Published
SCC Guide: Emergency arbitration in investment disputes at the SCC
Emergency arbitration lets investors and states obtain urgent interim relief before a tribunal is constituted. Since 2010, the SCC Arbitration Rules have provided an Emergency Arbitrator mechanism that also applies to investment treaty disputes: appointment within 24 hours, a decision within five days and a fixed cost of EUR 20,000. This guide explains how the procedure works, which criteria apply and what the SCC’s record of 15 investment decisions between 2014 and 2025 shows.
The SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC) has been a preferred forum for investor-state dispute settlement since 1993. To date, the SCC has registered over 130 investment treaty disputes, and over 90 active international investment agreements (IIAs), including the Energy Charter Treaty, refer to the SCC or Stockholm for dispute resolution. The SCC Arbitration Rules are the third most used procedural framework in ISDS, after the UNCITRAL and ICSID Rules.
Since the Cold War, the SCC has played a fundamental role in the administration of East-West commercial and investment treaty disputes.
In 2010, the SCC became the first major international arbitration institute to introduce an emergency arbitrator (EA) mechanism. More than fifteen years on, it remains the only leading institution whose EA rules apply to investment treaty disputes. Neither the ICSID Rules nor the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, which together govern the majority of ISDS proceedings, provide for emergency arbitration. To date, all investment EA applications at the SCC have been made by investors, but the mechanism is equally available to states, and for investors and states alike who anticipate the need for urgent relief before a tribunal is constituted, this is a decisive practical reason to choose the SCC.
This Guide sets out how emergency arbitration works in the investment context, reviews the track record of EA decisions in investment disputes from 2014 to 2025, and draws conclusions from that record.
Why is emergency arbitration important in investment disputes?
Investment disputes may involve situations where a party needs protection before a tribunal is in place. An investor may face an ongoing expropriation, the enforcement of an adverse administrative decision, or the forced sale of property. A state may need to prevent the dissipation of assets. In each case, the time it typically takes to constitute a tribunal may be too long.
The SCC’s EA mechanism allows either party to apply for interim relief at this early stage. National courts are not always a viable alternative: they may not be neutrally situated, may lack familiarity with the investment treaty, or may be unable to order the type of relief the situation requires.
The period before a tribunal has been fully constituted is in fact the period when interim protection may be needed most, to preserve the status quo, block actions that risk pre-empting the resolution of the dispute. […] While emergency arbitrators can go beyond orders ‘holding the ring’ or preserving the status quo, their decisions are subject to revision by the full tribunal, which will have a broader and deeper understanding of the case. That check is an attractive feature of the emergency arbitrator system.
Within the ISDS community, the availability of emergency arbitration at the SCC is recognised as a decisive practical advantage that influences forum selection.
How does emergency arbitration work at the SCC?
The emergency arbitrator procedure is governed by Appendix II of the SCC Rules. The key steps are:
Application
A party may apply for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator either before the main arbitration is initiated or after it has been initiated but before the case has been referred to an arbitral tribunal. The SCC Rules do not provide for any minimum waiting period for requesting the appointment of an emergency arbitrator. The application is sent to a specially designated email address (emergencyarbitrator@sccarbitrationinstitute.com) that is monitored during evenings and weekends, all year round.
Appointment within 24 hours
If the SCC does not manifestly lack jurisdiction to administer the dispute, the SCC Board will seek to appoint an emergency arbitrator within 24 hours of receipt of the application and proof of payment. The SCC has met this deadline in all but one case in its 15-year history.1
Referral and decision within five days
Once appointed, the emergency arbitrator must render a decision on interim measures no later than five days from the date the application was referred. This timeline is markedly shorter than that provided by other arbitral institutions. Short extensions of time to render the decision may be granted by the SCC in limited circumstances.
Broad discretion
The emergency arbitrator has the same powers as the arbitral tribunal to grant interim relief and may grant “any interim measures it deems appropriate.” The decision may take the form of an order or an award.
Binding effect
The emergency decision is binding on the parties but ceases to be binding if (i) the emergency arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal so decides, (ii) an arbitral tribunal makes a final award, (iii) arbitration is not commenced within 30 days, or (iv) the case is not referred to an arbitral tribunal within 90 days. The Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the emergency arbitrator’s decision or its reasons.
Fixed costs
The costs of the emergency proceedings are fixed at EUR 20,000 (emergency arbitrator fee of EUR 16,000 and application fee of EUR 4,000). In limited circumstances the SCC Board may adjust these fees. To date, the SCC has increased the emergency arbitrator’s fee in two cases, both involving investment treaty disputes.
