THE AUTHOR:
Mariam Kvantaliani, Associate at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
Strengthening Access to International Arbitration
On 10 October 2025, at GIAC Arbitration Days in Tbilisi, the SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC) proudly launched the Georgian translation of the SCC Arbitration Rules 2023. The launch represents not only the new publication of a legal text in Georgian, promoting transparency and accessibility, but also underscores the growing importance of arbitration in the region.
In the opening remarks, Jake Lowther, Specialist Counsel at the SCC, gave an interesting overview of SCC’s history. Established in 1917, the SCC became an institution of international importance, in part due to Sweden’s historical neutrality and reputation for upholding the rule of law. Today, Stockholm or the SCC appear in over 90 international investment agreements, with the SCC being one of the few institutions administering both commercial and investment treaty cases. As emphasized by Lowther, in the past year alone, the SCC registered 204 cases, of which 65% were international parties, from over 40 jurisdictions. Over the last decade, the SCC has seen parties from almost 90 jurisdictions, covering all inhabited continents. The Caucasus, and Georgia in particular, has become an increasingly active and important region, with high-value disputes in energy, construction, and other sectors.
As noted by Lowther, the translation is both symbolic and practical. Specifically, it is a clear demonstration of the SCC’s role in the region and particularly in Georgia. Lowther noted that translation of SCC rules in Georgian was only possible with the help of George Svanadze, Senior Partner at Andersen Georgia, and his team of students. Svanadze emphasized that making the rules available in the Georgian language reinforces the accessibility of arbitration for Georgian stakeholders and promotes arbitration as an effective alternative dispute mechanism.
Understanding Emergency Arbitration
Following the official launch of the Georgian translation of the SCC rules, the session progressed into a panel discussion on emergency arbitration. Moderated by Ketevan Betaneli, Independent Arbitrator based in Paris, the discussion brought together institutional and practitioner perspectives to examine how the emergency arbitration procedure works, when it should be used, and how it interacts with other dispute resolution mechanisms. Alongside Lowther and Svanadze, the panel was comprised of David Edilashvili (Senior Legal Counsel at GIAC (Georgian International Arbitration Centre), Ginta Ahrel (Partner at Westerberg & Partners), and Michael Davar (Partner at Squire Patton Boggs).
Betaneli commenced the discussion with concise framing:
“Emergency arbitration is designed to provide urgent interim relief in situations where a party cannot await either the constitution of an arbitral tribunal or the tribunal’s ability to handle the issue in time. The mechanism is deliberately narrow in scope and swift in operation”.
Under the SCC Rules, as explained by Betaneli, the emergency arbitrator is appointed within twenty-four hours, with the deadline to render a decision within five days of appointment. Emergency relief is binding, but not necessarily final. For example, once the tribunal is constituted, it may modify or revoke the emergency order. Crucially, emergency arbitration is not a standalone procedure. If a party does not promptly file its request for arbitration after obtaining emergency relief, the emergency decision will cease to have effect within the time limits set by the applicable rules.
As Lowther commented, the SCC introduced emergency arbitration in 2010 to complement the existing regime of provisional measures.
“Constituting a tribunal takes time, and we noted that users were seeking clearer access to interim relief in circumstances they considered to demand immediate action”.
Freezing assets to prevent dissipation, suspending the effect of a decision about to be implemented, or preserving fragile evidence whose loss would irreparably compromise the proceedings are examples of situations where users might consider the use of emergency arbitration. In short, emergency arbitration exists to preserve the status quo long enough for the standard arbitral process to run its course.
However, the SCC also detected a trend in which some parties were applying for emergency measures not only to preserve the status quo, but also to gauge how a tribunal might approach the merits—a tactical action to gain a potential sneak peek into the final result. As a result, the SCC launched the SCC Express Dispute Assessment, a consent-based process where a legal expert assesses the dispute within three weeks at a fixed price.
International Uptake and Domestic Alternatives
From the standpoint of the GIAC, Edilashvili observed an important pattern: emergency arbitration is more frequently used in disputes involving at least one international party. In domestic cases, parties tend to favor the court system for interim measures, largely because Georgian courts can issue orders within twenty-four hours and at a lower cost. However, Edilashvili explained that emergency arbitration is not rare. In fact, GIAC has seen growing demand for emergency arbitration, particularly in cases involving international parties.
