CNUDMI - A CN.9.1246

United Nations Ascnonzas (7)) General Assembly Diste: Limited 15 April 2026 \{ ) A\ 4 w Original: English United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Fifty-ninth session New York, 29 June — 10 July 2026 Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Draft supplementary provisions on the conduct of proceedings to resolve international investment disputes Note by the Secretariat Contents L Introduction

I. Draft supplementary provisions on the conduct of proceedings to resolve international investment disputes....

Provision I: Evidence...

Provision IV: Manifest lack of legal merit Provision V: Security for costs Provision VI: Suspension of the proceeding Provision VII: Termination of the proceeding Provision VIII: Period of time for making the award Provision IX: Allocation of costs....

Provision XI: Third-party funding

II. Implementation of the supplementary provisions on the conduct of proceedings to resolve international investment disputes .... .15A/CN.9/1246

2/19 I Introduction and background

1. Atits fiftieth session in 2017, the Commission entrusted Working Group III with a broad mandate to work on the possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement

(ISDS). The Commission agreed that broad discretion should be left to the Working Group in discharging its mandate, and that any solutions devised would be designed taking into account the ongoing work of relevant international organizations and with a view to allowing each State the choice of whether and to what extent it wishes to adopt the relevant solution(s).!

2. During the first phase of its work, the Working Group identified concerns broadly as those pertaining to: (i) the lack of consistency, coherence, predictability and correctness of arbitral decisions by ISDS tribunals; (ii) arbitrators and decision makers; and (iii) cost and duration of ISDS proceedings (A/CN.9/964 and A/CN.9/970). During the deliberations, it was generally felt that improvements in the

and correctness of arbitral decisions by ISDS tribunals; (ii) arbitrators and decision makers; and (iii) cost and duration of ISDS proceedings (A/CN.9/964 and A/CN.9/970). During the deliberations, it was generally felt that improvements in the procedural framework would be desirable to address those concerns. References were made to developing rules on third-party funding, allocation of costs, early dismissal of frivolous claims, security for costs and counterclaims. At its forty-third session in September 2022, the Working Group considered the draft provisions on procedural reform in document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.219 and identified the “cross-cutting™ issues that required further work (see A/CN.9/1124, paras. 89-104).

3. From its forty-sixth session in October 2023, the Working Group considered the draft provisions on procedural and cross-cutting issues (DP) in documents

A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.231, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.244, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.248, A/CN.9/WG.IIUWP.253 and A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.262. The Working Group considered the DPs most recently as follows: (a) DPs 10, 12 (paras. 6 and 8), 13 and 20 at the forty-ninth session in September 2024;2 (b) DPs 1 to 4 at the fiftieth session in January 2025;%(c) DPs 14 to 19 at the fifty-first session (second part) in April 2025; (d) DPs 5 to 8 at the fifty-second session in September 2025;5 and (e) DPs 9, 10, 11, 11bis, 12, 13 and 22 at the fifty-third session in January 2026.5 In addition,

2025; (d) DPs 5 to 8 at the fifty-second session in September 2025;5 and (e) DPs 9, 10, 11, 11bis, 12, 13 and 22 at the fifty-third session in January 2026.5 In addition, DPs 12, 18, 19 and 20 were considered at the ninth intersessional meeting in November 2025.7

4. Atits fifty-third session in January 2026, the Working Group agreed to prepare the DPs as treaty provisions. It was further agreed that the DPs addressing the conduct of the proceedings would form (i) a supplement to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (“UARs”) and (ii) part of a protocol to the multilateral instrument on ISDS reform (“MIIR") as a set of rules, which States could opt into as one package.® It was said that the preparation of a supplement to the UARs would require a careful assessment of how the DPs would interact with the UARs. It was agreed that other DPs, which provided purely treaty language, would be presented as separate provisions in a protocol to the MIIR for States to opt into individually.®

5. Atthat session, while noting the importance of continuing to work on the purely treaty DPs, it was generally felt that work should first be carried out to finalize the DPs addressing the conduct of the proceedings (specifically DPs 1 to 9, 11 and 12), so that they could be presented to the Commission in 2026.'° Noting that it did not have time at the session to consider DPs 1 to 8, the Working Group considered ! Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-second Session, Supplement No. 17

(A/72/17), para. 264. 2 A/CN.9/1194, paras. 57-104. 3 A/CN.9/1195, paras. 23-69. 4 A/CN.9/1196/Add.1, paras. 67-109.

(A/72/17), para. 264. 2 A/CN.9/1194, paras. 57-104. 3 A/CN.9/1195, paras. 23-69. 4 A/CN.9/1196/Add.1, paras. 67-109. 3 A/CN.9/1238, paras. 15-81. 6 A/CN.9/1239, paras. 14-106. 7 See summary of the ninth intersessional meeting on ISDS reform submitted by the Government of Chile, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.263. 8 A/CN.9/1239, para. 59. ° Ibid. 10 A/CN.9/1239, para. 107.A/CN.9/1246

II. possible ways to finalize that work and requested that sufficient time be allocated during the upcoming Commission session to finalize the DPs. Subsequently, it was decided to carry out additional work on the DPs through informal meetings.

6. Chapter II of this Note presents the draft supplementary provisions on the conduct of proceedings to resolve international investment disputes (“Supplementary Provisions” or “SPs”), reflecting the deliberations and decisions of the Working Group and the informal meetings held after the fifty-third session.!! The notes to the Commission (in italics) highlight issues for consideration.