It is a reliable process where both sides are heard, and the case is well analysed. It is impressive that the whole process including the decision takes only five days.
What criteria apply to interim relief?
According to the SCC’s jurisprudence, emergency arbitrators in investment disputes have applied the following criteria, with guidance from Article 17A of the UNCITRAL Model Law:
- Prima facie jurisdiction: prima facie evidence that there is a covered investment and investor under the relevant treaty, and that the respondent state consented to arbitration under the SCC Rules.
- Prima facie case on the merits: prima facie evidence that the requesting party has a reasonable possibility of succeeding on the merits of the claim.
- Irreparable harm: harm, actual or imminent, not adequately reparable by an award of damages.
- Urgency: prima facie evidence that irreparable harm is likely to be caused to the requesting party unless the order for interim relief is granted before such relief can be obtained from the arbitral tribunal.
- Proportionality: the harm to the requesting party substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the party against whom the measure is directed.
Emergency arbitrator decisions in investment disputes, 2014–2025
2014–2019: Ten emergency decisions
Between 2014 and 2019, ten emergency arbitrator decisions were rendered in investment treaty disputes under the SCC Rules. In six of these, emergency relief was granted (in full or in part). Eight disputes were based on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and two on the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The emergency arbitrator was appointed within 24 hours in all ten cases. The average time from referral to decision was 5.7 days (median: 5 days), with six out of ten decisions rendered within five days.
2020–2025: Five emergency decisions
Five emergency decisions (plus one supplementary decision) were rendered in investment disputes under the SCC Rules between 2020 and 2025, bringing the total to 15 emergency decisions in investment treaty disputes. Of the five requests, emergency relief was granted in two (in full or in part).
Types of interim measures requested
In investment disputes, the most common requests include orders to stay or refrain from enforcement of administrative decisions, to take measures to prevent enforcement of local court decisions, to prohibit forced sale of property, to release claimants from detention, and to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the substantive claims.
Representative cases: Relief sought and outcome
To illustrate how the criteria above have operated in practice, a selection of anonymised, representative investment EA decisions is set out below.
| Relief sought | Outcome | Principal reason | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stay of enforcement of an administrative decision affecting the investment | Granted | Prima facie jurisdiction and irreparable harm established; the underlying administrative action was found capable of frustrating the investment before a tribunal could be constituted | 2014-2019 |
| Prohibition on forced sale of property by auction | Granted in part | Urgency and proportionality satisfied for the property at imminent risk of sale; broader requests restraining the state’s sovereign tax-collection powers were declined as overbroad | 2014-2019 |
| Restraint on continuing court proceedings and enforcement of a local court judgment | Denied | Claimant failed to establish irreparable harm, as a subsequently constituted tribunal would be able to grant equivalent protection | 2020-2025 |
| Interim relief premised on the SCC’s jurisdiction under the relevant treaty | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Insufficient evidence, on a prima facie basis, of the respondent state’s consent to SCC emergency arbitration or of a qualifying investment | 2020-2025 |
Requests by party type
As noted above, all 15 applications for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator in investment disputes at the SCC have been made by investors. No respondent state has applied for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator to date.
Overall statistics (all emergency arbitrator cases, 2010-2026)
As of 2026, the SCC has received a total of 68 applications for the appointment of emergency arbitrators across both commercial and investment disputes. Across all 68 cases, the median time from referral to decision is 5 days and the average is 6.3 days. A clear majority (63%) of all EA decisions were rendered within the five-day time limit. The EA was appointed within 24 hours in 67 out of 68 cases. 90% of proceedings were conducted in English. Stockholm was the seat of arbitration in 64 out of 68 cases.
The world is becoming increasingly fast and more complex. As a result, there is more demand for speedy decisions, interim and final.
Trends in SCC emergency arbitration decisions
The SCC regularly publishes its jurisprudence arising out of the decisions of emergency arbitrators, although on a more limited basis in respect of investment treaty disputes. A comparison of the ten decisions rendered in 2014-2019 with the five decisions (plus the one supplementary decision noted above) rendered in 2020-2025 reveals several notable trends.
