This article is an extensive comparison of the main arbitral institutions’ rules in different languages, focusing on the English, French, Spanish and Russian versions of the rules, when available. Our comparative analysis of the rules took us to the conclusion that there are discrepancies between versions of the rules in different languages. In some cases, such differences between versions can have important consequences on arbitration proceedings. This article is a wake-up call for international arbitral institutions, which should provide participants to arbitration cases with better quality translations of the rules, and a warning for participants to arbitration and litigators, who should be careful in using translations of arbitration rules. Most international arbitral institutions make their rules available on their websites in two or more languages. Because international arbitration involves parties from different countries who often do not speak the same language, these parties will use translations of the rules to make their way into arbitration proceedings. However, a comprehensive comparison of major arbitral institutions’ rules in different languages has revealed that there are differences between versions of the rules. Some of these differences are minor, and do not change the content itself of the rules or the obligation of the parties, but some differences are more important and can have notable consequences on the conduct of arbitration proceedings. Such variations can create confusion in the minds of the parties to arbitration, and prevent arbitration proceedings from being carried on diligently and without delay. First, the parties might not know that different versions of the rules are not equivalent, and rely only on one translation, which could lead in some cases to a different result. Second, the arbitral institution may indicate that one version of the rules is the official one, but the parties may not necessarily be able to understand the content of the rules if it is not written in their native language. Third, arbitration rules may have more than one official version, and the parties may legitimately rely only on one of them, though there may be some differences between two official versions of the rules. Finally, the arbitral institution may not say which of the versions of the rules is the official one, and in this case the parties are not in a position to know on which version they should rely in the event of a conflict between different versions of the rules. The translation errors that result in differences between versions of arbitration rules vary considerably in terms of number and types of errors. Some versions of the rules are very similar, but others are very divergent. This article only reports on the institutions whose versions of the rules are not equivalent; we also limited our research to the comparisons of English, French, Spanish and Russian versions (and Italian in some very few cases). This means that the number of translation errors, considering all existing arbitration institutions, and translations of the rules in all languages available, is probably much higher. The purpose of this article is to list the kind of translation errors that can be found in arbitration rules, and to raise the awareness of the importance of wording in these rules. Hopefully, arbitral institutions will consider the need to improve their translations, in order to facilitate arbitration proceedings and to allow participants to rely on them.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Apr 26, 2019
Olha Nahorna 
