International Arbitration

International Arbitration Information by Aceris Law LLC

  • International Arbitration Resources
  • Search Engine
  • Model Request for Arbitration
  • Model Answer to Request for Arbitration
  • Find International Arbitrators
  • Blog
  • Arbitration Laws
  • Arbitration Lawyers
You are here: Home / Arbitration Information / The Impact of the 2012 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules on Multiparty and Multicontract Disputes

The Impact of the 2012 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules on Multiparty and Multicontract Disputes

25/01/2013 by International Arbitration

The maximum number of parties involved in an ICC arbitration is at least 141, which is the number of parties to an ICC arbitration initiated by 44 member firms of Arthur Andersen’s Business Unit against 97 members firms of Andersen’s Consultant Business Unit. There, the sole arbitrator ruled that he had jurisdiction over all 141 parties, a decision which was subsequently upheld when challenged before Swiss courts. While an arbitration with 141  parties is exceptional, multiparty and multicontract arbitrations have become commonplace, a fact that was taken into account in the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration. The impact of the 2012 ICC Rules on multiparty and multicontract disputes was therefore recently the topic of a presentation I gave with Benoit Le Bars and Romilly Holland, of the Paris arbitration boutique Lazareff Le Bars. For a complimentary outline of this presentation, please see: Complex Arbitrations – Multiparty and Multicontract Disputes.

Filed Under: Arbitration Information, Arbitration Jurisdiction, Arbitration Rules, Arbitrator, Austria Arbitration, Belarus Arbitration, France Arbitration, ICC Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Netherlands Arbitration, Paris Arbitration, Switzerland Arbitration

Search Arbitration Information

Perjury and False Evidence in International Arbitration

Andraous v. Netherlands: Share Ownership, Employment Rights and the Definition of an Investment

NBA Arbitration: A Player’s Guide to Protecting Your Contract, Compensation, and Career

Legacy Vulcan, LLC v. United Mexican States: Regulatory Arbitrariness and the Limits of Investment Treaty Compensation

DIFC Court of Appeal Sets Aside DIAC Award for Procedural Unfairness in Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006

Can Arbitrators Ask Artificial Intelligence for Its View on Legal Issues?

Security for Costs in Investment Arbitration

Behind the Curtain: A Step-by-Step Guide to LCIA Arbitration

Behind the Curtain: A Step-by-Step Guide to SIAC Arbitration under the 2025 Rules

Who Bears Responsibility for AI in Arbitration? The EU AI Act and the Role of Arbitral Institutions

Foreign-Seated Corporate Arbitration Clauses in Italian Companies

No Easy Exit from an Arbitral Award

Investment Arbitration: The Case Against a Standing Investment Court

Saudi Arbitration: What the 2026 SCCA Country Report Shows

© 2012-2026 · IA