib u n al n o te s th a t th e r e a re

n o o b je c tiv e c r ite ria m a k in g it p o s s ib le to d e c la r e th a t th e m e a n s o f a m ic a b le
s e t tle m e n t h a v e b e e n a ctu a lly e x h a u s te d . T h e s e m e a n s c a n n o t b e id e n tifie d in
a b s o lu te te rm s an d d o n o t o b e y a n y p r e -e s ta b lis h e d a n d s te r e o ty p e d ru les.
E v e ry th in g d e p e n d s o n th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n d c h ie fly o n th e g o o d fa ith o f th e
p a rtie s. W h a t m a tte r s is th a t th e y s h o u ld h a v e sh o w n th e ir g o o d w ill b y se iz in g
e v e ry o p p o r tu n ity to try to s e t tle th e ir d is p u te in an a m ic a b le m a n n er, T h e y w ill
o n ly b e d is c h a rg e d o f th is d u ty w h e n th e y arriv e in g o o d fa ith at th e c o n v ic tio n th a t
th e y h a v e r e a c h e d a p e r s is te n t d e a d lo c k .

O n th is s u b je c t , th e T ribu n al find s a n u m b e r o f in d ic a tio n s in th e d o s s ie r w h ich

w a rra n t th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e c la im a n t m a d e g e n u in e e ffo r ts w ith a v iew to an
a m ic a b le s e ttle m e n t. T h is c a n b e e a sily b e d e d u c e d a lre a d y fro m th e le n g th y w aitin g
p e r io d o f n e a rly th r e e y ea rs a fte r th e c o m p le tio n o f th e w o rk w h ic h th e c la im a n t
o b s e r v e d b e fo r e r e s o r tin g to a rb itra tio n . T h is p e rio d w as m a rk e d b y a v a riety o f
c o n ta c ts .

T h e T rib u n a l o b s e r v e s th a t a p ro p o s a l w as e v e n fo r m u la te d b y th e c la im a n t to o b ta in
p a y m e n t o f th e su m s d u e in th e fo rm o f p e tr o le u m . T h e T rib u n al lik e w ise n o te s ,
a m o n g o t h e r sig n s o f r e c ip r o c a l g o o d w ill, th e r e q u e s t m a d e in 1 9 8 6 b y th e
d e fe n d a n t . . . to th e C o u rt o f A c c o u n ts o f . . ., fo r a u th o riz a tio n to p a y to th e
c la im a n t th e su m s d u e . All th e s e a tte m p ts failed .

T h e d e fe n d a n t cla im s b e fo r e th e T rib u n a l th a t th e s e v a rio u s c o n ta c ts o r p ro p o s a ls

m a d e b y th e c la im a n t w ith a view to a n a m ic a b le s e t tle m e n t w e re n o t a d d re s s e d to
th e p a rty g e n u in e ly e n title d to re c e iv e th e m fro m th e le g a l s ta n d p o in t. , . ,

T h e T rib u n a l c a n n o t a c c e p t th is a rg u m e n t. T h e . . . le g is la tio n in v o k e d c o n c e r n s th e
leg al p e r s o n a lity o f th e [d e fe n d a n t], its p o w e r to s u b m it to a rb itra tio n , its
c o m p o s itio n a n d its fu n c tio n s . It c a n n o t c o n c e r n o p e r a tio n s (s u c h as c o n t r o l o r
c o m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n th e o p e r a to r an d th e g iv er o f th e o r d e r ) o r p h a s e s
in d e p e n d e n t o f th e a rb itra tio n a n d p re v io u s to it. All th e c o n ta c ts o f th e cla im a n t
w ith th e v a rio u s a d m in is tra tiv e , e x e c u tiv e o r c o n tr o l o rg a n s s u b o r d in a te d to th e
[d e fe n d a n t] . . . w e re valid; b e s id e s , th a t v alid ity h a s n e v e r b e e n d is p u te d b y th e
d e fe n d a n t th r o u g h o u t th e p e r fo r m a n c e o f th e c o n tr a c t. T h e d e fe n d a n t is in n o
p o s itio n to d is p u te a t p r e s e n t b e f o r e th e T rib u n al th e validity, w h ic h it h a s n o t
d is p u te d in th e p a st, o f th e re la tio n s o f th e c la im a n t w ith v a rio u s m u n ic ip a l o rg a n s,
w h ic h m o r e o v e r c o n ta c te d it th e m s e lv e s a n d g av e it in s tru c tio n s .

C o n s e q u e n tly , th e T rib u n al is o f th e v iew th a t th e p r e r e q u is ite o f th e s e a r c h fo r an

a m ic a b le s e t tle m e n t h a s b e e n s a tis fie d b y th e c la im a n t in th e p r e s e n t c a s e .

W ith re g a rd to th e s u b m is s io n o f th e d is p u te to th e E n g in e e r p rio r to a rb itra tio n in

c o n fo r m ity to a r tic le 6 3 o f th e “G e n e r a l c o n d itio n s o f c o n t r a c t s ” th e T rib u n al
c o n s id e r s th a t th e p r o c e d u r e , w h ic h h a s b e e n v o lu n ta rily m a d e d e ta ile d , e n c a s e d
w ith in p r e c is e tim e lim its a n d re q u irin g th e E n g in e e r to d ra ft a r e p o r t, is strictly
b in d in g u p o n th e p a rtie s a n d g o v e rn s th e ir c o n d u c t b e fo r e r e s o r tin g to a rb itra tio n .

T h e T rib u n a l o b s e r v e s th a t w h ile th e first p r e r e q u is ite , i.e. th a t re la tin g to a m ica b le

s e t tle m e n t, is n o t s u b je c t to a n y p r e -e s ta b lis h e d a n d rigid ru le , th e s e c o n d , i.e. th a t
re la tin g to r e s o r t to th e E n g in e e r, is g o v e r n e d b y p r e c is e ru le s w h ic h m ay n o t b e
IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No. 1 - Spring 2003

tra n sg re sse d . U n lik e o th e r fu n c tio n s o f th e E n g in e e r (c o n tro l, su n d ry a u th o riz a tio n s,

m o d ific a tio n o f w o rk s, e tc .) w h ic h h a v e b e e n p e rfo rm e d b y variou s individual o r
c o lle c tiv e o rg a n s (varying a c c o rd in g to th e c irc u m s ta n c e s ) w ith th e e x p re s s o r tacit
c o n s e n t o f th e p a rtie s , a fu n c tio n o f s u c h d e c is iv e im p o r ta n c e , w h ic h trig g e rs th e
a r b itr a tio n p r o c e e d in g s , h a s, fo r its p a rt, n e v e r b e e n e x e r c is e d b y a n y varying
in d iv id u a l o r c o lle c tiv e o rg a n . In o t h e r w o rd s, w h ile th e fu n c tio n s o f th e E n g in e e r
m e n tio n e d in th e c o n tr a c t may, in th e c o u r s e o f ev e ry d a y r o u tin e a n d n o rm a l
re la tio n s , h a v e b e e n e x e r c is e d w ith th e c o n s e n t o f th e p a rtie s b y d iffe re n t te c h n ic a l
o rg a n s w h ic h h a v e v aried w ith th e tim e s, th e p a rtic u la r fu n c tio n o f d isp u te s
s e t t le m e n t h a s n e v e r b e e n e x a m in e d b y an y o f th e o rg a n s a n d re m a in s g o v e r n e d by
t h e c o n tr a c t a n d b y th e s tr ic t m o d a litie s o f s u b s ta n c e a n d fo rm (tim e lim its, re p o rt,
e t c .) w h ic h it s e ts fo rth .

