Arbitration clauses that actually hold
We are rarely hired to draft an arbitration clause. We are hired when one fails. After years of enforcing — and attacking — other people's clauses, the failure points are remarkably consistent.
First: the named institution does not exist, or is named imprecisely. 'Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce in Geneva' has produced years of jurisdictional litigation. Name the rules, the institution, the seat and the language — exactly.
Second: the seat contradicts the governing law in ways nobody priced. A New York–law contract with a Stockholm seat is workable; the same contract with an undefined seat is an invitation to parallel proceedings.
Third: asymmetric clauses (one party may litigate, the other must arbitrate) — upheld in some jurisdictions, struck down in others. If your counterparty is Russian, French or Polish, assume the asymmetry will be tested.
Fourth: no carve-out for urgent relief. You want freezing orders available from state courts before the tribunal is constituted; say so expressly.
Fifth: the clause ignores enforcement. The award is worth what the assets' jurisdiction says it is worth. Check New York Convention coverage — and reservations — where the counterparty's assets actually sit, not where its lawyers do.