Advocacy built for tribunals, not just courtrooms.
ME Law acts as counsel and advocate in international commercial and investment-treaty arbitration — under the rules of the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ICDR, and UNCITRAL, and before ad hoc tribunals. From the seat and governing law to the final award and its enforcement under the New York Convention, we advance high-stakes cross-border disputes with disciplined advocacy and strategic global insight.
Selected MandatesAnonymised
Anonymised. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results; outcomes vary with the facts of each matter.
View Representative Matters$50M+Cross-Border Arbitration Mandates
Direct Access to Lead Counsel
ICC · LCIA · UNCITRAL Experience
170+States Party to the New York Convention
ME Law is a litigation-only firm that appears in international arbitration as counsel and advocate. We do not treat arbitration as private litigation with different paperwork — we treat it as a distinct discipline, where the seat, the governing law, the institutional rules, and the composition of the tribunal shape the outcome long before the merits are heard.
We act for companies, investors, boards, lenders, and institutional clients in commercial and investment-treaty arbitration under the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ICDR, and UNCITRAL rules — as claimants advancing a claim, respondents defending one, and parties enforcing or resisting an award across borders. Every mandate is led personally by senior counsel.
By the time a cross-border dispute surfaces, its outcome is already constrained — the seat, the rules, and the tribunal were settled in a clause drafted years before. We draft, and arbitrate, accordingly.
The ME Law StandardIn multi-jurisdictional disputes worth tens or hundreds of millions, the outcome is largely determined at the outset — by the seat, the institutional rules, the constitution of the tribunal, and the procedural architecture. Those choices define the range of results still available years later, when the award falls to be enforced.
Every mandate begins with the arbitration clause: its scope, enforceability, the seat and governing law it fixes, and whether jurisdiction can be established or challenged.
We assess the institutional rules and the seat’s supervisory law — decisions that shape procedure, disclosure, and the enforceability of the eventual award.
An arbitration is only as good as its arbitrators — their selection is often the single most decisive step in a case. We identify, vet, and nominate tribunal members suited to the dispute, and challenge arbitrators whose independence or impartiality is in doubt.
Written submissions, witness and expert evidence, and hearing advocacy are built to persuade a tribunal — concise, well-supported, and calibrated to the applicable rules.
We pursue and defend awards through to recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention, and bring or resist set-aside and annulment challenges where warranted.
Each type of arbitration follows its own rules, procedural culture, and enforcement path. Below is an overview of the international arbitration work we act on most often, as claimant, respondent, and enforcing or resisting party.
Cross-border commercial disputes resolved before institutional or ad hoc tribunals — from complex supply, distribution, joint-venture, and M&A disputes to shareholder and post-acquisition claims with an international dimension.
Treaty-based claims and defences before ICSID and UNCITRAL tribunals — investors asserting rights against a host state under bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements with investment chapters, and the defence of such claims.
Advocacy under the rules of the world’s leading arbitral institutions — where the choice of institution, seat, and tribunal shapes procedure, cost, and the enforceability of the award.
Arbitration conducted outside a supervising institution, governed by the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or a bespoke framework — demanding careful procedural design and disciplined case management.
Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention and the arbitration law of the country where enforcement is sought — and, where necessary, resisting enforcement on the Convention’s narrow grounds.
Applications to set aside, annul, or challenge arbitral awards before the courts of the seat — and defending awards against such challenges — on jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and public-policy grounds.
Urgent relief before the tribunal is constituted or during the proceeding — emergency arbitrator applications, interim and conservatory measures, and court-ordered relief in aid of arbitration.
Coordinated strategy where a dispute spans arbitration and court proceedings across multiple jurisdictions — managing parallel proceedings, anti-suit considerations, and enforcement across borders.
Guides to arbitrating under the leading institutional rules, and to enforcing the resulting awards under the New York Convention.
