CLAIMANT 0800 FINAL 12072006

institutional arbitration. Institutional arbitration offers, among other benefits, advantages such as
the security of established procedural rules and professional supervision of the proceedings, recourse
to independent review and revision of the award, greater certainty with regard to costs, and a body
of practice and commentary to inform the resolution of complex issues that may arise
[Redfern/Hunter 1-101 to 1-102; Born 12]. This reasonable presumption in favor of institutional
arbitration, in combination with the language of the arbitration agreement and the circumstances
surrounding its formation, indicates that the parties intended institutional arbitration in this case.
B. The parties agreed to institutional arbitration under the Romanian Rules.
23. The arbitration agreement designates the Romanian Rules as the procedural rules that govern the
Claim. As noted above, the agreement specifically calls for the arbitration to be “settled by the
International Arbitration Rules used in Bucharest” [Cl. Ex. 1 34]. Respondent may note that the
proper title of the Romanian Rules is in fact “Arbitration Rules” [Art. I(1) Romanian Rules].
However, the Tribunal should not sacrifice the substance of the parties’ intent on the altar of banal
linguistic formality. Chapter Eight of the Romanian Rules, which is entitled “Special Provisions
Regarding International Commercial Arbitration,” contains those portions of the Romanian Rules
that are specific to international arbitrations. Thus, use of the term “International” conveys the
parties’ intent that these specific provisions of the Romanian Rules apply. Likewise, the
capitalization by the parties of “International Arbitration Rules” indicates that such designation was
not meant to be merely descriptive, but denotes a proper name. The parties’ decision to designate
the rules in this way shows that they intended arbitration according to specific named rules rather
than a general set of “international rules.”
24. The term “the International Arbitration Rules used in Bucharest” also indicates party intent to select
the rules most closely associated with Bucharest and constitutes an attempt to distinguish the rather
ambiguously-named “Arbitration Rules” from similar procedural frameworks. As noted above (see
infra 17), tribunals have relied on the geographic location specified by the parties to determine party
intent to arbitrate under the rules most commonly associated with that geographical location [see, e.g.,
Preliminary Award of 25 Nov. 1994, Zurich CC (Switz.) (“international trade arbitration organization in
Zurich” interpreted as Zurich Chamber of Commerce International Arbitration Rules); ICC Case No. 5103
(reference to Paris Chamber of Commerce interpreted as reference to ICC)); see also Gaillard/Savage 262-3;
Lew/Mistelis/Kröll 156 (where designation of the institution under the rules of which an arbitration should take
place was unclear, “the reference to a particular city…allowed the courts to identify the chosen institution.”)]. There
10