/ Law Blogs

Emergency Arbitration in Investment Treaty Disputes: Tracing the Emerging Jurisprudence from TSIKinvest to JKX Oil & Gas

06 August 2026

Introduction

The landscape of international investment arbitration has evolved significantly over the last two decades. As cross-border investments have expanded, so too have disputes between foreign investors and host States. While investment treaties provide substantive protection against expropriation, fair and equitable treatment (FET), and discrimination, the effectiveness of these protections often depends on the availability of timely remedies. One of the most pressing challenges in Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) has been the inability of investors to secure urgent relief before the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.

Emergency Arbitration has arisen to address this procedural deficiency. Initially established in commercial arbitration, emergency arbitration permits parties to request interim relief from an emergency arbitrator prior to the formal establishment of the arbitral tribunal. The process aims to maintain the status quo, avert irreparable damage, safeguard assets, and guarantee the efficacy of forthcoming arbitral proceedings.

Although increasingly accepted in commercial arbitration, the use of emergency arbitration in investment treatyissues continue to be contentious. Debates persist among scholars, practitioners, and arbitral institutions concerning State consent, sovereign immunity, cooling-off periods, jurisdiction, and enforceability.

This blog analyses the emergence of emergency arbitration in investment treaty disputes, analyses leading cases, examines procedural and substantive issues and evaluates whether emergency arbitration may become an integral part of modern investor-State dispute resolution.

Emergency Arbitration

Emergency arbitration denotes a process enabling a party to request immediate provisional remedy prior to the establishment of an arbitral panel. In contrast to conventional interim measures issued by an arbitral tribunal post-constitution, emergency arbitration addresses the procedural gap that arises between the initiation of a dispute and the panel’s appointment.

The concept became prominent following the introduction of emergency procedures by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) in 2006. Consequently, prominent arbitral institutions, including the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), and London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), integrated emergency arbitrator provisions into their arbitration regulations.

Four EA rulings have been issued: TSIKInvest v Moldova (Russia-Moldova BIT), Evrobalt v Moldova (Russia-Moldova BIT), Kompozit LLC v Moldova (Russia-Moldova BIT) and Munshi v Mongolia (Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”).  Puma v. Benin (Belgium/Luxembourg BIT) and Okuashvili v. Georgia (UK-Georgia BIT, Belgium/Luxembourg BIT).

In TSIKinvest LLC v. Republic of Moldova, The case tested whether an emergency arbitrator could grant interim relief in an investor–State dispute before the constitution of the tribunal.  A key issue was whether Moldova had consented to the emergency arbitration mechanism. The claimant also needed to prove urgencyand the risk. The emergency arbitrator found prima facie jurisdiction to hear the application.
This allowed the arbitrator to consider the request for urgent interim measures.
The decision affirmed that emergency arbitration may be available in investment treaty disputes where the applicable rules permit it.
However, relief would only be granted when immediate protection is necessary and a final award would not adequately remedy the harm.

Relevance of Emergency Arbitration in the Investor State Disputes

The Emergency Arbitrator (“EA”) technique is not often used in investment treaty arbitration, unlike its success in the commercial sphere. Despite calls for caution, three sets of major arbitration rules have promulgated EA procedure for investment disputes: Arbitration Rules of Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC Rules”), SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules (“SIAC IA Rules”), and China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission International Investment Arbitration Rules (“CIETAC IA Rules”).

Investment treaty issues markedly differ from commercial conflicts. Commercial arbitration typically involves private entities, whereas investment arbitration features foreign investors opposing sovereign states. This differentiation presents significant issues. Government measures, such license revocation, concession cancellation, tax imposition, asset freeze, or regulatory interventions, can significantly affect investments prior to the establishment of an arbitral tribunal.

In Griffin Group v. Republic of Poland, The claimant commenced investment treaty arbitration and requested urgent interim relief via the SCC emergency arbitration process prior to the establishment of the arbitral tribunal. The contention focused on Poland’s assent to emergency arbitration and the claimant’s demonstration of urgency and potential irreparable injury. The emergency arbitrator evaluated the request, meticulously weighing the investor’s need for protection against the State’s regulatory power. The arbitrator acknowledged the significance of safeguarding the claimant’s rights during arbitration, nevertheless proceeded with caution in defining the extent of any interim measures.