ME Law is retained by companies, investors, boards, and institutional clients whose disputes cross borders and are governed by an arbitration clause — as claimants, respondents, and parties enforcing or resisting an award. We act where the stakes, the jurisdictions, and the enforcement questions demand dedicated arbitration counsel.
Commercial, supply, distribution, and joint-venture disputes governed by international arbitration agreements.
Treaty-based claims against host states, and commercial claims arising from cross-border investments.
Shareholder, governance, and post-acquisition disputes referred to arbitration.
Arbitration strategy, clause drafting, and lead-counsel support alongside internal legal teams.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention, wherever the debtor’s assets are.
Resisting enforcement and bringing set-aside or annulment challenges on the available grounds.
Cross-border financial, ISDA, and counterparty disputes referred to arbitration.
Construction, infrastructure, and energy disputes under institutional and ad hoc rules.
Emergency arbitrator applications, interim measures, and court-ordered relief in aid of arbitration.
An award you cannot enforce is a paper victory. We arbitrate with enforcement in mind from the first filing.
The lawyer who assesses your matter remains accountable for its strategic direction and advocacy. Senior counsel is not a selling point at intake; it is how the mandate is run.
Mayssia Elajami leads ME Law’s arbitration practice, acting as counsel and advocate in international commercial and investment-treaty disputes under the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ICDR, and UNCITRAL rules. She advises on the drafting and enforceability of arbitration agreements, the strategic choice of seat and tribunal, emergency and interim relief, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention.
Priority Arbitration CounselFor organizations with recurring cross-border exposure or ongoing arbitral proceedings, ME Law is available to discuss standing arbitration-counsel arrangements.
Seat-strategy advisory · emergency arbitrator readiness · enforcement planningA selection of anonymised international arbitration mandates, described by dispute, forum, and outcome. Figures reflect the scale of matters handled, not a promise of a particular result.
A cross-border supply and distribution dispute governed by an ICC arbitration clause. Careful early work on the seat and procedural framework positioned the client for a favourable, enforceable outcome.
A foreign counterparty resisted a valid arbitral award by moving assets across jurisdictions. Coordinated recognition-and-enforcement proceedings and freezing relief secured recovery.
With the tribunal not yet constituted, an emergency arbitrator application preserved the status quo and prevented a party from defeating the purpose of the arbitration.
A multi-party ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules requiring appointing-authority applications and a carefully designed procedural timetable to keep the proceeding on track.
A losing party challenged an award at the seat on jurisdiction and procedural-fairness grounds. The award was defended and upheld, preserving the client’s hard-won result.
A foreign investor faced state conduct affecting the value of its investment. A treaty-based claim was framed and advanced with a disciplined jurisdiction and damages strategy.
Matters are anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results; outcomes vary according to the facts of each matter.
Arbitration rewards preparation, procedural insight, and a strategy built around enforcement. How a litigation-only boutique runs an international arbitration differs on every factor that shapes the award.
| Traditional Approach | Compared | ME Law |
|---|---|---|
| General disputes practice | Arbitration Focus | Dedicated international arbitration counsel |
| Counsel trained through the CIArb pathway | Arbitration Credentials | Advocacy grounded in institutional-rule expertise |
| Rotating case teams | Counsel Continuity | Led personally by senior counsel, start to finish |
| Clause reviewed once a dispute arises | Clause & Seat Strategy | Engineered at the drafting stage |
| Court-style pleadings | Written Advocacy | Submissions calibrated to the tribunal and the rules |
| Single-jurisdiction focus | Cross-Border Reach | ICC · LCIA · SIAC · HKIAC · ICDR · UNCITRAL · ICSID |
| Judgments enforced treaty-by-treaty | Enforcement Reach | Awards enforceable across 170+ New York Convention states |
| Proceedings on the public record | Confidentiality | Private — and, where agreed, confidential |
| Merits reopened on appeal | Finality of the Award | Final award; narrow, defined challenge grounds |
| Enforcement weighed after the award | Enforcement Planning | Built into strategy from the first filing |
| Purely legal analysis | Commercial Judgment | Strategy aligned to the commercial stakes |
| Access through case teams | Client Access | Direct line to lead counsel |
“They understood the arbitration from the seat up. The early strategy on the clause and the tribunal was what put us in a winning position.”
“The tribunal was not yet in place and we needed relief immediately. Their emergency arbitrator application preserved everything that mattered.”
International arbitration follows a structured sequence. You always know what is happening next, and why each decision is being made.
We analyse the arbitration agreement, the seat, the governing law, and whether jurisdiction can be established or challenged.
The claim or response is filed, and arbitrators are selected, challenged, or confirmed under the applicable rules.
Terms of reference, the procedural timetable, and any emergency or interim measures are settled early.
Written submissions, document production, and witness and expert evidence are built to persuade the tribunal.
The case is argued at the evidentiary hearing, and the tribunal renders its award.
The award is enforced under the New York Convention, or defended against set-aside and annulment challenges.
Three anonymised mandates, told from clause to outcome.
A cross-border supply and distribution dispute governed by an ICC clause, with the seat and governing law in issue.
Early work established the seat and procedural framework most favourable to the client, and submissions were built around an enforceable outcome.
An enforceable award was secured on favourable terms, with enforcement risk addressed from the outset.
In arbitration, the seat and the clause often decide more than the merits do.
An award creditor held a valid foreign award, but the debtor had shifted assets across jurisdictions to frustrate recovery.
Recognition-and-enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention were paired with freezing relief targeting the debtor’s assets.
The award was recognized and enforced, and recovery was secured.
An award is only as good as the enforcement strategy behind it.
A party threatened to defeat the purpose of an arbitration before the tribunal could be constituted.
An emergency arbitrator application under the institutional rules preserved the status quo pending constitution of the tribunal.
Interim relief was granted, protecting the subject matter of the dispute.
Emergency arbitrator procedures exist for a reason — but only if counsel moves fast enough to use them.
Practical guidance on international arbitration, award enforcement, and cross-border strategy for boards, investors, and in-house legal teams.
A practical guide for award creditors and in-house counsel on recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards — the New York Convention framework, the narrow grounds for refusal, the time limits, and how to pair enforcement with asset-preservation relief.
Read Guide →Clauses, institutional rules, the seat and the tribunal.
How foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced.
Recognition, enforcement and freezing relief against the debtor’s assets.
Answers to common questions about international arbitration and enforcement.
Parallel proceedings, forum strategy and enforcement across borders.
A confidential assessment of your clause, award or dispute.
In arbitration, the decisions made before the first hearing often decide the last.
International arbitration turns on the commercial context as much as the law. The sectors below reflect industries in which cross-border disputes and arbitration agreements are most common, and where focused advocacy makes the difference.
Production-sharing, joint-operating, offtake, and price-review disputes — frequently referred to ICC or ad hoc arbitration with an international dimension.
Delay, variation, and payment disputes on international projects governed by FIDIC and other standard forms with arbitration clauses.
Cross-border licensing, development, supply, and shareholder disputes where confidentiality and speed favour arbitration.
ISDA, counterparty, and cross-border finance disputes, and treaty claims involving financial investments.
Supply, distribution, agency, and sale-of-goods disputes across borders under institutional and ad hoc rules.
Long-term supply, manufacturing, and quality disputes with international counterparties and arbitration clauses.
Post-acquisition, earn-out, warranty, and shareholder disputes referred to arbitration in cross-border transactions.
Charterparty, freight, and cross-border performance disputes commonly resolved by arbitration.
Concession, royalty, offtake, and commodity-trading disputes with a treaty or cross-border dimension.
Licensing, distribution, supply, and collaboration disputes requiring disciplined, confidential resolution.
Cross-border franchise, licensing, and brand-standard disputes governed by arbitration agreements.
Investment-treaty and state-contract disputes before ICSID and UNCITRAL tribunals.
A disciplined, senior-led approach built for cross-border disputes where the award has to hold up and be enforced.
Boards, investors, and general counsel come to ME Law when a cross-border dispute is governed by an arbitration clause and the stakes are high. Every mandate is run accordingly: senior counsel on the file from the first call, and a strategy that treats the seat, the rules, and the tribunal as decisions, not defaults.
Engagements begin with a confidential assessment of the arbitration agreement, the jurisdictions in play, and the realistic paths to an enforceable outcome. From there, we build the record, shape the procedure, and advance the case with disciplined written and oral advocacy before the tribunal.
An award only works if it can be enforced. We track our own performance accordingly: awards obtained, awards that survive challenge, awards enforced across borders, and disputes resolved on terms that serve the business — not hours logged.
Answers to the most common questions about international arbitration — clauses, institutional rules, the seat, interim relief, and enforcement under the New York Convention. Browse by topic, search our knowledge base, or explore related resources.
A clear agreement to arbitrate, a defined scope of disputes, and — ideally — an express seat, governing law, institutional rules, and language. Vague or contradictory clauses invite jurisdictional fights before the merits are ever reached.
Institutional arbitration is administered by a body such as the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, or ICDR under its own rules. Ad hoc arbitration runs without an administering institution, usually under the UNCITRAL Rules, and depends more heavily on the parties and the tribunal to manage the process.
Through the courts of the country where the debtor has assets. More than 170 States are party to the New York Convention, under which a foreign award is recognised and enforced on the basis of the award and the arbitration agreement (with certified translations where needed), subject only to the Convention's narrow grounds for refusal. Each country applies its own arbitration law and court procedure, so enforcement is planned country by country — with local counsel where the assets are.
Arbitration between a foreign investor and a host state, usually under a bilateral or multilateral investment treaty, addressing claims such as expropriation or unfair treatment of the investor's investment. It is commonly conducted under ICSID or UNCITRAL rules.
An emergency arbitrator is appointed on an expedited basis under many institutional rules to grant urgent interim relief before the full tribunal is constituted — for example, to preserve assets or the status quo.
The seat determines the procedural law of the arbitration, which courts supervise and support it, the grounds and forum for setting aside an award, and often the enforceability of the eventual award. It is one of the most consequential choices in any arbitration.
Rights of appeal are narrow and are often excluded by the arbitration agreement or the rules. Arbitration is designed to be final, and courts do not re-hear the merits.
The seat is the legal home of the arbitration — it fixes the supervisory courts and much of the procedural law. The venue is simply where hearings physically take place. They are often different, and the seat matters far more.
If there is a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute, a court will generally stay its own proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration on the application of one party, under the applicable arbitration legislation.
Yes. The law governing the contract, the law governing the arbitration agreement, and the procedural law of the seat can all differ. Specifying each avoids costly disputes about which law applies to what.
The choice turns on cost, procedural culture, scrutiny of awards, default seat, and where enforcement is likely. Each institution has distinct strengths, and the right choice depends on the parties, the transaction, and the anticipated dispute.
A widely used set of procedural rules designed for ad hoc arbitration. They provide a complete framework for conducting a proceeding without an administering institution, and are frequently chosen in cross-border and investor-state contexts.
Arbitrators are appointed under the applicable rules — often one by each party and a chair by agreement or by the institution. They can be challenged for lack of independence or impartiality, on grounds and procedures set out in those rules.
The New York Convention sets out limited grounds — such as an invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, an award exceeding the scope of the submission, improper tribunal composition, or conflict with public policy. Courts apply them narrowly.
It depends on where you enforce, so an award creditor should take advice promptly. The New York Convention sets no time limit: each enforcing country applies its own limitation rules, and they vary widely — in some places only a few years, in others a decade or more — running from the date of the award or, in some countries, from the end of set-aside proceedings at the seat. In a federal country the period can differ from one state or province to another. Delay can also give a debtor time to move assets.
Yes. A Mareva or freezing order can be sought to preserve a debtor's assets while recognition-and-enforcement proceedings are underway, preventing dissipation before the award can be enforced.
The New York Convention has more than 170 contracting states, so a properly made award is enforceable in the vast majority of the world's trading jurisdictions — a reach no single domestic court judgment can match. This near-universal enforceability is one of the central reasons parties choose arbitration for cross-border deals.
ICSID — the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — is a World Bank institution that administers investment-treaty and investment-contract arbitrations between investors and states, with its own self-contained rules and annulment mechanism.
ICSID awards are enforceable under the ICSID Convention with very limited review: under Article 54, every Contracting State must recognise an ICSID award as binding and enforce its pecuniary obligations as if it were a final judgment of its own courts, while Article 55 leaves the law on state immunity from execution untouched. Non-ICSID treaty awards are generally enforced under the New York Convention, like other foreign arbitral awards.
Only a treaty in force between the investor's home state and the host state that contains the host state's consent to arbitration — typically a bilateral investment treaty, a free trade agreement with an investment chapter, or a multilateral treaty — and only if the investor and its investment meet the treaty's definitions. Treaty access changes over time: states terminate and renegotiate treaties, some newer agreements leave out investor-state arbitration, and some investment chapters are not yet in force, so the current status of the specific treaty must be checked for every claim. Where a treaty applies, claims are usually brought under the ICSID or UNCITRAL rules.
Yes. Courts can grant interim measures in aid of arbitration — including injunctions and freezing orders — where the tribunal is not yet constituted or cannot act effectively, without undermining the parties' agreement to arbitrate.
Depending on the rules and the seat, a tribunal can order measures to preserve evidence or assets, maintain the status quo, provide security for costs, or restrain conduct that would prejudice the arbitration.
Yes. Under the principle of competence-competence, a tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement — subject to later court review at the seat or on enforcement.
The other party can apply to stay the court proceeding and compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement. Courts routinely enforce valid arbitration clauses and refer the parties to arbitration.
Set-aside applications at the seat are limited to defined grounds — such as an invalid arbitration agreement, lack of jurisdiction, a serious procedural irregularity, or conflict with public policy — not disagreement with the tribunal's findings.
A self-contained review mechanism under the ICSID Convention allowing an award to be annulled on limited grounds, such as a manifest excess of powers or a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — narrower than an appeal.
Call +1 416 923 0003 or email [email protected]. Senior counsel assesses your arbitration agreement and dispute directly and confidentially, and sets out the realistic strategy and paths forward.
Yes. We regularly act as lead or co-counsel alongside in-house legal teams and foreign counsel, coordinating strategy across jurisdictions in cross-border arbitration and enforcement.
Cost depends on the institution, the tribunal, the complexity, and the value at stake, and includes institutional and arbitrator fees in addition to counsel fees. We are direct about likely cost ranges and scope each mandate at the outset.
Commercial arbitration is generally private, and under many institutional rules and national laws it is also confidential — a significant advantage for parties with trade secrets or reputational sensitivity. Confidentiality is not automatic at every seat, however, and investment-treaty arbitration is increasingly transparent, so the point should be addressed expressly in the arbitration agreement.
Describe your dispute or arbitration clause — even briefly — and we’ll help you find the right answer, or the right person to call.
Ask a Question →We accept mandates where dedicated litigation counsel can make a material difference. That is why each engagement begins with a rigorous strategic assessment.
ME Law acts as counsel and advocate in international commercial and investment-treaty arbitration — under ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, ICDR, and UNCITRAL rules — and in the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. If your dispute is governed by an arbitration clause or spans borders, we invite you to request a confidential consultation.
For organizations with recurring cross-border exposure or ongoing proceedings, we are also available to discuss a standing arbitration-counsel arrangement.
