Published
This article summarises similarities and differences between the Model Law and the Act by providing a clause-by-clause comparison of the two frameworks based on the structure of the Model Law.
Sweden, and especially Stockholm, is frequently selected as a seat for international arbitration, including in disputes involving parties from jurisdictions that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law). At the same time, Sweden has never formally enacted the Model Law. For international practitioners accustomed to Model Law–based regimes, this may raise questions about procedural familiarity, predictability, and potential deviations from internationally accepted standards.
In practice, however, the Swedish Arbitration Act (the Act) is widely regarded as highly arbitration-friendly and closely aligned with the Model Law in substance, if not in structure or terminology. Many of the core principles underpinning the Model Law—party autonomy, competence-competence, separability, limited court intervention, and enforceability of awards—are reflected throughout the Act, often through differently structured provisions or established procedural principles rather than express statutory statements.
This guide provides a clause-by-clause comparison of the Model Law and the Swedish Arbitration Act, following the structure of the Model Law. The purpose is not only to identify formal differences, but also to assess whether those differences are likely to have practical significance for international arbitration users considering Sweden as a seat.
Clause-by-clause overview of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration compared to the Swedish Arbitration Act
Article 1 – Scope of application: Establishes that the Model Law applies to international commercial arbitration, with most provisions applying only when the place of arbitration is in the enacting State. Defines when arbitration is “international” based on parties’ places of business, location of obligations, or parties’ express agreement.
Section 43 designates the Court of Appeal as the competent court for actions concerning invalidity or setting aside of awards. Section 44 designates the District Court for matters concerning appointment or release of arbitrators and assistance in taking evidence.
Article 2 – Definitions and rules of interpretation: Provides key definitions for “arbitration,” “arbitral tribunal,” and “court”. Clarifies that party autonomy includes the right to authorise third parties to make determinations and that party agreements include referenced arbitration rules.
The Act contains no dedicated definitions section equivalent to Article 2 Model Law. The terms “arbitration,” “arbitral tribunal,” and “court” are used throughout the Act without formal definition.
Article 2A – International origin and general principles: Requires interpretation of the Model Law with regard to its international origin and the need to promote uniformity and good faith. Provides that unsettled questions shall be resolved in conformity with the Model Law’s general principles.
No equivalent provision.
Article 3 – Receipt of written communications: Establishes when written communications are deemed received, including delivery methods and timing rules.
No equivalent provision. The Swedish Arbitration Act does not contain detailed rules on when written communications are deemed received, relying instead on general Swedish procedural law principles.
Article 4 – Waiver of right to object: Provides that a party who proceeds with arbitration without timely objecting to non-compliance with the Model Law or arbitration agreement waives the right to object.
Section 34, second paragraph, provides that a party shall not be entitled to rely upon a circumstance which, through participation in the proceedings without objection or in any other manner, the party may be deemed to have waived. Section 4, second paragraph, requires parties to invoke arbitration agreements on the first occasion they plead their case on the merits in court, with late invocation having no effect unless the party had a legal excuse.
Article 5 – Extent of court intervention: Limits court intervention to only those instances expressly provided in the Model Law.
No express equivalent provision. Whilst the Model Law states that “no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law,” the Act achieves similar results through specific provisions limiting court involvement but lacks this overarching statement of principle.
Article 6 – Court or other authority for certain functions: Designates which court or authority shall perform specific arbitration assistance and supervision functions under the Model Law.
Section 43 designates the Court of Appeal as the competent court for actions concerning invalidity or setting aside of awards. Section 44 designates the District Court for matters concerning appointment or release of arbitrators and assistance in taking evidence.
Article 7 – Definition and form of arbitration agreement: Defines arbitration agreement as an agreement to submit disputes to arbitration regarding a defined legal relationship. Option I requires the agreement to be in writing (with flexible form requirements), Option II omits form requirements entirely.
