In the world of complex commercial transactions, the inclusion of an arbitration agreement is widely common. Such commercial transactions involve multiple interdependent agreements which generally have non-uniform arbitration clauses, providing for different arbitral institutions, rules and practices. 

Due to the interconnected nature of these agreements, it is considered wise to adopt consolidation of arbitration proceedings flowing from them in the interest of saving both, time and money. 

Arbitral Institutions only allow consolidation when either the parties consent to consolidate the issues arising out of the same agreement or the arbitration agreements are compatible. However, there exists no inter-institutional consolidation procedure as of yet due to the differences in mode of arbitration and the lack of compatibility of the institutions with one another.

In 2017, SIAC devised a proposal to deal with this pertinent issue by providing two options, which are as follows:

OPTION 1- Proposed a ‘Consolidation Protocol’ as a set of new rules for conducting cross-institutional arbitrations;

OPTION 2- Proposed a ‘Consolidation Protocol’ as a set of objective criteria, for selecting one institution over another, when it comes to conducting cross-institutional arbitrations.

The SIAC proposal, while presenting a futuristic solution to the problem, could also open a Pandora’s box in its wake, which can lead to civil conflicts between the institutions in case the criteria for selection of one institution over the other is arbitrary or irrational. Additionally, the concept of party autonomy would be severely hindered if cross-institutional consolidation rules were made mandatory.

Thus, a carefully drafted consolidation protocol is the need of the hour to sustain a growing regime of international commercial arbitrations.