The ICC reads your award before the world ever does.

Two features set ICC arbitration apart. The first is the Terms of Reference - a document settled early in the reference that records the parties, their claims, the issues to be decided and the procedural framework, which fixes the scope of the dispute and prevents it from drifting. The second, and the more important, is the scrutiny of the award under Article 34. Before any ICC award is released to the parties, the ICC International Court of Arbitration reviews the draft, can require the tribunal to correct points of form and may draw attention to points of substance. No other major institution applies this quality check at scale, and it is the main reason ICC awards are regarded as durable when they reach a court for enforcement.

ICC costs follow an ad valorem scale - that is, the administrative expenses of the ICC and the fees of the arbitrators are calculated by reference to the amount in dispute, not by an hourly rate. The ICC fixes an advance on costs at the start of the reference, usually payable in equal shares by the parties, and adjusts it as the dispute develops. This makes ICC arbitration highly predictable for budgeting, but it can be more expensive than an hourly-rate institution for very high-value disputes. For lower-value matters the 2021 Rules provide an expedited procedure with a streamlined process and a reduced fee scale. We advise on the likely cost envelope before the clause is agreed.

Yes. The ICC Rules provide for an emergency arbitrator who can grant urgent interim or conservatory measures before the tribunal is constituted, on an application made with the Request for Arbitration or shortly after. The emergency arbitrator is appointed within a short timeframe and decides the application on an expedited basis. For Indian parties there is a parallel route - where the assets at risk are in India, an Indian court can grant interim relief under Section 9 even for a foreign-seated ICC arbitration, because the proviso to Section 2(2) preserves that power unless the parties have excluded it. We assess which route, or both, fits the urgency and the location of the assets.

Yes, where the seat of the ICC arbitration is in a New York Convention state that India has notified as a reciprocating territory, the ICC award is a foreign award enforceable in India under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award-holder applies to the appropriate High Court, which enforces the award unless the award-debtor establishes one of the narrow refusal grounds in Section 48. The scrutiny of the award by the ICC Court before issuance tends to make ICC awards more resistant to challenge on these grounds. As always, enforceability is best secured by choosing the seat and designing the procedure for it at the drafting stage.

Both are first-rank institutions and the right answer depends on the deal. ICC offers the Terms of Reference, the scrutiny of the award and a globally recognised standing that can matter where the counterparty or the enforcement forum is in Europe, the Middle East or Latin America, but its ad valorem cost scale can be heavy for very large disputes. SIAC tends to be faster and more economical for Asian and mid-value disputes, with a Singapore seat familiar to Indian businesses and an emergency arbitrator tested before the Indian Supreme Court. We recommend the institution that fits the seat, the value and the likely enforcement forum, and we draft the clause so the chosen institution and the seat agree with each other.