Overview of the 2014–2025 investment emergency arbitrator decisions
| Metric | 2014-2019 | 2020-2025 |
|---|---|---|
| EA decisions (in ISDS disputes) | 10 | 5 (plus 1 supplementary EA decision) |
| Relief granted (full or in part) | 6 out of 10 (60 %) | 2 out of 5 (40 %) |
| Denied on the merits | 4 out of 10 (40 %) | 1 out of 5 (20 %) |
| Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | 0 out of 10 (0 %) | 2 out of 5 (40 %) |
| Average (median) duration | 5.7 days (median: 5 days) | 7.6 days (median: 5 days) |
| EA appointed within 24 hours | 100 % | 100 % |
| State participation | 4 out of 10 (40 %) | 100 % |
| Costs against unsuccessful claimant | No significant costs awards | Significant costs ordered |
Analysis and conclusions
Claimant success rates
The claimant success rate fell from 60% (2014-2019) to 40% (2020-2025). In the earlier period, six out of ten applications resulted in emergency relief being granted in full or in part. In the later period, two out of five decisions resulted in relief being granted in part. The standard applied by emergency arbitrators is rigorous, and the trend is consistent with the broader pattern observed in commercial emergency arbitrations at the SCC.
Jurisdictional challenges
In 2014-2019, no application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In 2020-2025, two out of five decisions (40%) were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. In one case, the emergency arbitrator found insufficient evidence of the respondent state’s consent to SCC emergency arbitration. In the other, the emergency arbitrator found insufficient prima facie evidence of a qualifying investment under the relevant treaty. These outcomes highlight the ongoing tensions between access to justice, state sovereignty, and consent to arbitration. They also reflect the practical difficulty, within the compressed timelines of emergency proceedings, of assembling a case that meets all the jurisdictional and substantive thresholds. National courts can also revisit the consent-based jurisdictional questions tested at the EA stage, as recently illustrated by the Swedish Supreme Court in Case T 9380-24, which concerned the invocation of a most-favoured-nation clause.
The SCC's emergency arbitration record in ISDS shows that speed need not come at the cost of due process: state participation has risen to every case in the most recent period without the five-day median moving, which should put to rest any suggestion that emergency arbitration is a one-sided tool, or that states are not given a fair hearing.
The real test of emergency arbitration is not whether procedure can be accelerated, but whether adjudicative discipline can survive acceleration. The SCC's record demonstrates that jurisdictional scrutiny, meaningful participation and due process can be preserved even within an exceptionally compressed timetable.
The seat of arbitration
In 2014-2019, the SCC decided Stockholm as the seat of arbitration in all ten investment EA cases where the parties had not agreed otherwise. In 2020-2025, four out of five cases were seated in Stockholm, and one was seated in Oslo, Norway. The Oslo seat is consistent with the SCC's October 2024 policy of selecting a seat outside the EU in intra-EU (or potentially intra-EU) investment treaty arbitrations, to ensure the legal enforceability of the award.
Costs
In the 2014-2019 period, costs awards were generally modest. In 2020-2025, significant costs awards have been made against unsuccessful claimants, indicating closer attention by emergency arbitrators to the question of costs.
Increases to an emergency arbitrator's fee are rare
The SCC has only twice exercised its power under Article 10(3) of Appendix II to increase the emergency arbitrator’s fee above the standard EUR 16,000, in each case on account of the exceptionally extensive nature of the proceedings.
Greater state participation
In 2014-2019, the respondent state did not participate in six out of ten cases (60%). In 2020-2025, higher state participation is observed. This may reflect a recognition by states that active engagement in EA proceedings, particularly on jurisdictional objections, can be effective. The two successful jurisdictional challenges in this period support that conclusion.
Efficiency
The median duration of EA proceedings in investment disputes was 5 days in both the 2014-2019 and 2020-2025 periods. The average was higher in the later period (7.6 days, compared to 5.7 days) due to two cases that took 11 and 12 days respectively, while the remaining three were decided within five days. Across both periods, 60% of all ISDS EA decisions were rendered within the five-day time limit. The EA was appointed within 24 hours in all 15 cases. Across all 68 EA cases at the SCC (commercial and investment, 2010-2026), the overall median is 5 days and the average is 6.3 days, with 63% of decisions rendered within five days.
These trends confirm that emergency arbitration in investment disputes at the SCC is an active and developing area of practice. The track record of 15 EA decisions (plus one supplementary decision) since 2014, with relief granted in eight cases, reflects the SCC’s position as the only leading arbitral institution offering this tool in investment treaty disputes.
There is no alternative to arbitration to resolve disputes on the global stage.
Procedural issues unique to investment disputes
Cooling-off periods
Many BITs contain a “cooling off” clause that requires an investor to attempt to resolve the dispute before initiating arbitration. The effect of such clauses on the jurisdiction of the emergency arbitrator has been addressed in four EA decisions between 2014 and 2019. In all four cases, the emergency arbitrator found that the cooling-off clause did not constitute a bar to emergency arbitration proceedings, recognising the urgency inherent in such proceedings.
