One of the most significant changes in modern arbitration rules is the adoption of emergency arbitrator proceedings. These proceedings were introduced in order to provide a party in need of urgent interim measures before the constitution of an arbitral tribunal with an additional option besides going to state courts. In emergency arbitrator procedures such a party may seize an emergency arbitrator to grant the requested urgent relief. This article provides the Polish perspective on the effectiveness of emergency arbitrator proceedings, given that the Polish law is silent on the institution of emergency arbitrator and the possible recognition and enforcement of the decisions of an emergency arbitrator. The article analyses the Polish regulations on interim measures, together with their enforcement, by comparing the relationship, similarities and divergences between an arbitral tribunal, a state court, and an emergency arbitrator. This brings us to the conclusion that the existing legal framework as to the enforcement of interim measures issued by an arbitral tribunal provides a solid foundation for drawing an analogy to the recognition and enforcement of such orders granted by an emergency arbitrator. Thus, the provisions on enforcement of arbitral tribunal’s orders per analogiam allow for the recognition and enforcement of emergency arbitrators’ decisions on interim measures in Poland.

This article examines the consequences of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in Achmea concerning Investor-State Arbitration (ISA) under intra- EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) from a treaty law perspective. It begins by briefly setting out the arguments of Advocate General Wathelet and the CJEU supporting their different positions on whether intra-EU BITs ISA clauses are compatible with EU law. The article then proceeds to analyse Achmea’s implications for intra-EU BIT ISA. It concludes that, as a result of the CJEU’s ruling, arbitral tribunals are deprived of their jurisdiction to entertain investors’ claims brought under intra-EU BIT ISA clauses. Finally, the article argues that Achmea’s applicability to cases brought under intra-EU BIT ISA clauses is limited, using the application of EU law as a relevant qualification. In order for an arbitral tribunal to be deprived of its jurisdictional competence as a result of Achmea, it must be entitled to interpret and apply EU law directly or indirectly in determining its jurisdiction.