The Jurisdiction of Emergency Arbitration

The jurisdiction of the EA, akin to that of an arbitral tribunal, is based on the parties’ permission to arbitrate, namely the underlying investment treaty and the relevant arbitration procedures. As elucidated in Evrobalt, the EA “intervenes where a tribunal has yet to be established” (para. 17). The EA may only examine the requested relief if it is “satisfied ‘prima facie’ that an arbitral tribunal, properly constituted under the arbitration agreement cited by the applicant, may possess (or potentially possess) jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits.

The IAA states, “’arbitral tribunal’…includes an emergency arbitrator appointed pursuant to the rules of arbitration…”. In alignment with the IAA provision, paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 of the SIAC IA Rulesspecifies that the EA possesses the powers conferred upon the arbitral tribunal, “including the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, without prejudice to the Tribunal’s determination.”

The CIETAC IA Rules, while phrased differently from the SCC Rules, equally allow for interpretation of state consent. Article 1 of Appendix II stipulates that a party may request EA “based on the applicable law or the agreement of the parties.

Jurisdictional Objection Pending EA Proceedings

Host governments face significant hurdles in mounting a solid defence in EA proceedings due to issues such as insufficient institutional capacity for prompt response and the intricate analysis of state consent to EA procedures.

In the four deliberations examined, the host states did not engage in the EA proceedings. In the case of Griffin v. Poland, the Polish government contested the jurisdiction of the EA, asserting that it had not consented to the implementation of the SCC Rules 2010.

Challenging the EA jurisdiction on the basis of ratione personae or ratione materiae is arduous due to the low threshold, which is predominantly fact-dependent. As previously stated, the EAs typically refrain from conducting an independent examination of the evidence substantiating such criteria and instead accept the Claimant’s factual allegations. Therefore, unless the underlying treaty has provided for agreement to EA, the host state’s initial reference should be to the relevant arbitration procedures. For example, under the SIAC IA Rules, express consent is necessary to seek for EA relief. Consequently, contending the lack of explicit agreement is a viable option. The EA, if appointed, shall thoroughly analyse the consent to EA procedure while balancing the urgency of the situation and the essential need to secure explicit state consent.

Institutional Approaches to Emergency Arbitration in Investment Disputes

  • SCC Arbitration Regulations

The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has been the most influential arbitral organization in advancing emergency arbitration within the realm of investment arbitration. The SCC Rules authorise emergency arbitration in investor-State disputes, so establishing the primary mechanism for seeking emergency remedy in investment treaty issues.

The significance of the SCC arises from the designation of SCC arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in various Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).

  • SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules

The SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules, established in 2017, encompass emergency arbitration provisions designed expressly for investment disputes. Nonetheless, their implementation typically relies on explicit consent from the people involved.

  • ICSID and UNCITRAL

Significantly, neither the ICSID Convention nor the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules presently provide a specific emergency arbitrator provision. While parties can seek provisional measures after a tribunal is established, no comparable emergency remedy is available during the pre-constitution process. This institutional deficiency elucidates why SCC emergency arbitration has emerged as the preeminent forum for emergency relief in investor-State conflicts.

Complexities of Emergency Arbitration

  • State Consent and Jurisdictional Challenges

Consent is fundamental to arbitration. States often contend that they did not explicitly consent to emergency arbitration, as numerous investment treaties were negotiated prior to the incorporation of emergency arbitration provisions into institutional regulations.

Investors refute this argument by invoking the principle of dynamic integration. This idea posits that when parties consent to arbitrate under institutional rules, they implicitly accept any future revisions to those rules unless explicitly excluded. Emergency arbitrators have typically supported this view.

  • Sovereignty Concerns

Sovereignty is perhaps the most fundamental issue raised by States. States contend that emergency arbitrators should not interfere with government decision-making, particularly when the measures involve taxation, public health, environmental protection, or national security.

Unlike disagreements between private parties, Investor-State disputes often entail questions of public policy impacting entire populations. In this respect, emergency arbitrators have to find a very delicate balance between investor protection and State sovereignty. Critics say that emergency measures, albeit temporary and not determinative of substantive responsibility, may nevertheless restrain governmental discretion. This remains one of the primary issues of emergency arbitration in investment disputes.

  • Cooling-Off Periods

Most bilateral investment treaties have mandatory cooling-off periods requiring investors and States to engage in consultations or negotiations before beginning arbitration proceedings. These periods are usually between three and six months. States often argue that emergency arbitration demands filed before the expiration of these periods are illegitimate.

Investors say the situation is urgent and needs fast action. Emergency arbitrators have generally adopted a pragmatic approach, understanding that stringent compliance with cooling-off periods may frustrate the very purpose of emergency relief if irreparable harm is impending.

