International commercial arbitration in Chile is governed by a modern statutory framework based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), as enacted through Law No. 19,971 on International Commercial Arbitration.[1] Chilean courts have consistently demonstrated a supportive and non-interventionist approach to arbitration, respecting party autonomy and the finality of arbitral awards. As a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention, Chile-seated awards generally benefit from recognition and enforcement mechanisms available in other Convention States.[2]
Below, issues related to international commercial arbitration in Chile are discussed, including the applicable arbitration law, arbitrability, the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral procedure, arbitration costs, interest, challenges to arbitral awards, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
Chilean Arbitration Law
International commercial arbitration in Chile is governed by Law No. 19,971 on International Commercial Arbitration (the “ICAA”), which entered into force on 29 September 2004. The ICAA applies exclusively to arbitrations that qualify as “international” under Article 1(3).
Pursuant to Article 1(3), an arbitration is considered international where the dispute presents an objective cross‑border element. This requirement is met, in particular, where the parties have their places of business in different States at the time the arbitration agreement is concluded, or where the seat of arbitration, the place of performance of a substantial part of the contractual obligations, or the place most closely connected to the dispute is located outside the State in which the parties have their places of business. An arbitration may also qualify as international where the parties expressly agree that the subject matter of their arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.
The ICAA is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) and incorporates its core structural principles, including party autonomy, separability, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, and limited judicial intervention.[3] Article 5 of the ICAA expressly provides that no court shall intervene in matters governed by the law except where so provided, enshrining the principle of minimal judicial intervention. Chilean courts have repeatedly affirmed this principle in practice, particularly in proceedings relating to the setting aside and enforcement of international arbitral awards.[4] This judicial approach was recently confirmed by the Santiago Court of Appeals (2024) in FIMER SpA v. ENEL Green Power Chile S.A.,[5] where attempts to expand judicial review beyond the statutory annulment mechanism were rejected.
Judicial functions under the ICAA are entrusted to the Chilean Courts of Appeal. Depending on the procedural stage, these functions are exercised either by the President of the competent Court of Appeals, most notably in matters relating to the appointment of arbitrators and the review of preliminary jurisdictional rulings, or by the Court of Appeals itself, in particular when ruling on applications to set aside arbitral awards.
Arbitrability
Although the ICAA does not provide an express definition of arbitrability, it adopts a broad conception of what constitutes a “commercial” dispute, thereby favouring arbitration as the default dispute resolution mechanism in international commerce. Article 2(g) of the ICAA provides that the term “commercial” must be interpreted broadly so as to include all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or non-contractual. The provision lists, on a non-exhaustive basis, transactions such as trade, distribution, construction, consulting, investment, financing, insurance, concessions, joint ventures and transport. This expansive definition reflects a legislative intent to maximise the scope of international commercial arbitration and aligns Chilean law with the UNCITRAL Model Law framework.
The broad scope of “commercial” disputes is nevertheless subject to statutory limits derived from mandatory rules and public policy. Article 1(5) of the ICAA expressly preserves the application of Chilean laws that exclude certain matters from arbitration. As a result, disputes involving criminal law, family law, labour matters, and other issues reserved to state courts as a matter of public order remain non-arbitrable, even if they arise in a commercial context.[6]
Arbitration Agreement
Form
Article 7 of the ICAA requires that arbitration agreements be in writing and recognises that this requirement may be satisfied through signed documents, exchanges of communications, exchanges of pleadings, or incorporation by reference. This formulation is consistent with Article II of the New York Convention and facilitates international enforcement.
Separability
Article 16(1) of the ICAA codifies the doctrine of separability, providing that an arbitration clause shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. Chilean courts have consistently upheld this doctrine, even where the validity of the underlying contract is challenged, ensuring that such challenges do not, in themselves, undermine the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.[7]
Non‑Signatories
The ICAA does not expressly regulate the extension of arbitration agreements to non‑signatories. Whether a non‑signatory is bound by or may invoke an arbitration agreement is therefore determined under general principles of Chilean contract law, including agency, assignment, succession, implied consent, subrogation, and stipulations in favour of third parties.[8] Chilean case law has accepted the extension of arbitration agreements to non‑signatories only in limited circumstances where consent, express or implied, can be established on the facts of the case. Courts have consistently adopted a cautious and fact‑specific approach, reflecting the consensual nature of arbitration and the principle of party autonomy.[9]
Breach of Arbitration Agreement: Level of Judicial Scrutiny
Article 8 of the ICAA provides that where court proceedings are brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, the court shall refer the parties to arbitration upon request, unless the agreement is null, void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. Chilean courts have consistently enforced this provision and have declined jurisdiction in favour of arbitration, applying a limited review focused on the existence of the arbitration agreement and the absence of manifest grounds for invalidity, rather than on the merits of the dispute. This approach aligns with international standards and reinforces Chile’s reputation as an arbitration-friendly forum.[10]
Arbitral Tribunal
Number of Arbitrators
Article 10 of the ICAA provides that the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, and that in the absence of agreement, the arbitral tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators.
Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal
Article 11 governs the appointment of arbitrators. Absent party agreement, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the presiding arbitrator. Where this process fails, the competent Court of Appeal acts as the appointing authority, and decisions of the court acting in this capacity are not subject to appeal.
Qualifications and Challenge of Arbitrators
Article 11(1) provides that no person may be excluded from acting as an arbitrator on the basis of nationality unless the parties agree otherwise. Articles 12 and 13 permit challenges to arbitrators when circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts regarding their independence or impartiality, or when agreed-upon qualifications are not met.
Doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz
Article 16 of the ICAA grants arbitral tribunals the power to rule on their own jurisdiction, including objections relating to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The Chilean Supreme Court has confirmed the application of this principle and the limited supervisory role of courts in jurisdictional matters.[11]
Arbitral Procedure
Due Process
Articles 18 and 19 require that parties be treated equally and given a full opportunity to present their case, while allowing parties broad freedom to determine the arbitral procedure.
Commencement of Arbitration
Article 21 provides that arbitral proceedings commence on the date the request for arbitration is received by the respondent, unless otherwise agreed.
Seat of Arbitration
Article 20 allows parties to determine the seat of arbitration freely. Failing agreement, the tribunal determines the seat having regard to the circumstances of the case and the convenience of the parties. For instance, Santiago is frequently selected as a seat of arbitration due to its institutional infrastructure and arbitration-friendly judiciary.[12]
Interim Measures
Articles 9 and 17 of the ICAA permit both court-ordered and tribunal-ordered interim measures. Chilean courts have granted interim measures in aid of international arbitration, including prior to tribunal constitution, without undermining the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement.[13]
Consolidation of Arbitrations
The ICAA does not confer express power on tribunals to consolidate arbitrations. Consolidation is therefore possible only by party agreement or through applicable institutional rules.[14]
Arbitration Costs and Security for Costs
The ICAA does not prescribe a default rule on the allocation of arbitration costs. Arbitral tribunals therefore enjoy broad discretion in this respect, subject to any agreement between the parties. In arbitrations at law, the arbitrator must apply Chilean law, which does not recognise punitive or indirect damages unless the parties have agreed to a penalty clause. Arbitrators typically decide that costs and fees are shared between the parties, but may order one party to bear all costs and legal fees where the losing party lacked plausible grounds for the claim and was entirely unsuccessful.[15] Article 17 of the ICAA expressly authorises arbitral tribunals to order interim measures of protection and to require a party to provide appropriate security in connection with such measures, which may provide a statutory basis for orders of security for costs in international commercial arbitration under Chilean law.
Challenges to Arbitral Awards
An arbitral award rendered in Chile may be challenged only through an application for annulment under Article 34 of the ICAA, which constitutes the exclusive recourse against the award. Consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law, annulment is available only on limited and exhaustively listed grounds, relating primarily to defects in consent, due process, jurisdiction, arbitrability, or conflicts with public policy. Chilean courts have consistently emphasised the exceptional nature of annulment proceedings and have construed the statutory grounds narrowly. Judicial review is confined to procedural and jurisdictional defects and does not extend to a reassessment of the facts, the interpretation of the law, or the merits of the dispute. This restrictive approach, particularly evident in case law concerning public policy and arbitrability, reflects a pro-arbitration stance aligned with international standards and reinforces the finality of arbitral awards.[16]
This judicial approach is illustrated by FIMER SpA v. ENEL Green Power Chile S.A. (2024),[17] in which the Santiago Court of Appeals rejected an annulment application alleging public policy violations, confirming that annulment does not permit a reassessment of the merits. The Chilean Constitutional Court (2025) subsequently upheld the constitutionality of Article 34’s designation of annulment as the sole remedy against an international arbitral award, thereby reinforcing the principle of limited judicial intervention.
Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Chile in accordance with Articles 35 and 36 of the ICAA. Recognition or enforcement may be refused only on the limited grounds exhaustively listed in Article 36, including incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or inability to present a case, excess of jurisdiction, irregular composition of the arbitral tribunal or procedure, non‑binding or annulled awards, non‑arbitrability of the subject matter, or conflict with Chilean public policy. Chilean courts interpret these grounds restrictively and consistently emphasise that enforcement proceedings do not permit a review of the merits of the award. This pro‑enforcement approach, which aligns with international standards and the New York Convention framework, is firmly reflected in the jurisprudence of the Chilean Supreme Court and appellate courts.[18]
This judicial approach is illustrated by Stemcor UK Limited v. Compañía Comercial Metalúrgica Ltda. (2010)[19] and KfW v. Inversiones Errázuriz Ltda. (2009)[20], where enforcement was granted notwithstanding objections relating to notice and service, underscoring the Chilean Supreme Court’s reluctance to deny enforcement absent a serious procedural violation affecting a party’s ability to present its case. These decisions reflect the Chilean judiciary’s commitment to minimal judicial intervention and to upholding international arbitration agreements, in line with the New York Convention and Chile’s domestic Law No. 19,971.
Conclusion
International commercial arbitration in Chile is governed by a Model Law-based statutory framework that limits judicial intervention, respects party autonomy, and ensures the enforceability of arbitral awards. Chilean courts, including the Constitutional Court, have consistently applied the ICAA in a manner aligned with international arbitration standards. Together with its treaty commitments, arbitration‑friendly jurisprudence, and established arbitral institutions, Chile offers a reliable and legally secure seat for international commercial arbitration for commercial parties worldwide.
[1] G. Vial and F. Blavi, Santiago as a Seat for International Commercial Arbitration, 18 Or. Rev. Int’l L. 25 (2017), pp. 29–31.
[2] F. Ossa et al., International Commercial Arbitration in Chile, 15 September 2022, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=789a5e61-3e7a-4b80-889e-3219ea2bc4f3 (last accessed 18 January 2026).
[3] G. Vial and F. Blavi, Santiago as a Seat for International Commercial Arbitration, 18 Or. Rev. Int’l L. 25 (2017), pp. 29–31.
[4] Id., p. 31.
[5] E. Mereminskaya, When “Only” Is Not Just Another Word: The Chilean Constitutional Court Upholds the Constitutionality of the Term in Article 34 of Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 19 March 2025, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/when-only-is-not-just-another-word-the-chilean-constitutional-court-upholds-the-constitutionality-of-the-term-in-article-34-of-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration/ (last accessed 18 January 2026).
[6] British-Chilean Chamber of Commerce, Doing Business in Chile Guide 2025: Arbitration and Litigation (2025), p. 4.
[7] F. Ossa et al., International Commercial Arbitration in Chile, 15 September 2022, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=789a5e61-3e7a-4b80-889e-3219ea2bc4f3 (last accessed 18 January 2026).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.; L. Campora, In Brief: Arbitration Agreements in Chile, 26 February 2021, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d90f400-47f8-41aa-bec5-cda51c988956 (last accessed 18 January 2026).
[11] G. Vial and F. Blavi, Santiago as a Seat for International Commercial Arbitration, 18 Or. Rev. Int’l L. 25 (2017), p. 36.
[12] Id., pp. 34–35.
[13] Id., pp. 29–31; F. Ossa et al., International Commercial Arbitration in Chile, 15 September 2022, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=789a5e61-3e7a-4b80-889e-3219ea2bc4f3 (last accessed 18 January 2026).
[14] Ibid.
[15] British-Chilean Chamber of Commerce, Doing Business in Chile Guide 2025: Arbitration and Litigation (2025), p. 11.
[16] O. Palominos Aravena, Analysis of Chilean Case Law on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 45 Rev. Chilena de Derecho 381 (2018), pp. 401-402.
[17] E. Mereminskaya, When “Only” Is Not Just Another Word: The Chilean Constitutional Court Upholds the Constitutionality of the Term in Article 34 of Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 19 March 2025, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/when-only-is-not-just-another-word-the-chilean-constitutional-court-upholds-the-constitutionality-of-the-term-in-article-34-of-law-on-international-commercial-arbitration/ (last accessed 18 January 2026).
[18] O. Palominos Aravena, Analysis of Chilean Case Law on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 45 Rev. Chilena de Derecho 381 (2018), pp. 382–384.
[19] Id., p. 395.
[20] Id., pp. 391–392.