From Conflict to Coordination: Institutional Mechanisms For Multi-contract Arbitration

When a single commercial dispute fractures across multiple contracts, multiple parties, and multiple arbitral tribunals, the promise of arbitration as an efficient and final mechanism for dispute resolution begins to unravel. Multi-contract arbitration (MCA) sits at precisely this fault line, where the structural assumptions of bilateral arbitration collide with the complex reality of modern transnational commerce. Where disputes arise across interconnected contractual frameworks involving divergent arbitration clauses and competing governing laws, the structural limitations of conventional arbitral procedure are acutely exposed. This paper employs a doctrinal methodology to critically examine how leading arbitral institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) address these challenges through consolidation, joinder, and procedural coordination. Through comparative analysis of institutional rules and common law jurisprudence, this paper identifies persistent gaps in procedural coherence, tribunal constitution, and award enforceability that collectively undermine MCA’s legitimacy. The paper advances a dual reform framework, i.e., institutional harmonization of procedural rules and proactive contractual architecture, encompassing unified arbitration clauses, project-level protocols, and back-toback provisions as the most effective anterior safeguard against fragmentation.