Conclusion

Emergency arbitration has emerged as a significant procedural innovation capable of addressing the temporal gap between the commencement of investment disputes and the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. Although originally conceived for commercial arbitration, recent jurisprudence demonstrates its gradual acceptance within the framework of investor-State dispute settlement. Decisions such as TSIKInvest v. Moldova, Evrobalt v. Moldova, Kompozit LLC v. Moldova, Munshi v. Mongolia, Puma v. Benin, Okuashvili v. Georgia, and Griffin Group v. Poland illustrate the increasing willingness of emergency arbitrators to exercise jurisdiction where the applicable treaty or institutional rules permit, while carefully balancing the competing interests of investor protection and State sovereignty.

At the same time, emergency arbitration in investment treaty disputes continues to face significant legal and practical challenges. Questions concerning State consent, the interaction between treaty-based cooling-off periods and emergency proceedings, the enforceability of emergency decisions, and the extent to which emergency arbitrators may interfere with sovereign regulatory measures remain unsettled. The absence of emergency arbitrator provisions under the ICSID Convention and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules further contributes to an uneven institutional landscape, leaving the SCC and a limited number of specialised institutional rules at the forefront of this evolving mechanism.

Nevertheless, the emerging jurisprudence reflects a pragmatic recognition that effective investment protection requires access to urgent interim relief in exceptional circumstances where waiting for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal may render the final award ineffective. As States continue to modernise investment treaties and arbitral institutions refine their procedural frameworks, emergency arbitration is likely to assume a more prominent role in investor-State dispute settlement. Its future legitimacy, however, will ultimately depend on developing a coherent jurisprudence that respects both the consensual foundation of arbitration and the sovereign prerogatives of States while ensuring that investors have access to meaningful and timely protection of their treaty rights.

Smeeksha Pandey 225x300

Smeeksha Pandey

Author

References

  1. Born, G. B. (2012). Introduction to International Commercial Arbitration. In International Commercial Arbitration(Excerpt, Chapter One). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from excerpt dated March 1, 2012.
  2. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2010). Investor–State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration. UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development. United Nations, New York and Geneva. UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2009/11. ISBN: 978-92-1-112793-5. ISSN: 1814-2001. Sales No. E.10.II. D.11. [Printed in Switzerland]
  3. Emergency arbitration: A practical guide for young arbitration practitioners. IBA Arb40 Subcommittee of the IBA Arbitration Committee. October 2025. International Bar Association. London, UK. Available at: ibanet.org.
  4. Schreuer, Christoph. The Concept of Expropriation under the ETC and other Investment Protection Treaties. Revised 20 May 2005. 
  5. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).(2012). Fair and Equitable Treatment: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II. 
  6. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). (2019). Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings: Report of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR Task Force on Emergency Arbitrator (‘EA’) Proceedings. ICC Publication 895-0. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce. Available at: https://iccwbo.org/
  7. “Interim Measures in International Arbitration: Towards International Consistency” was authored by Dr. Jennifer Bryant and Johannes Hagmann. It was published in the National Law School Business Law Review (2024, Vol. 10, Issue 2)
  8. Marian, Cornel, SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) (February 26, 2015). Getting the Deal Through – Arbitration 2015, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2570810.
  9. Rule: Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC Rules (7th ed. 2025) or Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules r. X (2016) depending on the active year version.
  10. International Chamber of Commerce. (2021). Rules of arbitration.
  11. HKIAC Administered Rules 2024.
  12. London Court of International Arbitration, Arbitration Rules (2020)
  13. , SCC Emergency Arbitration No. EA (2014/053), Emergency Decision rendered on April 29, 2014 (Arbitrator: Prof. Dr. Kaj Hobér).
  14. Evrobalt LLC v. The Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. 2016/082, Award on Emergency Measures (30 May 2016).
  15. ompozit LLC v. Republic of Moldova, SCC Emergency Arbitration Case No. EA 2016/082, Emergency Award on Interim Measures, rendered on June 14, 2016.
  16. Mohammed Munshi v. State of Mongolia under the Energy Charter Treaty is SCC Case No. EA 2018/007, rendered via an Award on Emergency Measures dated February 5, 2018 . (SCC)
  17. SCC Case No. EA 2017/092 (Emergency proceedings).
  18. GPF GP S.à.r.l. v. Republic of Poland, SCC Case No. V 2014/168 (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce)