Introduction
In international arbitration, parties—particularly respondents—commonly challenge the arbitral tribunal's authority to hear a dispute by raising objections to jurisdiction. These challenges are typically framed as preliminary objections (POs) and may be addressed separately from the merits through a process known as bifurcation. Bifurcation allows jurisdictional issues to be resolved at an early stage, potentially saving significant time and costs for both parties.
Raising Preliminary Objections: Timing and Procedure
It is standard practice in international arbitration for respondents to raise POs on jurisdiction during the early phases of the proceedings. Typically, such objections must be submitted no later than in the statement of defence, or, in the case of a counterclaim, in the reply to the counterclaim.
The ICSID Arbitration Rules (2022) also set out specific timelines for requesting bifurcation. Under Rule 44(1)(a)(i), a request for bifurcation must be made "as soon as possible." If the request relates to POs, it must be submitted within 45 days after the filing of the memorial on the merits.
Advantages of Bifurcation
By bifurcating the proceedings, arbitral tribunals decide on jurisdictional objections before the parties fully argue the merits. If the tribunal finds a jurisdictional bar early on, it can dispose of the case without further proceedings, thereby significantly reducing the cost and duration of arbitration.
Bifurcation under UNCITRAL Rules
The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976) grant arbitral tribunals substantial procedural flexibility. According to Article 15(1), the tribunal is considered the "master of its own proceedings" and may conduct arbitration in a manner it deems appropriate, provided it ensures equal treatment of the parties and affords each party a full opportunity to present its case.
Article 21(4) states that the tribunal should generally rule on jurisdictional pleas as a preliminary question, but retains discretion to defer such rulings to the final award. Tribunals, in exercising this discretion, aim to balance procedural fairness with efficiency.
The UNCITRAL framework supports a general presumption in favor of deciding jurisdictional objections as preliminary questions (see Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America), while simultaneously recognising the tribunal's authority to manage proceedings in an appropriate and equitable manner.
Discretion to Bifurcate or Not
Tribunals are not obliged to bifurcate even where POs are raised. In practice, tribunals often exercise their discretion to join jurisdictional objections to the merits phase—especially if the issues are deeply intertwined.
For instance, in the ICSID arbitration of Caratube International Oil Company v. Kazakhstan, the tribunal observed, in hindsight, that significant time and expense could have been avoided had the respondent requested bifurcation. The case illustrates that the initiative for bifurcation lies with the respondent, and failure to seek it can lead to procedural inefficiencies.
Legal Test for Bifurcation
When considering a request to bifurcate POs, tribunals assess whether bifurcation will enhance procedural efficiency. The key considerations include:
- The seriousness and substantiality of the PO (i.e., whether it is prima facie credible and not frivolous);
- Whether the PO can be resolved independently of the merits;
- Whether upholding the PO would materially reduce the scope of further proceedings;
- Whether bifurcation would realistically lead to cost or time savings, or whether the objection is so intertwined with the merits that bifurcation would be impractical.
This test has been shaped by rulings in cases such as Glamis Gold Ltd., the Philip Morris UNCITRAL arbitration, and various ICSID proceedings.
In applying these factors, tribunals also compare bifurcated versus un-bifurcated procedural timetables to gauge efficiency. They evaluate the degree of evidentiary overlap between the POs and the merits, and whether early resolution of jurisdiction could affect claims (e.g., due to dissipation of assets or the impact of delay on damages).
Conclusion
Bifurcation of preliminary objections is a key procedural tool in international arbitration that promotes efficient dispute resolution. While it reflects the flexibility inherent in arbitration, its application is subject to the tribunal's discretion and must be exercised in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, the governing treaty (if any), and the law of the seat of arbitration. A careful balance between fairness and expediency underpins the decision to bifurcate, making it a nuanced but powerful aspect of arbitral procedure.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
