Sweden: A Dispute Resolution: Most in Demand Arbitrators Overview
Arbitration in Sweden: Cultural Pragmatism Meets International Best Practice
Key features of Swedish arbitration law
Swedish arbitration law is mainly set out in the Arbitration Act (lagen (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande), which applies to both domestic and international arbitrations. Party autonomy is at the core of the Arbitration Act, which contains few mandatory provisions. Although the Arbitration Act is not identical to the 1985 Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, it was drafted with the Model Law as a close reference point, and the deviations between the two are minor. In 2019, revisions of the Arbitration Act entered into force, further enhancing its suitability for international arbitrations and promoting more efficient proceedings. In essence, the Act concisely provides a flexible, pragmatic and effective framework for arbitration proceedings.
These features of the Arbitration Act can be said to reflect Sweden’s broader pro-arbitration legal culture. A further example is the Swedish judiciary’s approach to arbitration. Swedish courts are supportive of party autonomy, procedural flexibility, and the finality of awards. Hence, the threshold for setting aside awards is high and, in enforcement proceedings, Swedish courts aim to support a consistent and harmonised application of the New York Convention. Moreover, Swedish courts are independent and rooted in a strong rule of law tradition, which ensures impartial and principled court supervision when judicial involvement is required.
The legal framework described above is also often (and rightly) said to be characterised by pragmatism and minimalism. An additional aspect of this is that Swedish substantive law reflects a Nordic tradition that blends civil and common law influences while placing particular emphasis on effectiveness and commercial reasonableness, rather than rigid codification or heavy procedural formalism. In practice, this is complemented by a solution-oriented approach among Swedish arbitration practitioners, which tends to keep procedural skirmishes on issues such as document production and admissibility comparatively limited.
Emerging trends: cultural pragmatism meets international best practice
Overall, Sweden’s arbitration framework is widely regarded as compatible with international practice. For example, Swedish approaches to the taking of evidence and document production, as well as assessments of conflicts of interest, are aligned with the relevant IBA Rules on these subjects (which have also been referred to by the Supreme Court in multiple cases; see, for example, NJA 2010 s. 317 and NJA 2012 s. 289). At the same time, Swedish arbitration procedure, like any other, has local features which will be especially evident in domestic arbitrations. In recent years, however, these local features have lost ground in favour of what may be described as more internationalised practices.
One such tendency, particularly common in arbitrations between Swedish parties, is that opening statements and closing arguments are relatively extensive compared with what is typical in international arbitrations. This is likely a result of Swedish arbitration practitioners drawing on experience from litigation before Swedish courts, where the main principle, unlike in arbitration, is that all procedural material is to be presented orally. Although some Swedish counsel still prefer to address as many issues in the case as possible in detail during opening statements and closing arguments, it is our view that this tendency is declining. Rather, best practice in modern Swedish arbitration proceedings is for oral submissions to be condensed and focused on the issues and evidence central to the case. In larger and more complex cases, half a day, or at least a full day, should be sufficient (see, eg, SAA Arbitration Reports 2024:02, p. 78, for a consolidated view of leading Swedish arbitration practitioners). It could therefore be said that local Swedish arbitration practice is aligning with international customs in this regard.
Another point of divergence between domestic Swedish and international arbitrations concerns the taking of witness evidence. Swedish proceedings have traditionally followed the procedural order used in the general courts, whereby the party relying on a witness begins with direct examination, followed by cross-examination by opposing counsel. Influenced by international arbitration practice, it is now increasingly common for the parties, even in purely domestic proceedings, to present witness evidence by way of written witness statements combined with cross-examination. In our experience, there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods; however, a significant benefit of written witness statements is that they make the arbitration more front-loaded, which Swedish arbitrators and counsel generally regard as desirable.
Another example of an area in which there are alternatives to domestic Swedish practice concerns how the parties’ cases are set out in the arbitral award. One traditional method is for the arbitral tribunal, typically the chair, to prepare summaries of each party’s case (so-called recitals) during the course of the arbitration. Recitals can, among other things, give the parties an indication of how the tribunal has understood the dispute, which may highlight the need for clarification, improve predictability, and facilitate the parties’ preparations for the final hearing. As arbitration cases have grown in scope, and as the parties’ written submissions have expanded accordingly, alternative methods for presenting the parties’ cases have emerged. One such method, primarily used in larger arbitrations, is the use of so-called skeleton arguments, a practice borrowed from common law jurisdictions. In this approach, each party is asked to summarise its case within a limited number of pages. This promotes clarity and helps maintain focus on what is material to the dispute.
Why Sweden remains a strategic choice as a seat of arbitration
In our view, the developments set out above are mainly positive and broaden the possibilities for tailoring arbitration proceedings to the needs of the case at hand. These developments are, to a significant extent, due to the international character of the Swedish arbitration community, which in turn is attributable to Sweden’s long-standing strong position as a seat for international arbitrations. This further internationalisation has also brought an additional positive development, which has less to do with arbitral practice as such and more with those who carry it out. Today, the Swedish pool of arbitrators is increasingly diverse and includes individuals with different competences, backgrounds, and experiences and who are, in general, well versed in international arbitration practice. This is due, in no small part, to initiatives such as the Training Programme for Arbitrators organised by the SCC and the SAA, to mention one example.
When it comes to efforts to remain at the forefront, Sweden also benefits significantly from the SCC, which continuously develops new tools and features to enhance the institution’s offering. By way of illustration, the SCC was among the earliest arbitration institutions worldwide to introduce emergency arbitrator proceedings. Other examples include the relatively new dispute assessment service, SCC Express, the primary purpose of which is to provide the parties with a prompt and impartial assessment of their dispute. In this context, the SCC Platform should also be mentioned, as it supports the practical use of all the SCC’s services in an excellent manner.
To conclude, Sweden stands out for its arbitration-friendly legal environment and solution-oriented dispute resolution culture. Combined with a high level of compatibility with international standards and a strong rule of law tradition, Sweden remains a well-established and attractive arbitral seat across a broad range of disputes, party nationalities, and industries.