- 15-Oct-2025
- public international law
In arbitration, the question of whether an arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and decide a dispute is crucial. While arbitration is generally viewed as a more efficient and private dispute resolution mechanism, challenges to the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals can arise. Jurisdictional challenges can involve issues related to the scope of the arbitration agreement, the authority of the tribunal, or the validity of the arbitration clause itself. Understanding how and when these challenges can be made helps ensure that disputes are resolved fairly and within the agreed-upon framework.
One of the most common grounds for challenging jurisdiction is the assertion that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties. If a party contends that no agreement exists or that the agreement is void, the arbitral tribunal may have no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Even if there is an arbitration agreement, a challenge may arise if a party claims that the dispute falls outside the scope of the agreement. For instance, a contract might include an arbitration clause, but the particular claim may not be covered by the scope of that clause.
According to the competence-competence doctrine, an arbitral tribunal generally has the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, including challenges to its competence. This means that a tribunal may determine its own jurisdiction, even if one party disputes it.
If there is a dispute about whether the arbitration clause itself is legally valid, the jurisdiction of the tribunal may be questioned. This could include cases where the clause is not binding due to issues like unconscionability, lack of consent, or misunderstanding.
The seat of arbitration determines the legal framework governing the arbitration process. A challenge may arise if one party contends that the seat of arbitration, as agreed in the contract, was not properly determined or if it is in an inappropriate jurisdiction for the dispute.
Another common jurisdictional challenge occurs when a party to the arbitration attempts to bring in non-signatory parties to the arbitration process. This challenge may involve issues related to third-party involvement in the arbitration, especially when the non-signatory did not consent to arbitrate.
A party may initially challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal directly within the arbitration proceedings. This is usually done by raising an objection at the earliest opportunity, often during the preliminary hearings or when the tribunal first begins to address the dispute.
Under the UNCITRAL Model Law (which serves as a reference for many jurisdictions, including India), a party may challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings. It’s essential to raise this challenge promptly, as failure to do so may imply that the party waived its right to contest the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
If a party is dissatisfied with the tribunal’s decision regarding its jurisdiction, they can approach the courts. Courts generally intervene in jurisdictional challenges only when the tribunal has either exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to adhere to the agreement of the parties.
In India, Section 16 empowers the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. If a party objects, the tribunal must first decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. If the party is dissatisfied with the tribunal’s decision, it may seek judicial review under Section 37 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In cases where a tribunal has decided on jurisdiction and proceeded with the arbitration, a party may seek to appeal or challenge the tribunal’s award in court, especially if the tribunal ruled on its jurisdiction incorrectly. Under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, a party can challenge the award on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or authority.
If a challenge to jurisdiction arises, especially after an arbitral award is made, national courts can examine whether the tribunal had the authority to make the award. Courts review the legal issues of jurisdiction based on the parties' arbitration agreement and applicable law.
Indian courts follow a policy of minimal judicial intervention. The courts generally give deference to the tribunal's ruling on its own jurisdiction unless there is a clear violation of public policy or a fundamental flaw in the tribunal’s authority.
Different countries follow similar principles, but the level of intervention varies. In some jurisdictions, courts may more readily intervene and set aside arbitral decisions on jurisdiction. However, most modern arbitration frameworks, like those of the UK, Singapore, and the US, emphasize the principle of competence-competence and limit judicial interference.
If there is an existing arbitration agreement, and a party attempts to initiate court proceedings, the other party can file for a stay of those proceedings, citing the agreement to arbitrate. The court typically grants a stay unless there are clear jurisdictional issues.
To minimize challenges to jurisdiction, parties should ensure that the arbitration agreement is carefully drafted, addressing key points like the scope, seat, and procedure of arbitration.
Make sure that the arbitration clause is clear and covers the issues likely to arise during the dispute. This will help minimize the chances of jurisdictional challenges.
Before entering into arbitration, it's important to consult with legal professionals who understand the nuances of arbitration law and can ensure that the agreement is robust and enforceable.
If you believe that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction, raise the objection promptly to avoid any issues later in the proceedings.
Suppose Company A and Company B enter into a contract with an arbitration clause that specifies arbitration in London. However, Company B later argues that the dispute falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
