Arbitration & mediation
How to prepare effective written submissions on jurisdiction and admissibility in arbitration addressing multi treaty claims arbitrability tests and persuasive jurisdictional arguments clearly and succinctly.
This evergreen guide provides a precise, practical framework for drafting written arbitration submissions that clarify jurisdictional scope, admissibility, and multi treaty claims; it offers tests for arbitrability, persuasive arguments, and concise drafting techniques that withstand rigorous challenges.
August 09, 2025 - 3 min Read
Crafting effective written submissions begins with identifying the precise legal question or questions the tribunal must answer, including which treaty provisions and arbitration clauses govern the dispute, and the material facts that might shape jurisdiction. A disciplined approach maps out the procedural posture, the governing law, and the choice of law for substantive issues. It also requires an early inventory of jurisdictional defenses, such as non-arbitrability, ratione personae, and ratione materiae, to ensure all potentially dispositive points are tested. Clear framing helps prevent ambiguity and reduces the risk of confusion during the arbitration hearing, enabling the tribunal to focus on the key disputes.
When addressing multi treaty claims, it is essential to present a structured comparison of applicable treaty provisions, the scope of consent, and any applicable lex pacta sunt servanda principles. Submissions should differentiate compulsory arbitration under one treaty from optional arbitration under another, noting any conflict-of-law rules or hierarchies between instruments. A well-organized section sets out the chronology of events, the relevant treaty texts, and the precise factual predicates that trigger each jurisdictional argument. Technical precision about treaty interpretation, including textual, contextual, and teleological methods, helps the tribunal assess interpretive pathways without overreaching, while maintaining doctrinal integrity.
Build coherent, legally grounded arguments with careful textual support.
A robust jurisdictional argument requires a concise statement of the issue, followed by a carefully reasoned chain of analysis tying facts to treaty language and arbitration clause wording. The submission should establish a logical hierarchy: first, whether consent to arbitrate exists; second, whether the dispute falls within the scope of that consent; and third, whether any procedural or preliminary conditions have been satisfied. It is crucial to anticipate counterarguments and to address potential objections with precise responses. Strong submissions also explain why non-arbitrability doctrines do not apply or are outweighed by the parties’ agreement, thereby reinforcing the tribunal’s authority to decide.
To ensure clarity, present the admissibility analysis as a stand-alone section that maps each asserted claim to a specific admissibility rule—ranging from kompetence-kompetenz principles to exclusive jurisdiction considerations and institutional rules. Use precise citations and numbered subpoints so the tribunal can cross-reference. Where mandatory filing requirements exist, include a dedicated paragraph outlining compliance, timeliness, and procedural sequencing. Avoid duplicative arguments; instead, consolidate related points into a coherent narrative that demonstrates how admissibility criteria are met or excused. A well-structured section minimizes interpretive risk and streamlines the tribunal’s decision-making process.
Precision, coherence, and treaty-aware reasoning support compelling arguments.
In articulating multi treaty claims, it helps to present a matrix-like analysis showing where each treaty authorizes arbitration, how consent is manifested, and whether any residual claims fall outside the scope. The submission should explicitly address potential conflicts of laws and the impact of forum selection clauses, ensuring that the chosen arbitration method remains consistent with each instrument’s remedial aims. Citations to treaty language, international jurisprudence, and arbitral practice reinforce credibility. The writing should avoid speculative conclusions; instead, it should connect the factual matrix to established interpretive methods and to the practical implications for who bears costs and how procedural timelines are managed.
A persuasive jurisdictional argument often rests on demonstrating that the consent to arbitrate is both manifest and broad enough to cover the dispute as framed by the parties. When relevant, distinguish between “all claims arising out of” language and more narrow formulations, and explain why the concession applies to the present dispute. The submission should also consider non-arbitrability criteria such as public policy, mandate of the treaty regime, or matters unsuitable for arbitration under applicable law. By carefully packaging these points in a coherent narrative, the writer helps the tribunal discern that the dispute falls squarely within the arbitral framework and warrants a merits adjudication rather than a court remedy.
Link jurisdictional tests to practical outcomes, with disciplined drafting.
A key drafting tactic is to separate the jurisdictional narrative from the merits discussion, ensuring the tribunal can quickly locate the principal authority, the scope of consent, and the threshold admissibility questions. Each section should begin with a crisp thesis sentence, followed by substantiating facts and direct citations to treaty text or procedural rules. Avoid overlong paragraphs and maintain a steady rhythm that guides the reader through complex doctrinal terrain. Where fact-intensive elements are involved, provide a clear timeline and diagrammatic references that anchor textual interpretation to concrete events, thereby reducing ambiguity and elevating persuasive force.
When addressing arbitrability tests, articulate the criteria typically applied by tribunals in comparable settings, such as whether the subject matter is delegable, whether the dispute involves international minimum standards, and whether foreign public policy constraints apply. Explain how the case at hand aligns with or departs from those tests, supporting the conclusion with concrete evidence. A thoughtful submission anticipates potential critiques, offering reasoned counterpoints and alternative interpretations where necessary, while keeping the core argument tightly focused on the tribunal’s duty to decide the dispute.
A practical, checklist-based approach to submissions improves consistency.
In drafting the conclusions, present a compact conclusion that reiterates the tribunal’s jurisdiction and admissibility findings, supported by a concise map of the principal authorities and their relevance. The language should be direct, avoiding leaps in logic or unsupported inferences. Emphasize procedural efficiency and the consequences for timing, costs, and the allocation of rights across the treaty network. Where the tribunal may have discretion, describe the preferred course and the rationale behind it, while acknowledging any alternative readings that could be entertained in good faith. The structure should reinforce certainty and predictability for the parties involved.
Finally, include a procedural checklist embedded in the narrative: a brief enumerated list embedded within the text that helps counsel verify key elements—existence of consent, scope of claims, timeliness of filing, complaint structure, and admissibility prerequisites. While the format of the submission might not permit bullet points, these items can be integrated as clearly numbered anchors, each with a sentence of explanatory detail. The aim is to provide a practical, take-away instrument for parties drafting future submissions, ensuring consistency in presentation without sacrificing analytical depth.
Beyond the substantive analysis, attention to form enhances persuasive impact. The document should maintain precise typography, consistent style, and compliant referencing of authorities. Use neutral, objective tone, and avoid rhetoric that could be construed as advocacy beyond the legal posture. The drafting should make the tribunal’s path to decision transparent, laying out the argument with logical sequencing and avoiding ambiguity. In arbitration, where tribunals value predictability, clear headings, careful cross-referencing, and disciplined sentence structure contribute to timely decisions and reduced risk of misinterpretation.
Invest effort in ensuring accessibility for readers who may not share the same legal background. Define specialized terms when first used, explain jurisdictional concepts in plain language, and provide short glosses for unfamiliar legal constructs. The goal is to facilitate comprehension for judges, co-counsel, and the opposing party alike, while preserving the rigor required by international arbitration. An evergreen submission anticipates evolving doctrines and remains adaptable to different treaty configurations, preserving relevance across disputes and jurisdictions. By combining precision with readability, counsel can deliver durable, persuasive jurisdictional arguments.