Section 1 defines the scope of arbitrable disputes as those concerning matters in respect of which parties may reach a settlement, and provides that arbitration agreements may relate to future disputes pertaining to a legal relationship specified in the agreement. The Swedish Act contains no express writing requirement for arbitration agreements, taking a liberal approach similar to Model Law Option II. Section 1 further provides that gap-filling in contracts may be referred to arbitrators, and arbitrators may rule on civil law effects of competition law as between parties.
Article 8 – Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court: Requires courts to refer parties to arbitration when an action is brought on a matter subject to an arbitration agreement, unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.
Section 4, first paragraph, provides that a court may not, over an objection of a party, rule on an issue which pursuant to an arbitration agreement shall be decided by arbitrators. Section 4, second paragraph, requires parties to invoke the arbitration agreement on the first occasion they plead their case on the merits, with late invocation having no effect unless the party had a legal excuse and invoked the agreement as soon as the excuse ceased to exist.
Article 9 – Arbitration agreement and interim measures by court: Confirms that requesting or granting court-ordered interim measures is compatible with an arbitration agreement.
Section 4, third paragraph, provides that during the pendency of a dispute before arbitrators or prior thereto, a court may, irrespective of the arbitration agreement, issue such decisions in respect of security measures as the court has jurisdiction to issue.
Article 10 – Number of arbitrators: Grants parties freedom to determine the number of arbitrators, with three arbitrators as the default.
Sections 12 and 13 provide that parties may determine the number of arbitrators, and failing such determination, there shall be three arbitrators.
Article 11 – Appointment of arbitrators: Provides that no person shall be precluded from acting as arbitrator by reason of nationality. Establishes default appointment procedures and court assistance mechanisms when parties cannot agree.
Section 12 provides that parties may determine the manner in which arbitrators shall be appointed, with Sections 13-16 applying unless parties have agreed otherwise. Section 13 establishes the default rule that each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators thus appointed appoint the third. Section 14 provides thirty-day deadlines for appointment and District Court assistance when parties fail to appoint. Sections 15 provides for District Court appointment when arbitrators or third parties fail to appoint within thirty days. The Act does not explicitly state that no person shall be precluded by nationality from acting as arbitrator.
Article 12 – Grounds for challenge: Requires arbitrators to disclose circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. Permits challenge of arbitrators on grounds of lack of impartiality, independence, or required qualifications.
Section 8 provides that an arbitrator shall be impartial and independent, and may be released from appointment if there exists any circumstance that may diminish confidence in the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence. Section 8 lists specific circumstances deemed to always diminish confidence, including where the arbitrator or closely associated person is a party, has an interest in the outcome, represents a party, has taken a position in the dispute, or has received improper compensation. Section 9 requires arbitrators to disclose all circumstances that might prevent them from serving, both when approached and throughout proceedings.
Article 13 – Challenge procedure: Establishes the procedure for challenging an arbitrator, including default timelines and court review mechanisms.
Section 10, first paragraph, provides that challenges must be presented within fifteen days from when the party became aware of both the appointment and the circumstance, and shall be adjudicated by the arbitrators unless parties have decided otherwise. Section 10, third paragraph, provides that a party dissatisfied with a decision denying a challenge may file an application with the District Court within thirty days, and arbitrators may continue proceedings pending the District Court’s determination. Section 11 permits parties to agree that challenges shall be conclusively determined by an arbitration institution.
Article 14 – Failure or impossibility to act: Provides for termination of an arbitrator’s mandate when the arbitrator becomes unable to perform functions or fails to act without undue delay.
Section 16, second paragraph, provides that if an arbitrator cannot complete the assignment due to circumstances arising after appointment, the person who originally was required to make the appointment shall appoint a new arbitrator. Section 17 provides that if an arbitrator has delayed the proceedings, the District Court shall, upon request of a party, release the arbitrator and appoint another, with parties able to decide that such requests shall be determined by an arbitration institution.
Article 15 – Appointment of substitute arbitrator: Requires appointment of a substitute arbitrator when an arbitrator’s mandate terminates, following the same rules applicable to the original appointment.