T h e cla im a n t claim s th a t it h a s b e e n d isp e n se d from this c o n tra ctu a l p re re q u isite b y the

d e fe n d a n t’s failure to notify it in w riting o f th e n a m e o f th e e n g in e e r sp ecially
a u th o riz e d to d isch a rg e th a t p articu lar p re-arb itral fu n ctio n . T h e Tribunal c o n sid e rs that
th e cla im a n t c a n n o t th e re b y b e d isp e n se d from th is su b sta n tiv e p h a se and th a t it w as
u n d e r a duty to p u t th e d e fe n d a n t o n n o tic e to in d ica te to it th e n a m e o f th e e n g in e e r
to w h o m th e d isp u te co u ld b e su b m itted . It w as o n ly if it h ad m e t w ith a refu sal o r in
th e e v e n t o f th e failure to rep ly o n th e p art o f th e d e fe n d a n t th at th e claim an t co u ld have
b e e n d isp e n se d from co m p ly in g w ith th is p re-arbitral p h a se .

T h e c la im a n t h a s m a in ta in e d th a t b e c a u s e o f th e c o m p le tio n o f th e o p e r a tio n s and

th e final r e c e ip t o f th e w o rk it w as to o la te to r e q u e s t th e a p p o in tm e n t o f an
e n g in e e r . A lth o u g h th is a r g u m e n t is o b v io u s ly re le v a n t fo r o t h e r te c h n ic a l fu n c tio n s
o f th e E n g in e e r s u c h as th e m o d ific a tio n o f o p e r a tio n s a n d th e ir te c h n ic a l e x e c u tio n
o r c o n tr o l, o r th e a p p ro v a l o f in v o ic e s at th e ir r e s p e c tiv e d u e d a te s , th e s p e c ific
fu n c tio n c o n n e c te d w ith d is p u te s s e ttle m e n t, fo r its p a rt, ca n b e e x e r c is e d
a c c o r d in g to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s b o th d u rin g th e w o rk a n d a fte r its c o m p le tio n s o
lo n g as all th e leg al e ffe c ts o f th e c o n tr a c t h a v e n o t b e e n fully e x h a u s te d .

T h e T rib u n a l h a s th u s r e a c h e d th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e c la im a n t h as n o t s a tis fie d th e

p r e r e q u is ite s e t fo rth in a rtic le 6 5 o f th e “G e n e ra l c o n d itio n s o f c o n tr a c ts ”.
C o n s e q u e n tly , th e r e q u e s t fo r a rb itra tio n c o n c e r n in g th e 1 9 8 1 c o n tr a c t, w h ic h is
c e r ta in ly n o t im p o s s ib le fo r th e fu tu re , is a t p r e s e n t p re m a tu re . It th e r e fo r e
b e h o v e s th e c la im a n t fo rm a lly to d e m a n d fro m th e d e fe n d a n t th e d e s ig n a tio n o f an
e n g in e e r to w h o m to s u b m it th e p r e s e n t d is p u te b e f o r e it c o m e s b e f o r e th e
T r ib u n a l.’

C ase 7 4 2 2
In te rim A w ard of 28 June 1996

Dispute resolution provisions

‘L o y alty c la u s e

I f an y c ir c u m s ta n c e s a rise d u rin g th e life o f th e a g r e e m e n t w h ic h m a te ria lly

79 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No. 1 - Spring 2003

in f lu e n c e t h e e c o n o m ic and / or le g a l e f f e c ts o f th e a g r e e m e n t, b u t w h ic h h a v e n o t
b e e n r e g u la te d in th e a g r e e m e n t o r w e r e n o t th o u g h t o f a t th e tim e o f its
c o n c lu s io n , o r if o n e o f th e p a r tie s c a n n o t b e r e a s o n a b ly e x p e c t e d to c o m p ly w ith
a p r o v is io n o f th is a g r e e m e n t, s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s s h a ll b e g iv e n fair a n d
r e a s o n a b le c o n s id e r a tio n , th e n a tu r e an d e x t e n t o f p o s s ib le a m e n d m e n ts o r
a d d itio n s to th e a g r e e m e n t d e p e n d in g o n if a n d to w h a t e x t e n t th e d isa d v a n ta g e
to o n e p a rty is o p p o s e d b y a n a d v a n ta g e to th e o th e r .

T h is A rtic le s h a ll a ls o apply, if d u r in g th e life o f t h e a g r e e m e n t a n y law s,

re g u la tio n s o r o t h e r p r o v is io n s s u b s ta n tia lly a ffe c tin g th e c o n tr a c tu a l r e la tio n s h ip
an d / or its te c h n ic a l im p le m e n ta tio n a re is s u e d b y G o v e r n m e n ta l o r C o m m o n
M a rk e t a u th o r itie s , a n d if th is r e s u lts d ir e c tly o r in d ir e c tly in in a p p r o p r ia te
h a r d s h ip s o r d iffic u ltie s to o n e o f th e p a r tie s in th e p e r fo r m a n c e o f th e
a g r e e m e n t ,’

‘S e t t le m e n t o f d is p u te s

A ny d is p u te s w h ic h m ay a ris e w ith re g a rd to t h e p r e s e n t a g r e e m e n t o r fu r th e r
a g r e e m e n ts r e s u ltin g th e r e f r o m s h a ll b e s e t tle d , w ith o u t th e rig h t o f a p p e a l, in
Z u ric h , in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e R u le s o f C o n c ilia tio n a n d A rb itr a tio n o f th e
I n t e r n a t io n a l C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e , b y o n e o r m o r e a r b itr a to r s a p p o in te d in
a c c o r d a n c e w ith t h e sa id R u le s .’

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

‘T h e D e f e n d a n ts s u b m itte d th a t th e c la im o f [C la im a n t] in th is a r b itr a tio n is

p r e m a tu r e . . . .