State participation
In six out of ten investment EA cases between 2014 and 2019, the respondent state did not participate in the proceedings. The state was duly notified in all cases. Non-participation by the respondent is not a bar to the proceedings continuing. Several states have notified the SCC of their preferred method for receiving notification of EA applications.
Temporal application of the SCC Rules
Most BITs referring to the SCC Rules were concluded before the EA mechanism was introduced in 2010. In four cases, emergency arbitrators found that the states concerned had consented to emergency arbitration on the basis that a reference to the SCC Rules without specifying a particular version means the rules in force at the time of commencement of arbitration apply.
Due process considerations
As the respondent in investment disputes is a state, the emergency arbitrator may in certain circumstances afford it additional time to make a submission, balancing the urgency of the proceedings with due process rights.
The SCC’s broader role in investment disputes
Beyond emergency arbitration, the SCC offers several features relevant to investment disputes:
- Treaty coverage. The IIAs that refer to the SCC or Stockholm span a range of dispute resolution clause types, including clauses designating the SCC as the administering institution, as an alternative forum, or in a supportive role (for example, as appointing authority).
- Administration and appointing authority. Of the investment disputes registered by the SCC, the majority have been administered under the SCC Rules. In the remaining cases, the SCC has acted as appointing authority under the UNCITRAL Rules, decided challenges, or provided other services such as fundholding. The SCC also provides services for disputes under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and ad hoc arbitrations more generally, including fundholding, digital case management via the SCC Ad Hoc Platform, and arbitrator appointments.
- Dedicated ISDS provisions. Appendix III of the SCC Rules, introduced in 2017, contains provisions specific to investment treaty disputes, including on submissions by third parties and non-disputing treaty parties, and a default three-member tribunal.
- Summary procedure. Article 39 of the SCC Rules allows arbitral tribunals to dispose of manifestly unmeritorious claims efficiently, a mechanism that is particularly relevant to states concerned about frivolous claims.
- Cost predictability. The SCC’s ad valorem cost model provides parties with predictability and transparency regarding arbitration costs, with a published schedule and online cost calculator.
- Intra-EU investment disputes. In October 2024, the SCC adopted a policy on deciding the seat in intra-EU investment treaty arbitrations. Pursuant to this policy, the SCC will, absent countervailing reasons, decide on a seat outside of the EU, ensuring the legal enforceability of awards.
Notes
1 In that one case, the request was submitted to the wrong email address during the weekend, and the appointment was made within 24 hours of the Monday morning.
Further resources
SCC Practice Note: Emergency Arbitrator Decisions Rendered 2023–2025 and Reflections on 15 Years (January 2026), https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/resource-library/reports/scc-practice-note-emergency-arbitrator-decisions-rendered-2023-2025-and-reflections-on-15-years/
Pirozhkin, A., Emergency Arbitrator’s Decisions in Investment Treaty Disputes at the SCC (2014–2019) (May 2020), https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/emergency-arbitrators-decisions-in-investment-treaty-disputes-at-the-scc-2014-201.pdf
Lowther, J., Sievers, R., and Falconer, C., Arbitrating for Peace: Stockholm, SCC Arbitration Institute, and ISDS (May 2025), https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/resource-library/reports/arbitrating-for-peace-stockholm-scc-arbitration-institute-and-isds/
Falconer, C., Lowther, J., and Bodin, M., The SCC Arbitration Institute – ISDS the Swedish Way, in Beck, Alternatives to ICSID Arbitration (2026) (publication pending)
SCC Arbitration Institute Annual Statistics Report 2025, https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/SCC-Annual-Report-2025.pdf
SCC Arbitration Institute, "New SCC Practice Note – Emergency Arbitrator Decisions" (19 October 2023), https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/news/new-scc-practice-note-emergency-arbitrator-decisions-2/
SCC Arbitration Institute, "The What, When and How of Emergency Arbitration at the SCC" (25 August 2021), https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/news/the-what-when-and-how-of-emergency-arbitration-at-the-scc/
Rättsakuten, "Emergency Arbitration Under SCC Rules" (6 July 2026), https://rattsakuten.com/emergency-arbitration-under-scc-rules/
SCC Arbitration Institute, "SCC Spotlight Talk: Georgios Petrochilos" (8 November 2023), https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/news/scc-spotlight-talk-georgios-petrochilos/
SCC Arbitration Institute, "SCC Practice Note on Emergency Arbitrator Decisions 2023–2025" (2026), https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/news/new-scc-practice-note-on-emergency-arbitrator-decisions-2023-2025/
SCC Arbitration Institute, "Eva Kalnina: More Demand for Speedy Decisions – Interim and Final", https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/news/eva-kalnina-more-demand-for-speedy-decisions-interim-and-final/