Section 16 provides that when an arbitrator resigns, is released, or cannot complete the assignment, a new arbitrator shall be appointed following the same rules applicable to the original appointment, with the District Court appointing upon party request in certain circumstances.
Article 16 – Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction: Grants the tribunal power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the arbitration agreement’s existence or validity. Permits court review of preliminary jurisdictional rulings within thirty days.
Section 2, first paragraph, provides that arbitrators may rule on their own jurisdiction. Section 2, second paragraph, provides that if arbitrators render a decision finding they have jurisdiction, any party disagreeing may request Court of Appeal review within thirty days, and arbitrators may continue proceedings pending the court’s determination. Section 3 provides that if validity of an arbitration agreement forming part of another agreement must be determined in conjunction with jurisdiction, the arbitration agreement shall be deemed a separate agreement (separability principle).
Section 1: Interim measures
Article 17 – Power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures: Grants tribunals power to order interim measures in various forms. Specifies four purposes: maintaining status quo, preventing harm to the arbitral process, preserving assets, and preserving evidence.
Article 17A – Conditions for granting interim measures: Requires the requesting party to demonstrate that harm not adequately reparable by damages is likely and that there is a reasonable possibility of success on the merits.
Section 2: Preliminary orders
Article 17B – Applications for preliminary orders: Permits ex parte applications for preliminary orders to prevent frustration of interim measures.
Article 17C – Specific regime for preliminary orders: Establishes procedural safeguards for preliminary orders, including notice requirements, opportunity to respond, twenty-day expiry, and non-enforceability by courts.
Section 3: Provisions applicable to interim measures and preliminary orders
Article 17D – Modification, suspension, termination: Permits tribunals to modify, suspend, or terminate interim measures or preliminary orders.
Article 17E – Provision of security: Authorises tribunals to require security in connection with interim measures and preliminary orders.
Article 17F – Disclosure: Requires parties to disclose material changes in circumstances and, for preliminary orders, all relevant circumstances.
Article 17G – Costs and damages: Establishes liability for costs and damages caused by interim measures or preliminary orders that should not have been granted.
Section 4: Recognition and enforcement of interim measures
Article 17H –Recognition and enforcement: Requires interim measures to be recognised as binding and enforced upon application to a competent court. Imposes notification and security obligations.
Article 17I – Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement: Lists exhaustive grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of interim measures, mirroring grounds for refusing enforcement of awards.
Section 5: Court-ordered interim measures
Article 17J – Court-ordered interim measures: Confirms courts’ power to issue interim measures in relation to arbitration proceedings regardless of the place of arbitration.
Section 25, fourth paragraph, provides that unless parties have agreed otherwise, arbitrators may, at the request of a party, decide that the opposing party must undertake a certain interim measure to secure the claim, and may prescribe that the requesting party provide reasonable security for damage that may be incurred. The Swedish provision is significantly more limited than the Model Law’s comprehensive 2006 regime, lacking generic definitions of interim measures covering four categories, detailed conditions for granting measures, preliminary orders provisions, and recognition and enforcement mechanisms for interim measures.
Article 18 – Equal treatment of parties: Establishes the fundamental principle of equal treatment and full opportunity to present one’s case.
Section 21 provides that arbitrators shall handle the dispute in an impartial, practical, and speedy manner. Section 24 requires that parties be afforded opportunity to present their cases in writing or orally, and that parties be given opportunity to review all documents and materials supplied to arbitrators by the opposing party or another person.
Article 19 – Determination of rules of procedure: Grants parties freedom to agree on procedural rules and empowers tribunals to conduct proceedings as appropriate in the absence of agreement.
Section 21 provides that arbitrators shall act in accordance with the decisions of the parties, unless they are impeded from doing so.
Article 20 – Place of arbitration: Allows parties to agree on the place of arbitration and permits tribunals to meet anywhere for proceedings despite the designated place.