A c c o r d in g to th e D e fe n d a n ts th e L o y a lty C la u s e w h ic h in th e ir o p in io n a p p lie s in
th is c a s e r e q u ir e s th e P a r tie s to n e g o tia te o n p o s s ib le a m e n d m e n ts a n d a d d itio n s
to th e ir c o n t r a c t . T h e D e fe n d a n ts a rg u e th a t [C la im a n t] w as n o t p r e p a r e d to e n t e r
in to n e g o tia tio n s . [C la im a n t] d id a tte n d a m e e tin g to w h ic h it w as in v ite d b y [o n e
o f D e f e n d a n ts ] b u t it r e fu s e d to d is c u s s th e v a lid ity o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t
a n d t h e r e f o r e d id n o t a c t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e p r in c ip le o f g o o d fa ith w h ic h
u n d e r lie s t h e C la u se .

T h e A r b itr a to rs r e je c t th is d e f e n c e . In th e ir v ie w n e g o tia tio n s d id ta k e p la c e . T h e

d e f e n d a n ts s ta te d th a t “( t ) h e p a r tie s e n t e r e d in to n e g o tia tio n s o n th e 11 Ju ly
1 9 9 1 ”. . . T h is w as o b v io u s ly n o t th e o n ly o c c a s io n w h e n n e g o tia tio n s to o k p la c e ,
s in c e [C la im a n t] s u b m it te d . . . w ith o u t b e in g c o n t r a d ic te d th a t . . n e g o tia tio n s
. . . t o o k p la c e , inter alia, o n 11 J u l y 1 9 9 1 ” . [C la im a n t] s ta te d , a ls o w ith o u t b e in g
c o n t r a d ic te d , th a t th e P a rtie s a g r e e d to c o n fid e n tia lity s o fa r as t h e n e g o tia tio n s
a r e c o n c e r n e d . . . U n d e r th e s e c ir c u m s t a n c e s th e A rb itr a to rs a r e o f t h e o p in io n
th a t th e y s h o u ld n o t e v a lu a te th e P a r tie s ’ c o n d u c t in r e s p e c t o f t h e s u b s ta n c e ,
t h o r o u g h n e s s a n d s in c e r ity o f th e ir c o n fid e n tia l n e g o tia tio n s a n d m u s t th e r e f o r e
d is r e g a r d t h e D e f e n d a n ts ’ a lle g a tio n th a t [C la im a n t] d id n o t a c t in g o o d fa ith . It
m a y in c id e n ta lly b e o b s e r v e d th a t s in c e it is in d is p u te w h e t h e r t h e r e q u ir e m e n ts
o f th e L o y a lty C la u se a re fu lfille d , [C la im a n t] w o u ld a t a n y r a te b e e n t it le d to h av e
th e q u e s t io n o f its a p p lic a b ility d e c id e d b y th e A r b itr a to r s .’
80 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No, 1 - Spring 2003

Case 8073
Final A w ard of 27 Novem ber 1995

Dispute resolution clause and commencement o f the proceedings

« C la u se d ’a rb itra g e (A rticle 12 d e la C o n v e n tio n v a la n t p r o t o c o le d ’a c c o r d a m ia b le e t
tr a n s a c tio n n e l e n d a te du [.,.])

« T o u t d iffe re n d d e c o u la n t d e la p r e s e n t e C o n v e n tio n s e r a tr a n c h e d e fin itiv e m e n t et

e n d e r n ie r r e s s o r t p a r tro is a rb itre s n o m m e s c o n f o r m e m e n t au R e g le m e n t d e
C o n c ilia tio n e t d ’A rb itra g e d e la C h a m b re d e C o m m e r c e In te r n a tio n a le a Paris,
3 8 C o u rs A lb e rt l er.

L es a rb itre s d o iv e n t s ta tu e r c o n f o r m e m e n t au d ro it s u is s e . L’a rb itra g e au ra lie u a

G e n e v e e t s e r a c o n d u it e n la n g u e fra n g a ise. »

A insi 1’A rtic le 11 d e la d ite C o n v e n tio n p re v o it q u e « to u te q u e s tio n q u i s u rg ira it du

fait d e la re a lis a tio n d e la p r e s e n t e C o n v e n tio n s e r a it e x a m in e e e t r e g le e d a n s le
m e ille u r e s p r it d e c o n c e r t a tio n e t d ’h a r m o n ie u s e c o o p e r a tio n .

A c e t e ffe t, le s p a rtie s s o u s s ig n e s d e s ig n e n t c o m m e m a n d a ta ire s p o u v a n t r e g le r les

p r o b le m e s p o u r le cas o u ils v ie n d ra it a s e p r e s e n t e r :

p o u r la p r e m ie r e p a rtie : [X]

p o u r la s e c o n d e p a rtie : [Y] »

E n d a te du [...], [Y] e t [X] s e s o n t r e n c o n tr e s e t o n t d e lib e r e su r l’o b je t du litig e e n

v u e d e tr o u v e r u n e s o lu tio n a l ’a m ia b le c o n f o r m e m e n t a l’Art. 11 d e la C o n v e n tio n
du 2 2 s e p te m b r e 1 9 8 2 . [Y] a p ris c o n n a is s a n c e d e to u s le s d o c u m e n ts e t s ’e s t
r e s e r v e le clro it d e le s e tu d ie r e n d e ta il e t d e c o m m u n iq u e r s o n o p in io n a [X] dans
u n d e la i d e 3 0 jo u r s a p a rtir d u [...]

C e p e n d a n t, a u c u n e in fo r m a tio n s u r le s re s u lta ts d e c e t t e te n ta tiv e d e c o n c ilia tio n

n ’e s t p a r v e n u e au T rib u n al a l’e c h e a n c e du d e la i in d iq u e . »

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

« La p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n p re v u e p a r la « C o n v e n tio n v a la n t p r o t o c o le d ’a c c o rd

a m ia b le e t tr a n s a c tio n n e l » d u [...] e s t-e lle o b lig a to ir e p o u r le s p a rtie s ? L es p a rtie s
o n t-e lle s u tilis e c e tt e p r o c e d u r e ?

E n e ffe t, l ’A rtic le 11 d u p r o t o c o le d ’a c c o r d c o n c lu e n t r e le s p a rtie s le 2 2 s e p te m b r e

1 9 8 2 c o m p o r t e u n e c la u s e d e c o n c ilia tio n a in si re d ig e e :

« T o u te q u e s tio n q u i su rg ira it d u fait d e la re a lis a tio n d e la p r e s e n t e C o n v e n tio n

s e r a it e x a m in e e e t r e g le e d an s le m e ille u r e s p r it d e c o n c e r t a tio n e t d ’h a r m o n ie u s e
c o o p e r a tio n . A c e t e ffe t, le s p a rtie s s o u s s ig n e e s d e s ig n e n t c o m m e m a n d a ta ire s
p o u v a n t r e g le r le s p r o b le m e s p o u r le c a s o u ils v ie n d ra it a s e p r e s e n t e r :

p o u r la p r e m ie r e p a rtie : [X]

p o u r la s e c o n d e p a rtie : [Y] »
 81 IC C In te rn a tio n a l C o u r t o f A r b itr a tio n B u lle tin V o l. 1 4 /N o . 1 - S p r in g 2 0 0 3

La q u e s tio n e s t d o n e d e sa v o ir si c e t t e c la u s e d e c o n c ilia tio n re v e t u n c a r a c te r e

o b lig a to ir e o u si e lle n ’a q u ’u n c a r a c te r e fa cu lta tif.

