Emergency Arbitrators in Thailand: Legal Gaps and Reform Proposals

Abstract

This article addresses the legal gap in Thailand’s arbitration system, which currently lacks provisions for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator in situations requiring urgent interim measures before the arbitral tribunal is formally constituted. While arbitration offers a faster, more private, and neutral dispute resolution process compared to traditional court proceedings, the process of appointing arbitrators can be time-consuming. This delay poses significant risks to parties facing urgent circumstances or potential irreparable harm that cannot wait for a final decision.

            Several leading arbitration jurisdictions—such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and England—have adopted mechanisms for appointing emergency arbitrators to issue interim measures during the interim period before the main arbitral tribunal is established. This article conducts a comparative study of the legal frameworks in these jurisdictions, focusing on legal recognition, application procedures, enforceability of interim orders, and grounds for challenging the emergency arbitrator. Through an analysis of relevant domestic and international legal documents, the article proposes amendments to Thailand’s Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 to enable the appointment of emergency arbitrators.