Ahrel, speaking from an international counsel perspective, echoed the broader trend. The use of emergency arbitration is on the rise, and most initiators in Stockholm are also international. This difference reveals a common reality in many jurisdictions: local parties often already enjoy swift and reliable access to interim measures, while foreign parties tend to prefer the clear rules and structure of emergency arbitration, as they are often less comfortable with unfamiliar legal systems.
Standards and Thresholds: What Applicants Must Show
Despite variations in institutional rules, the discussion revealed that emergency arbitrators generally apply a set of criteria in practice.
- The first is the existence of a prima facie case, i.e., a credible basis for the claim, assessed without prejudging the merits. Lowther referred to the SCC jurisprudence, which clearly demonstrates that the emergency arbitrator checks for genuine substance and a plausible legal entitlement without venturing into full merits adjudication.
- Second is irreparable harm, often framed as the risk of harm not adequately compensable by damages, or the prospect that evidentiary or commercial conditions will irreversibly change in the case of no immediate relief. This requirement is closely tied to effectiveness: “the proposed order should be capable of providing effective protection,” as stated by Davar.
- Third is urgency. Applicants must show that the measure cannot await tribunal constitution or the tribunal’s timely handling of the issue. As Davar succinctly put it, parties seeking emergency arbitration should ask themselves: Do you need this remedy before the tribunal is formed, and can the tribunal realistically address it in a timely manner?
- Finally, proportionality. That is, the applicant’s request for interim relief must be proportional to the consequences of not granting the relief.
The GIAC perspective, articulated by Edilashvili and Svanadze, underscores a pragmatic alignment with Georgian court standards to smooth the path to enforcement. GIAC does not codify a precise formula. Instead, it relies on the emergency arbitrator to decide on a case-by-case basis, drawing from familiar judicial criteria. As Edilashvili pointed out, Georgian courts have not faced enforcement issues so far, which suggests that the growing alignment in legal thinking supports both the effectiveness and credibility of emergency orders issued by GIAC.
Strategy Across Forums
A recurring practical issue is the notification requirement. As Davar noted, many institutions (with certain exceptions) require notice to be sent to the other party even in an emergency case. While such process is consistent with basic due process, notice can, in asset dissipation scenarios, provide an opportunity for the other side to take preemptive evasive action. This requires counsel to consider not only the legal basis for the request but also the procedural approach most likely to achieve a successful outcome.
Comparisons of court standards vary. Ahrel observed that in some jurisdictions, the judicial threshold for interim orders can be higher than that applied by arbitral institutions in emergency proceedings, making emergency arbitration a more viable route for immediate protection.
Conclusion: Accessibility, Strategy, and the Value of Urgent Relief
The launch of the Georgian translation of the SCC Arbitration Rules marks a significant step forward in advancing international arbitration in the region. In practical terms, it means that Georgian counsel and arbitration users can engage directly and confidently with SCC procedures in their own language, without any linguistic hurdles.
The session’s focus on emergency arbitration underscores an unavoidable reality: in the business world, time is of the essence. The ability to preserve assets, evidence, and the status quo can be essential in many situations. Emergency arbitration offers a unique opportunity to obtain interim relief in a timely and efficient manner.
For parties and counsel operating in or with Georgia, the message is clear. The tools now exist to manage urgent risk effectively and fairly. The key challenge (and, at the same time, opportunity) is in selecting the appropriate tool at the right time and integrating emergency measures into a dispute resolution strategy that balances efficiency with due process. In achieving this balance, the translation of rules and the development of emergency arbitration are not isolated trends; together, they form essential pillars of a more accessible, resilient, and business-friendly arbitration system in Georgia and beyond.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mariam Kvantaliani is an Associate in the Tax and Legal Department of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Georgia. Mariam is a summa cum laude LL.B. graduate from Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and an LL.M. candidate at the University of Georgia with a specialization in International Business Law.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