Si c e t t e c la u s e e s t o b lig a to ire , le s p a rtie s d o iv e n t, a v a n t la p r o c e d u r e d ’a rb itra g e ,

te n te r d e s e c o n c ilie r e n p r e s e n c e d e s d e u x m a n d a ta ire s s tip u le s d ans la cla u se .
D a n s l’h y p o th e s e o u le s p a rtie s a rriv e ra ie n t a n e g o c ie r , l’a rb itra g e n ’au ra it a lo rs plu s
d ’o b je t.

A d e fa u t d e p r e c is io n s u r le c a r a c te r e o b lig a to ir e o u fa c u lta tif d e la p r o c e d u r e d e

c o n c ilia tio n d a n s la c la u s e e lle -m e m e , il c o n v ie n t au x a rb itre s d ’in te r p r e te r c e tt e
c la u se .

D e p lu s, la ju r is p r u d e n c e d e la C o u r In te r n a tio n a le d ’A rb itra g e d e la CCI e ta it c la ire a

c e s u je t (v o ir la S e n t e n c e a rb itra le N o. 2 1 3 8 r e n d u e e n 1 9 7 4 ). 11 r e s s o r t d e c e tt e
p ra tiq u e q u e la c o n c ilia tio n r e s te e n t ie r e m e n t fa cu lta tiv e , s a u f c o n v e n tio n c o n tra ire
d es p a rtie s.

L es p a rtie s n ’o n t p a s s tip u le expressis verbis d a n s le u r c la u s e u n e d is p o s itio n

p r e c is a n t q u e le r e c o u r s a l ’a rb itra g e n e p e u t a v o ir lie u q u e d an s le ca s o u le s p a rtie s
n ’a b o u t is s e n t p as a u n e s o lu tio n a l’a m ia b le p e n d a n t la p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n .
E ta n t d o n n e q u e la c la u s e n e c o n t ie n t p a s c e t t e c o n v e n tio n c o n tr a ir e o n n e p e u t
e x ig e r d e s p a rtie s d ’e n tr e p r e n d r e u n e te n ta tiv e d e c o n c ilia tio n p re a la b le a
l’in tr o d u c tio n d ’u n e r e q u e te d ’a rb itra g e . L es a rb itre s c o n s id e r e n t q u e la p r o c e d u r e
d e c o n c ilia tio n te lle q u e p re v u e au P r o to c o le d ’a c c o r d d e s p a rtie s n e re v e t p as u n
c a r a c te r e o b lig a to ire .

Il p e u t p a ra itre vain p o u r d e s a rb itre s d e r e c h e r c h e r a tra v e rs la v o lo n te d es p a rtie s

le c a r a c te r e o b lig a to ir e d ’u n e te lle p r o c e d u r e . E n e ffe t, l’a s p e c t v o lo n ta ire qui
d o m in e t o u te p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n im p liq u e q u ’u n e p a r tie s o it to u jo u r s lib re
d e s ’a b s te n ir d e la d e c le n c h e r o u d ’y p a rtic ip e r, q u e lle s q u e s o ie n t les d is p o s itio n s
c o n tr a c tu e lle s a p p lic a b le s . Le re fu s d e r e c o u r ir a la c o n c ilia tio n d e la p a rt d e la p a rtie
q u i a in tr o d u it d ir e c t e m e n t la p r o c e d u r e d ’a rb itra g e , e n l’e s p e c e , la s o c ie t e
[ d e m a n d e r e s s e ], e q u iv a u d ra it s im p le m e n t a u n e c h e c d e c e lle -c i e t d e la m e m e
fap o n , o u v rira it l ’a c c e s a la p r o c e d u r e a rb itra le .

S ’il e s t vrai q u e l’A rtic le 11 n e r e n v o ie pas au r e g le m e n t p o u r re g ir la p r o c e d u r e d e

c o n c ilia tio n , il n ’e n r e s te p a s m o in s vrai q u e l ’A rtic le 12 du c o m p r o m is r e la tif a la
p r o c e d u r e d ’a rb itra g e , fait e x p r e s s e m e n t r e fe r e n c e au « R e g le m e n t d e C o n c ilia tio n
e t d ’A rb itra g e d e la C CI », Il s e m b le p o s s ib le d ’e n d e d u ir e q u e le s p a rtie s o n t
s o u h a ite [’a p p lic a tio n d e s re g ie s d e la C C I re la tiv e s a la p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n a
li t r e d e r e g ie s fa cu lta tiv e s. O r, le s d is p o s itio n s d u r e g le m e n t CCI re la tiv e s a la
c o n c ilia tio n q u a lifie n t e x p r e s s e m e n t la p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n , d e fa cu lta tiv e 1

E n su iv a n t c e t t e in te r p r e ta tio n , le s a rb itre s s o n t d e l ’avis q u e la p r o c e d u r e d e

c o n c ilia tio n n ’e s t q u e fa cu lta tiv e.

1 Les a r b itr e s c o n s t a te n t e g a le m e n t q u e la d e c la r a tio n d e la D e f e n d e r e s s e in d iq u a n t

L 'a r t ic le p r e m i e r d i s p o s e : « T o u t
q u e le s p a rtie s n ’o n t p as u tilis e la p r o c e d u r e d e c o n c ilia tio n s tip u le e d a n s l ’A rticle
d i f f e r e n d d 'o r d r e c o m m e r c i a l
a y a n t u n c a r a c t e r e i n t e r n a t io n a l 11 d e la C o n v e n tio n n ’e s t p as c o r r e c t e e t ju s tifie e . P a r c o n t r e , le s r e p r e s e n ta n ts d es
p e n t fa ir e I 'o b je t d 'u n e t e n t a t iv e d e
r e g l e m e n t a m ia b le p a r le s s o in s d e
p a rtie s s e s o n t r e n c o n tr e s le [...] p o u r tr o u v e r u n e s o lu tio n a l ’a m ia b le . C e p e n d a n t,
la C o m m is s io n A d m in is t r a t iv e d e c e t t e te n ta tiv e n ’a p a s e u d e s u ite . P ar c o n s e q u e n t, le r e c o u r s a l ’a rb itra g e e ta it b ie n
C o n c il ia t io n e x is t a n t a u p r e s d e la
C h am b re d e C o m m e rc e ju s tifie d e la p a rt d e la D e m a n d e r e s s e q u i e n v o y a it le s e u l m o y e n p o u r d e fe n d re
I n t e r n a t io n a le . •> s e s d ro its e t in te r e ts le g a u x . »
IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No. 1 - Spring 2003

Case 84 62
Final Aw ard of 27 January 1997

Dispute resolution clause

« P o u r to u s d iffe re n d s d e c o u la n t du p r e s e n t c o n tra t o u s ’y ra p p o rta n t, les p a rtie s
c h e r c h e r o n t u n e s o lu tio n a l’a m iab le.