Section 22, first paragraph, provides that parties determine which location in Sweden shall be the seat of arbitration, and if parties have not done so, the arbitrators shall determine the seat. Section 22, second paragraph, provides that arbitrators may hold hearings and other meetings elsewhere in Sweden or abroad, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Article 21 – Commencement of arbitral proceedings: Establishes that proceedings commence when the respondent receives the request for arbitration.
Section 19, first paragraph, provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, arbitral proceedings are initiated when a party receives a request for arbitration in accordance with the second paragraph. Section 19, second paragraph, requires that a request for arbitration must be in writing and include: (1) an express and unconditional request for arbitration, (2) a statement of the issue covered by the arbitration agreement, and (3) a statement of the party’s choice of arbitrator if required to appoint one.
Article 22 – Language: Grants parties freedom to agree on the language(s) of proceedings and empowers tribunals to determine language and order translations.
No equivalent provision. The Swedish Arbitration Act does not contain statutory guidance on language of proceedings, relying on party agreement and tribunal discretion. Section 45a permits courts to accept oral evidence in English in certain proceedings without interpretation into Swedish.
Article 23 – Statements of claim and defence: Requires parties to submit statements of claim and defence within specified timeframes and permits amendments unless inappropriate due to delay.
Section 23, first paragraph, provides that within periods determined by arbitrators, the claimant shall state its claims and supporting facts, and the respondent shall state its position and supporting facts. Section 23, second paragraph, provides that parties may submit new or amended claims, or invoke new circumstances, provided claims fall within the arbitration agreement’s scope and arbitrators do not consider it inappropriate due to timing or other circumstances.
Article 24 – Hearings and written proceedings: Grants tribunals discretion to decide whether to hold hearings but requires hearings if requested by a party, and mandates communication of all materials to both parties.
Section 24, first paragraph, provides that arbitrators shall afford parties opportunity to present cases in writing or orally, and if a party requests, and provided parties have not otherwise agreed, an oral hearing shall be held prior to determination of an issue. Section 24, second paragraph, requires that parties be given opportunity to review all documents and materials pertaining to the dispute supplied to arbitrators by the opposing party or another person.
Article 25 – Default of a party: Addresses consequences of party default: termination if claimant fails to submit claim, continuation if respondent fails to defend, and continuation with available evidence if a party fails to appear.
Section 24, third paragraph, provides that if a party without valid cause fails to appear at a hearing or otherwise fails to comply with an order of the arbitrators, such failure shall not prevent continuation of proceedings and resolution of the dispute based on existing materials. Section 28 provides that if a party withdraws a claim, arbitrators shall dismiss that part of the dispute unless the opposing party requests that arbitrators rule on the claim.
Article 26 – Expert appointed by arbitral tribunal: Authorises tribunals to appoint experts and requires experts to participate in hearings for questioning if requested or deemed necessary.
Section 25, first paragraph, provides that arbitrators may appoint experts, unless both parties are opposed thereto. This differs from the Model Law by allowing parties to veto expert appointment.
Article 27 – Court assistance in taking evidence: Permits tribunals or parties to request court assistance in taking evidence.
Section 26, first paragraph, provides that if a party wishes a witness or expert to testify under oath, a party to be examined under truth affirmation, or orders to produce documents or objects, the party may, after obtaining arbitrators’ consent, submit an application to the District Court, and if arbitrators consider the measure justified and it may lawfully be taken, the District Court shall grant the application. Section 26, second paragraph, provides that arbitrators shall be summoned to hear testimony and afforded opportunity to ask questions.
Article 28 – Rules applicable to substance of dispute: Requires tribunals to apply the rules of law chosen by parties or, failing choice, the law determined by applicable conflict-of-laws rules, permits ex aequo et bono decisions if authorised, and requires consideration of contract terms and trade usages.