Si u n e s o lu tio n n e p e u t e tr e o b te n u e d a n s le s 3 0 jo u rs a p re s la d a te q u ’u n e d es
p a rtie s au ra n o tifie p a r e c rit a l’a u tre p a rtie , le (s) d iffe re n d (s ) s e r a (o n t) so u m is a
l’arb itra g e.

C h a q u e p a rtie d e s ig n e ra s o n p ro p re a rb itre . La p a rtie s o u h a ita n t s o u m e ttr e le

d iffe re n d a l’a rb itra g e e n in fo rm e ra l ’a u tre p a rtie p a r le ttr e r e c o m m a n d e e in d iq u a n t e n
m e m e te m p s le n o m e t l’a d re s s e d e s o n a rb itre ain si q u e s e s g rie fs a s o u m e ttr e a
l’a rb itra g e . L’a u tre p a rtie d evra, dans le s 15 jo u rs , p a r le ttr e re c o m m a n d e e , in fo rm e r
l’a u tre p a rtie d u n o m e t d e l’a d re s s e d e s o n a rb itre ain si q u e le cas e c h e a n t se s
p r o p r e s g riefs.

L es a rb itre s d e s d e u x p a rtie s d e v ro n t d e s ig n e r d an s le s 3 0 jo u rs u n tro is ie m e arb itre.

L e T ribu n al A rbitral d ev ra re n d r e s o n ju g e m e n t p a r v o te m a jo rita ire d ans le s tro is m ois

suivant. la d a te d e la d e s ig n a tio n du tr o is ie m e a rb itre , c o n fo r m e m e n t au x c o n d itio n s
du p r e s e n t c o n tr a t e t e n c o n c o r d a n c e a v e c la lo i e s p a g n o le .

L es p a rtie s a c c e p te r o n t la s e n t e n c e du T rib u n al A rbitral c o m m e finale e t o b lig a to ire . La

re p a rtitio n d e s c o u ts e t d e p e n s e s d e l’a rb itra g e se ra d e te r m in e e p a r le Tribunal
A rbitral,

L’a rb itra g e a u ra lieu a B ru x e lle s.

Si le s e c o n d a rb itre et/ou le tr o is ie m e a rb itre n ’e s t (n e s o n t) d e s ig n e (s ) d ans les 30

jo u rs a p re s la d e s ig n a tio n du p re m ie r o u s e c o n d a rb itre le (s ) d iffe re n d (s ) s e r a (o n t)
tr a n c h e (s ) d e fin itiv e m e n t su iv an t le r e g le m e n t d e C o n c ilia tio n e t d 'A rb itrag e d e la
C h a m b re d e C o m m e r c e In te rn a tio n a le , sa n s a u c u n re c o u r s au x trib u n a u x o rd in a ire s
p a r u n o u p lu sie u rs a rb itre s n o m m e s c o n fo r m e m e n t a c e re g le m e n t e t d o n t la
s e n t e n c e au ra u n c a r a c te r e o b lig a to ire . »

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

« A tte n d u q u e [la p a rtie d e fe n d e r e s s e ] s o u t ie n t q u e le litig e q u i l ’o p p o s e a [la p a rtie

d e m a n d e r e s s e ] n ’e s t p as d e la c o m p e te n c e d e la C o u r I n te r n a tio n a le d ’A rb itra g e
p o u r d e u x ra is o n s :

- [la p a r tie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] n ’a p a s, p r e a la b le m e n t a la s a is in e d e la C ou r, n o tifie a [la

p a r tie d e f e n d e r e s s e ] le s p o in ts q u ’e lle e s tim e litig ie u x , e n v u e d ’a b o u tir a u n e
s o lu tio n a m ia b le a d e fa u t d e la q u e lle le litig e d ev ra e t r e s o u m is a (a r b itr a g e [...]

A tte n d u q u e [la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] a s o u lig n e q u ’e lle a « to u t fait afin d ’e s s a y e r

d ’a rriv e r au p r e a la b le a u n e s o lu tio n a m ia b le », a lo rs q u e [la p a rtie d e fe n d e r e s s e ] e s t
au c o n tr a ir e c o n s ta m m e n t r e s te e in e r te , e n s o r te q u e la s e u le is su e e ta it
( a p p li c a t io n d e ( a r t i c l e 9 d u c o n tr a t d u 2 7 o c t o b r e 1 9 8 9 e t la s a is in e d e la C o u r
83 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No. 1 - Spring 2003

I n te r n a tio n a le d ’A rb itra g e d e s lo rs q u e [la p a rtie d e fe n d e r e s s e ] re fu s a it d e d e s ig n e r

u n a r b itr e [...]

A tte n d u , d ’u n e p a rt, q u ’il e s t a v e re q u e [la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] a m u ltip lie les

d e m a r c h e s a u p re s d e [la p a rtie d e f e n d e r e s s e ] afin d ’o b t e n ir u n r e g le m e n t a m ia b le
du litig e , a in si q u e le m o n tr e n t s u ffis a m m e n t le s p ie c e s p ro d u ite s ; q u e [la p a rtie
d e fe n d e r e s s e ] r e c o n n a it d ’a ille u rs l ’e x is te n c e d e c e s d e m a r c h e s ; q u e l’e c h e c d e c e s
d iv e rse s te n ta tiv e s a n a tu r e lle m e n t c o n d u it [la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] a fa ire jo u e r la
c la u s e c o m p r o m is s o ir e , a d e s ig n e r e n c o n s e q u e n c e u n a rb itre e t a m e ttr e [la p a rtie
d e fe n d e r e s s e ] e n d e m e u r e , p a r le ttr e r e c o m m a n d e e d e M a ltre [S] d a te e du [...], d e
d e s ig n e r u n a u tre a rb itre , c o n f o r m e m e n t a c e t t e c la u s e ; q u e [la p a rtie
d e fe n d e r e s s e ] n ’a p a s d e s ig n e s o n a r b itr e d a n s le d e la i d ’u n m o is q u e lui
im p a rtis s a it la c la u s e d e 1’a rtic le 9 ; q u e [la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] a a lo rs saisi la
C h a m b r e d e C o m m e r c e I n te r n a tio n a le e t, p a r v o ie d e c o n s e q u e n c e , la C o u r
In te r n a tio n a le d ’A rb itra g e ; q u ’a la d a te a la q u e lle [la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] a
d e m a n d e a [la p a rtie d e fe n d e r e s s e ] d e d e s ig n e r u n a rb itre , c e tt e d e r n ie r e n e
p o u v a it ig n o r e r le s e le m e n ts d u litig e te n a n t au d e fa u t d e p a ie m e n t d es fa c tu re s
c o r r e s p o n d a n t au x p ro d u its fo u rn is p a r [la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] .