Section 27a, first paragraph, provides that the dispute shall be determined with application of the law or rules agreed to by the parties, and unless otherwise agreed, a reference to a certain state’s law shall be deemed to include that state’s substantive law and not its rules of private international law. Section 27a, second paragraph, provides that if parties have not come to an agreement, the arbitrators shall determine the applicable law. Section 27a, third paragraph, provides that arbitrators may base the award on ex aequo et bono considerations only if parties have authorised them to do so.
Article 29 – Decision-making by panel of arbitrators: Establishes majority rule for tribunal decisions, with procedural questions potentially delegated to the presiding arbitrator.
Section 30 provides that if an arbitrator fails without valid cause to participate in determination of an issue, this will not prevent other arbitrators from ruling, and unless parties have decided otherwise, the opinion agreed upon by the majority shall prevail, with the chairman’s opinion prevailing if no majority is attained.
Article 30 – Settlement: Requires termination of proceedings upon settlement and permits recording settlements as awards on agreed terms if requested.
Section 27, second paragraph, provides that if parties enter into a settlement agreement, the arbitrators may, at the parties’ request, confirm the settlement in an award.
Article 31 – Form and contents of award: Requires awards to be in writing, signed, reasoned (unless otherwise agreed), dated, and state the place of arbitration, with delivery to parties.
Section 31, first paragraph, provides that an award shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrators, with majority signature sufficing provided the reason why all arbitrators have not signed is noted, and parties may decide that the chairman alone shall sign. Section 31, second paragraph, provides that the award shall state the seat of arbitration and the date when the award is made, and shall be delivered or sent to parties immediately. The Swedish Act does not explicitly require awards to be reasoned.
Article 32 – Termination of proceedings: Provides that proceedings terminate by final award or tribunal order when the claimant withdraws, parties agree to termination, or continuation becomes unnecessary or impossible.
Section 27, first paragraph, provides that issues referred to arbitrators shall be decided in an award, and if arbitrators terminate proceedings without deciding such issues, this shall also be done through an award, except for dismissals which are designated as decisions. Section 27, fourth paragraph, provides that the assignment of arbitrators shall be deemed complete when they have delivered a final award, unless otherwise provided in Sections 32 or 35. Section 28 provides that if a party withdraws a claim, arbitrators shall dismiss that part unless the opposing party requests a ruling.
Article 33 – Correction and interpretation of award; additional award: Permits parties to request correction of errors, interpretation of specific points, or additional awards on omitted claims within specified timeframes, and allows tribunals to correct errors on their own initiative.
Section 32, first paragraph, provides that arbitrators may, within thirty days of announcement of the award, correct obvious inaccuracies or supplement awards for overlooked issues, and may also correct, supplement, or interpret awards if a party so requests within thirty days of receipt. Section 32, second paragraph, provides that corrections or interpretations shall take place within thirty days from receipt of the party’s request, and supplements shall take place within sixty days. Section 32, third paragraph, requires that parties be afforded opportunity to express their views before any decision is made.
Article 34 – Application for setting aside as exclusive recourse: Establishes setting aside as the sole recourse against an award. Lists exhaustive grounds for setting aside: incapacity or invalid agreement, lack of proper notice, excess of jurisdiction, improper tribunal composition or procedure, non-arbitrability, and public policy violations. Imposes a three-month time limit for applications.
Section 33 provides grounds for invalidity: (1) if the award includes determination of an issue which may not be decided by arbitrators under Swedish law, (2) if the award or manner in which it arose is clearly incompatible with basic principles of the Swedish legal system, or (3) if the award does not fulfil written form and signature requirements.
Section 34, first paragraph, provides grounds for setting aside: (1) not covered by valid arbitration agreement, (2) award made after time limit, (3) arbitrators exceeded mandate in manner that probably influenced outcome, (4) arbitration should not have taken place in Sweden, (5) arbitrator appointed in violation of parties’ agreement or the Act, (6) arbitrator unauthorised due to lack of qualifications or impartiality/independence, or (7) procedural irregularity that probably influenced outcome. Section 34, third paragraph, requires actions to be brought within two months from receipt of the award. The Swedish Act separates invalidity from setting aside grounds and has a shorter time limit (two months vs three months in the Model Law).