A tte n d u , d ’a u tre p a rt, q u e 1’a rtic le 9, d e r n ie r a lin e a , s p e c ifie q u ’e n cas d e d ifficu lte
c o n c e r n a n t la d e s ig n a tio n d es a rb itre s p a r le s p a rtie s d a n s le d e la i c o n v e n u , « le (s )
d iffe r e n d (s ) s e r a ( o n t ) tr a n c h e ( s ) d e fin itiv e m e n t s u iv a n t le r e g le m e n t d e
C o n c ilia tio n e t d ’A rb itra g e d e la C h a m b re d e C o m m e r c e In te r n a tio n a le , sa n s a u cu n
r e c o u r s au x tr ib u n a u x o rd in a ire s p a r u n o u p lu s ie u rs a rb itre s n o m m e s
c o n f o r m e m e n t a c e r e g le m e n t e t d o n t la s e n t e n c e a u ra u n c a r a c te r e o b lig a to ir e » ;
q u ’o n n e sa u ra it s a n s a rtific e in te r p r e te r la c la u s e d e P a rtic le 9 , d e r n ie r a lin e a , d an s
le s e n s q u e lu i d o n n e [la p a rtie d e f e n d e r e s s e ], c ’e st-a -d ir e s e u le m e n t c o m m e
l’e x p r e s s io n d e la v o lo n te d e s p a rtie s , si l ’u n e d ’e lle s s ’a b s tie n t d e d e s ig n e r elle -
m e m e le s e c o n d a rb itre , d e n o m m e r le s s e c o n d e t tr o is ie m e a rb itre s s e lo n la
p r o c e d u r e d u R e g le m e n t d e la C o u r In te r n a tio n a le d ’A rb itra g e, sa n s c o n fie r a c e lle -c i
to u t le s o in d e tr a n c h e r le litig e c o n f o r m e m e n t a s o n R e g le m e n t [...] ; q u e les
s tip u la tio n s d e P a rticle 9, d e r n ie r a lin e a , s o n t m a n ife s te m e n t d e s tin e e s a a p p o r te r
u n e s o lu tio n a l’e n s e m b le d u litig e d a n s le ca s o u P u n e d es p a rtie s p a ra ly se ra it la
p r o c e d u r e d ’a rb itra g e e n s ’a b s te n a n t d e d e s ig n e r u n a rb itre c o m m e e lle s ’e ta it
e n g a g e e a le fa ire ; q u ’il e s t cla ir q u e , d a n s c e ca s, le s p a rtie s s o n t c o n v e n u e s
d ’a v a n c e e n l ’e s p e c e d e c o n fie r a la C h a m b re d e C o m m e r c e In te r n a tio n a le , c ’est-a-
d ire a la C o u r I n te r n a tio n a le d ’A rb itra g e, le s o in d ’o r g a n is e r e n t ie r e m e n t la
p r o c e d u r e d ’a rb itra g e s e lo n s o n R e g le m e n t, afin d ’e v ite r to u t b lo c a g e ; q u e la
fo r m u le d e P a rticle , d e r n ie r a lin e a , e x p r im e d o n e a l ’e v id e n c e la v o lo n te d e s p a rtie s,
si e lle s s o n c o n f r o n te e s a la d ifficu lte in d iq u e e , d ’a d h e r e r a u s y s te m e d e r e g le m e n t
d e s litig e s q u e la C h a m b re d e C o m m e r c e I n te r n a tio n a le a e ta b li, d e s ’e n r e m e ttr e a
c e t t e d e r n ie r e d u s o in d ’o r g a n is e r la p r o c e d u r e d ’a rb itra g e c o n f o r m e m e n t a s o n
R e g le m e n t d ’a rb itra g e , d o n t P a rticle 1 p r e c is e q u e la C o u r In te r n a tio n a le d ’A rb itrag e
s ie g e a n t a u p re s d e la C h a m b re d e C o m m e r c e I n te r n a tio n a le « [...] a p o u r m issio n
d e p r o c u r e r , d e la fag o n in d iq u e e c i-a p re s , la s o lu tio n a rb itra le d e s d iffe re n d s ay ant
u n c a r a c t e r e in te r n a tio n a l, in te rv e n a n t d a n s le d o m a in e d e s a ffa ires », c e q u e le s
p a r tie s n e p o u v a ie n t ig n o r e r ;

A tte n d u e n c o n s e q u e n c e q u e le T ribu n al a rb itra l d e s ig n e p a r la C o u r In te r n a tio n a le

d ’A rb itra g e d a n s le s c o n d itio n s s u s -e n o n c e e s s ’e s tim e c o m p e te n t p o u r c o n n a itr e du
litig e o p p o s a n t [la p a rtie d e m a n d e r e s s e ] a [la p a rtie d e f e n d e r e s s e ] . »
IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No. 1 - Spring 2003

Case 9977
Final Award of 22 June 1999

Dispute resolution clause

A ny c o n tro v e rs y th a t m ay arise a m o n g th e p a rtie s w ith r e s p e c t to th e legal re la tio n
arisin g o u t o f th is A g re e m e n t shall b e s u b m itte d to s e n io r m a n a g e m e n t
re p re s e n ta tiv e s o f th e p a rtie s w h o will a tte m p t to r e a c h an a m ica b le s e ttle m e n t w ithin
fo u r te e n (1 4 ) c a le n d a r days a fte r su b m issio n .

I f an a m ic a b le s o lu tio n c a n n o t b e re a c h e d b y n e g o tia tio n , th e d isp u te shall b e finally

s e ttle d b y a rb itra tio n b y a p a n e l o f o n e (1 ) a rb itra to r, w h ic h sh all b e a p p o in te d by b o th
p a rtie s. In th e e v e n t th e p a rtie s fail to a p p o in t th e a rb itra to r w ith in th e follow in g
fifte e n (1 5 ) days as o f th e in itia tio n o f th e a rb itra tio n , s u c h a rb itra to r sh a ll b e
d e s ig n a te d b y th e In te rn a tio n a l C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e , Paris, w h o c o n d u c te d in
a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e R u les o f C o n c ilia tio n an d A rb itra tio n o f th e In te rn a tio n a l
C h a m b e r o f C o m m e rc e , Paris. T h e s ite o f th e a rb itra tio n sh a ll b e M ex ic o City, and th e
la n g u a g e to b e u sed in th e a rb itra tio n shall b e th e E n g lish L an gu age. T h e aw ard o f
th e a rb itra to r sh all b e final an d b in d in g u p o n b o th p a rtie s , and n e ith e r party sh all s e e k
r e c o u r s e to a c o u rt o f law o r o th e r a u th o ritie s to a p p e a l fo r re v isio n o f su c h aw ard o r
an y o th e r ru lin g o f th e a rb itra to rs. T h e c o s t o f th e a rb itra tio n sh all b e b o rn e b y b o th
p a rtie s in e q u a l a m o u n ts .’

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

‘Is s u e n u m b e r 1 o f th e T erm s o f R e fe re n c e , re a d s as follow s:

1. H as [C laim an t] c o m p lie d w ith th e “a m ic a b le s o lu tio n ” p ro c e d u r e s e t fo rth in cla u se

Tw enty F o u r (th ird p a ra g ra p h ) o f th e A g re e m e n t?

T h e A g re e m e n t in c lu d e d th e follo w in g c o v e n a n t (c la u s e Tw enty F o u r (th ird

p a rag rap h ):

“C o n tro v e rs ie s in G e n e ra l. A ny c o n tro v e rs y th a t m ay a rise a m o n g th e p a rtie s w ith

r e s p e c t to th e legal re la tio n a risin g o u t o f th is a g r e e m e n t sh all b e s u b m itte d to s e n io r
m a n a g e m e n t re p re s e n ta tiv e s o f th e p a rtie s w h o will a tte m p t to re a c h an a m ica b le
s e ttle m e n t w ith in fo u r te e n (1 4 ) ca le n d a r days a fte r s u b m is s io n .”

[D e fe n d a n t] a rg u e d [C laim ant] ’s n o n -c o m p lia n c e to th e a fo r e m e n tio n e d p ro v isio n .

[D e fe n d a n t] s ta te d th a t n o s e n io r m a n a g e m e n t re p re s e n ta tiv e w as involved in said
n e g o tia tio n p r o c e s s , y e t o n ly a legal re p re s e n ta tiv e ( apoderado ) o f [C la im a n t].
[D e fe n d a n t] a lle g e d th a t c o n ta c ts w ith s u c h re p re s e n ta tiv e w e re o n ly in th e fo rm o f
r e q u e s ts o f p a y m e n t o f th e d u e a m o u n t in fav or o f [C la im a n t].

[C laim ant] a lle g e d th a t th e r e w e re se v e ra l c o n ta c ts b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s in o r d e r to

c o m p ly w ith th e a fo r e m e n tio n e d p ro v isio n . [C laim ant] a lleg ed a m o n g o th e r
c o n s id e r a tio n s in its favor, th e c o n te n t o f v ariou s w ritte n c o m m u n ic a tio n s s e n t from
[C laim an t] to [D e fe n d a n t]. T h o s e c o m m u n ic a tio n s w e re in tro d u c e d as [C laim ant] ’s
e v id e n c e . M o re o v e r, [C laim ant] in tro d u c e d e v id e n c e in s u p p o r t o f th e fo r e g o in g in
th e fo rm o f affidavits r e n d e re d b y . . . T h o s e affidavits d e p ic t variou s
c o m m u n ic a tio n s involving m a n a g e m e n t re p re s e n ta tiv e s .
85 IC C International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No. 1 - Spring 2003

T h e s o le a rb itra to r p ro d u c e s th e fo llo w in g analysis re g a rd in g th e is su e d e p ic te d

h e r e in .

T h e e v id e n c e in tro d u c e d b y [C laim an t] re fle c ts th a t th e r e w e re p rio r m a n a g e m e n t

c o n ta c ts b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s. T h is, in a d d itio n to o th e r c o n ta c ts w h ic h in volved
[C laim ant] ’s legal re p re s e n ta tiv e .

N e v e rth e le ss, a p rio r m a n d a to ry p r o c e s s o f c o m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s in

c o n flic t c a n n o t b e u n d e rs to o d as a p r o c e s s w h e re in a fo rm a l d e s c rip tio n o f its
c o n te n ts (s u c h as d e s c rip tio n o f th e re p re s e n ta tiv e s , tim in g p ro v isio n s, fo rm al
e n c o u n te r s ) is o f th e e s s e n c e . A p rio r p ro c e s s lik e th e o n e s e t fo rth in th e
A g re e m e n t, r a th e r im p lies an a ttitu d e an d b e h a v io r o f th e p a rtie s in sp ire d in a tru e
an d h o n e s t p u rp o s e o f re a c h in g an a g re e m e n t. H e n c e fo rth , if o n e o f th e p artie s
c o n s id e rs in g o o d fa ith th a t its c o u n te r p a r t is n o t a u th e n tic a lly c o m m itte d to fo s te r th e
p o s s ib ilitie s o f s e ttlin g th e d isp u te , fo r in s ta n c e , b e c a u s e o f th e q u ality o f its
re p re s e n ta tiv e , it is e x p e c te d th a t th e fo r m e r w o u ld e x p re s s s o d u rin g th e p ro c e s s . S o
th at, th e c o u n te rp a rt m ig h t b e a b le to p u t a p ro m p t re m e d y to said o b je c tio n .

A pp lying th e s e id e a s to th e is s u e in c o m m e n t, th e s o le a r b itra to r’s view is as follow s.

(i) T h e p a r tie s ’ m a n a g e m e n t o ffic e rs w e re in d ire c t c o n ta c t. T h is is e v id e n c e d b y th e

affidavits r e n d e r e d b y . . . (s ta rtin g as o f N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 7 ). [C la im a n t]’s r e q u e s t fo r
a rb itra tio n w as r e c e iv e d a t th e C o u rt S e c r e ta r ia t o n M ay 14, 1 9 9 8 .

(ii) [C laim an t] d e liv e re d to [D e fe n d a n t] v a rio u s c o m m u n ic a tio n s in v itin g to s e ttle

d iffe re n c e s a m o n g th e p a rtie s. [C la im a n t]’s le tte rs in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e fo re g o in g
d a te d Ja n u a ry 2 7 , 1 9 9 8 a n d M a rch 2 5 , 1 9 9 8 , w e re p ro d u c e d p rio r to th e in itia tio n o f
th e s e a rb itra tio n p ro c e e d in g s .

(iii) [D e fe n d a n t] ’s a lle g a tio n o b je c tin g th e c h a r a c te ris tic s o f [C laim ant] re p re s e n ta tiv e

in v o lv ed in th e p ro c e s s is a p o s t factu al a rg u m e n t. I f [D e fe n d a n t] w as truly co m m itte d
to s e ttle th e c o n tro v e rs y and c o n s id e r e d th e c h a r a c te ris tic s o f th e [C laim ant] ’s
re p re s e n ta tiv e as an o b s ta c le in d o in g so , it w o u ld b e e x p e c te d th a t [D e fe n d a n t]
s h o u ld h a v e ra ised s u c h p o in t a t th a t tim e . It did n o t o ccu r.

(iv) T h e a b o v e c o m m e n te d c la u s e w h ic h r e q u e s ts fo r a p rio r s e ttle m e n t p r o c e s s , d o es

n o t p r e c lu d e th e in te rv e n tio n o f legal re p re s e n ta tiv e s . P u rsu a n t to M e x ic a n Law, a legal
r e p re s e n ta tiv e (a p o d e r a d o ) c a n p e rfo rm a ta sk o n b e h a lf o f h is c lie n t u n le ss th e r e is a
m a n d a to ry p ro h ib itio n sta tin g th e con trary . T h e r e is n o n e in th is c a s e .’

Case 9 9 8 4
Prelim inary Aw ard of 7 June 1999

Dispute resolution clauses

The term s a n d co n d ition s relatin g to civil en gin eerin g in c lu d ed the fo llo w in g clause:
A ny d iffe re n c e s o r d isp u te s arisin g fro m th is c o n tr a c t o r fro m a g r e e m e n ts re g ard in g
ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No. 1 - Spring 2003

its performance shall be settled in an amicable manner by both parties to the Contract.
An attem pt to arrive at a settlement shall be deemed to have failed as soon as one of
the parties to the contract so notifies the other party in writing.

If an attem pt at settlement has failed, the disputes shall be finally settled under the
Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in
Paris by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the rules.

The place of arbitration shall be Zurich in Switzerland. The procedural law of this city
shall apply where the rules are silent.

The Arbitral award shall be substantiated in writing. The court of arbitration shall
decide on the m atter of costs of the arbitration.’

The terms an d conditions relating to construction included the following clause:

‘If any differences of opinion or disputes shall arise out of or in connection with this
contract, or from any agreements regarding the implementation of this contract, the
parties concerned will in the first place make an effort to settle them without recourse
to arbitration. The attempt to reach agreement shall be considered as having failed as
soon as one of the parties has informed the other party to this effect in writing.

If the conciliation attempt has failed, the disputes shall be finally and bindingly settled,
eliminating legal proceedings, under the rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the
International Chamber of Commerce in Paris (ICC) by three arbitrators appointed in
accordance with those rules.

The venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be Zurich/Switzerland. The procedural

law of this venue shall apply as far as the ICC Rules do not contain any relevant
provisions.

The language of the arbitration shall be English.

The arbitration award shall be duly substantiated in writing, The Court of Arbitration
shall also decide on the costs and expenses of the procedure and their refund.

An appeal to the Court of Arbitration shall not entitle the Contractor to interrupt or
delay any services.’

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

‘Thus, it results from the two arbitration agreements applicable to the Contract that,
before resorting to arbitration, the parties must attempt to settle their dispute
amicably. It is only if this attempt has failed that the dispute may be resolved by
arbitration. The attempt is deemed to have failed as soon as one of the parties had
informed the other party to this effect in writing.

In a nutshell, Respondent no. 1 holds that the Request for Arbitration is

inadmissible because the Claimant did not inform it in writing of the failure of the
amicable settlem ent phase before filing the Request for Arbitration. That this phase
took place is not disputed. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot share Respondent no. l ’s
co n clu sio n .

Indeed, in its letter dated April 3 rd, 1998, Claimant wrote to both Respondents:
ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 14/No. 1 - Spring 2003

“We hereby invite you to discuss our problems in an amicable way during the next 30
days, i .e . until May 04, 1998. In case we cannot reach a solution to our differences
within this period, we propose to appoint Chilean arbitrators, and hold the arbitration
in Chile.

In the event we do not solve our differences and do not reach an agreement in the
proposed, we will proceed according to what was agreed on this matter in the
C ontract.”

Such letter was clearly indicating that, should no amicable settlem ent take place by
May 4, 1998, either on the substantial dispute among the parties or on the
organisation of an arbitration in Chile, Claimant would resort to arbitration under
the appropriate clauses. Fixing in advance in a letter a date by which the attempt to
amicably settle the dispute would be held as having failed in this absence of a
settlem ent was an acceptable substitute to sending a letter notifying Respondents of
such failure. Therefore, by May 4, 1998, Claimant was entitled to file a Request for
Arbitration without breaching the obligation to attempt to reach an amicable
settlement.

The fact that negotiations continued after May 4, 1998, does not modify that
conclusion. It is not unusual to find an amicable solution to a dispute in parallel with
an arbitration procedure. It is what happened in this case where the parties were still
considering the possibility of an amicable settlement several weeks after the filing of
the Request for Arbitration as it results from the various correspondence submitted to
the Arbitral Tribunal.

Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal concludes that Respondent no. l ’s argumentation in

order to establish that the Request for Arbitration is inadmissible is factually wrong.
This finding is sufficient to declare the Request for Arbitration admissible.’

Case 10256
Interim Aw ard of 8 D ecem ber 2000

Dispute resolution provisions

Article XV of the [Power Purchase Agreement] relates to the resolution of disputes.

Section 15.1 contains provisions providing for the settlement of disputes by mutual
discussions by the parties acting in good faith.

Section 15-2 provides for mediation by an expert. The relevant part of the section
provides:

“(a) In the event that the parties are unable to resolve a dispute in accordance with
Section 15.1, then either Party, in accordance with this Section 15.2, may refer the
dispute to an expert for consideration of the dispute . . .”

The clause contains detailed provisions setting out the procedure to be followed in
the event of a mediation under Section 15.2.
ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 11/No. 1 - Spring 2003

Section 15.3 related to arbitration. . . . The relevant part of this section provides’

“(a) Any Dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement and not resolved
following the procedures described in Sections 15.1 and 15-2 shall, except as
hereinafter provided, be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings . .

Arbitral tribunal’s decision

T h e Respondent submitted that these provisions, read together, should be
interpreted to mean that a mediation under Section 15.2 is a prerequisite to an
application for an arbitration under Section 15-3. To put it another way, the
Respondent contended that a party is not entitled to seek an arbitration under Section
15.3 until there has been a mediation by expert under Section 15.2.

I do not accept the submission in [the preceding paragraph]. It is clear by the use of
the word “may” in Section 15.2 that the reference of the dispute to an expert under
that section is permissive not mandatory. I do not consider that the provision in
Section 15.3 [set out above] affects that conclusion. The reference in the section to
the dispute . . not resolved following the procedures described in Sections 15 1 and
15.2 . . .” is no m ore than a reference to those procedures if a party has elected to
invoke them. If the party has chosen not to exercise the right to refer the dispute to
mediation by an expert under Section 15.2, the only consequence is that the dispute
has not been resolved by the procedures described in that section. Either party is
free to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 15.3, w hether or not there have
been good faith mutual discussions under Section 15.1 or a reference to mediation by
an expert under Section 15.2.’