Section 35, first paragraph, provides that a court may stay proceedings concerning invalidity or setting aside for a certain period to provide arbitrators with opportunity to resume proceedings or take measures to eliminate the ground for invalidity or setting aside. Section 35, second paragraph, provides that if arbitrators make a new award, a party may challenge it within the period determined by the court.
Article 35 – Recognition and enforcement: Requires awards to be recognised as binding and enforced upon application, with submission of the award and arbitration agreement.
Section 53 provides that foreign awards based on arbitration agreements shall be recognised and enforced in Sweden unless otherwise stated in Sections 54-60. Section 53 requires submission of the original award or certified copy and certified Swedish translation unless the court decides otherwise.
Article 36 – Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement: Lists exhaustive grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement, mirroring the grounds for setting aside under Article 34. Permits courts to adjourn decisions pending setting aside proceedings and to order security.
Sections 54 and 55 provide grounds for refusal mirroring the Model Law and New York Convention: incapacity/invalid agreement, lack of notice, excess of scope, improper composition/procedure, award not binding or set aside/suspended, non-arbitrability, and incompatibility with basic principles of Swedish legal system. Section 58 permits courts to postpone decisions and order security if setting aside proceedings are pending.
Consumer protection
Section 6 restricts enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements against consumers in disputes concerning goods, services, or products supplied for private use, with exceptions for rental/lease relationships and insurance based on collective/group agreements.
Consolidation of arbitrations
Section 23a provides that arbitrations may be consolidated if parties agree, it benefits administration, and the same arbitrators have been appointed, and arbitrations may be separated if there are reasons for it.
Costs provisions
Sections 37-42 contain detailed provisions on arbitrators’ compensation, security for compensation, prohibition on withholding awards, amendment of compensation awards, and allocation of costs between parties.
International arbitration provisions
Sections 46-51 specifically address international arbitrations, including applicability to international arbitrations seated in Sweden, rules on when arbitrations may commence in Sweden, governing law of arbitration agreements, application of foreign law, evidence-taking in foreign arbitrations, and the ability of parties without Swedish connections to exclude setting aside grounds in commercial relationships.
Use of English language in court proceedings
Section 45a provides that in setting aside and invalidity proceedings, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may accept oral evidence in English without interpretation into Swedish upon party request.
While the Swedish Arbitration Act largely mirrors the Model Law in terms of outcomes and underlying principles, certain structural and substantive differences may be of practical relevance to international practitioners. The most notable areas of divergence are summarised below.
The most significant departure from the Model Law concerns interim measures. The Swedish Arbitration Act contains a comparatively narrow provision allowing arbitrators to order security measures, but it lacks the comprehensive framework introduced into the Model Law in 2006. In particular, the Act does not regulate preliminary orders, detailed conditions for granting interim measures, or recognition and enforcement of arbitral interim measures by courts. As a result, parties in Sweden may rely more heavily on court-ordered interim relief than under a Model Law regime.
Unlike the Model Law, the Act does not contain overarching provisions equivalent to Articles 2A and 5, which emphasise international interpretation, uniformity, good faith, and strict limits on court intervention. Instead, these principles are reflected indirectly through case law and specific statutory provisions. While this rarely affects outcomes in practice, it represents a formal difference that may be noticeable to practitioners accustomed to Model Law drafting.
The Swedish Arbitration Act does not expressly require arbitral awards to state reasons, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. This differs from the default position under the Model Law. In practice, reasoned awards are the norm in international arbitrations seated in Sweden, but the statutory framework provides greater flexibility.
The Act includes explicit consumer protection provisions limiting the enforceability of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in certain consumer contexts. These protections have no direct counterpart in the Model Law and may be relevant where consumer elements arise in otherwise commercial relationships.
The Act contains detailed statutory provisions governing arbitrators’ compensation, security for fees, and cost allocation. These issues are largely left to party agreement or institutional rules under the Model Law framework.