7. The SPs have been prepared to align with the UARs as well as the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules (ICSID Rules) to the extent possible.? They are intended to clarify and enhance the rules governing ISDS proceedings, while also seeking to harmonize approaches on key procedural issues.'> The SPs have been re-numbered using Roman numerals (I, II, I ...) to avoid confusion with treaty provisions and arbitration rules, which typically use Arabic numerals. The term “Tribunal” refers to the arbitral tribunal or other adjudicatory body provided for in the instrument of consent for resolving disputes. The term “proceeding” refers to the dispute resolution proceedings

which typically use Arabic numerals. The term “Tribunal” refers to the arbitral tribunal or other adjudicatory body provided for in the instrument of consent for resolving disputes. The term “proceeding” refers to the dispute resolution proceedings before such bodies.

8. Chapter III of this Note outlines the various options for implementing the SPs.

Draft supplementary provisions on the conduct of proceedings to resolve international investment disputes

9. With regard to the SPs generally, the Commission may wish to: — Confirm that the SPs would be presented and operate as a set of provisions and not independently and cross-references to other SPs would be appropriate; — Confirm that the SPs should be adopted as the “UNCITRAL Supplementary Provisions on the Conduct of Proceedings to Resolve International Investment Disputes”; — Confirm that the SPs could apply to arbitration under different types of procedural rules (see chapter IIL.D below) and that references to specific procedural rules (for example, to the articles of the UARs) should be avoided (see SP1I(1)); — Confirm that the SPs, particularly those outlining the Tribunal’s discretionary powers, should not imply that the Tribunal does not possess such powers under the applicable procedural rules; — Confirm that the Tribunal has the discretion to extend or abridge time Jframes in the SPs applicable to the disputing parties (but not those applicable to the Tribunal), which is usually provided for in the applicable rules (see, for example, UARs 17(2))). This discretion is expressly mentioned in SP IV(2) but not in SPs V(8), VII(2) and (3) and XI(7)(c), where this discretion could be clarified by adding the words “or such other period as may be set by the Tribunal”; — Consider whether the SPs should include a general provision similar to ICSID Rules 27(3), which could read: “The Tribunal shall consult with the disputing parties prior to making an order or a decision it is authorized by

period as may be set by the Tribunal”; — Consider whether the SPs should include a general provision similar to ICSID Rules 27(3), which could read: “The Tribunal shall consult with the disputing parties prior to making an order or a decision it is authorized by the Supplementary Provisions to make on its own initiative”. If included, ! Informal meetings took place on 25 February, 4-5 March 2026 and on the margins of the fiftyfourth session of Working Group IIL. 2 UARs, available at https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/mediadocuments/uncitral/en/21-07996_expedited-arbitration-e-ebook. pdf; ICSID Rules, available at https:/icsid. worldbank. org/sites/default/files/documents/ICSID_Convention.pdf. 13 A/CN.9/1195, para. 43. 319A/CN.9/1246 4/19 references on the need to consult with the parties (in square brackets) in SPs 1(3), II(7), V(8), VI(2) and (4), VIII(3), IX(6), XI(6) and (7)(c) could be deleted, — Confirm that the use of the articles “a” and “the” in the SPs is accurate. In the context of SP IX(3) and (7), the phrase “an” award is used instead of “the” award to reflect the possibility of the Tribunal making multiple awards.™ This is also the case in SPs IV(5), VII (4) and X(2). On the other hand, reference is made to “the” award in SPs I(5), III(2), VII(4) and (5), and VIII(1) and (3), to indicate generally the final award; — Note that references to the “other disputing party” have been revised to “other disputing parties” to address the possibility of multi-party

and VIII(1) and (3), to indicate generally the final award; — Note that references to the “other disputing party” have been revised to “other disputing parties” to address the possibility of multi-party proceedings, for example in SPs VII(2) and XI; — Confirm that the reference to a “claim” in the SPs (I to ¥V, VII, VIII and XI) should be understood broadly to include counterclaims as well as claims for the purposes of set-off. If so, there would be no need to refer in every instance to claim(s), counterclaim(s), and claim(s) for set-off purposes. However, if the Commission identifies an instance where the notion of “claim” should not include counterclaims or set-off claims, that specific provision could be adjusted.

Provision I: Evidence!®

1. Each disputing party shall have the burden of proving the facts relied on to support its claim or defence.

2. At any time during the proceeding, the Tribunal may require the disputing parties to produce documents, exhibits or other evidence within such a period of time as the Tribunal shall determine.

3. At the request of a disputing party, the Tribunal may[, after consultation with the disputing parties and if it deems appropriate,] establish a procedure whereby each party can request another party to produce documents [to the requesting party]. In establishing the procedure, the Tribunal shall [consult with the disputing parties and] consider the benefits and burdens of document production in the circumstances of the particular case.

4. Indeciding a dispute arising out of a party’s objection to the other party’s request for production of documents, the Tribunal shall consider all relevant circumstances,

including: (a) The scope and timeliness of the request; (b) The relevance and materiality of the documents requested; (c) The burden of production; and (d) The basis of any objection.

5. Ifadisputing party, duly invited by the Tribunal to produce documents, exhibits

(a) The scope and timeliness of the request; (b) The relevance and materiality of the documents requested; (c) The burden of production; and (d) The basis of any objection.

5. Ifadisputing party, duly invited by the Tribunal to produce documents, exhibits or other evidence, fails to do so within the established period of time without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the Tribunal may make the award on the evidence before it.

6. Witnesses, including expert witnesses, who are presented by the disputing parties to testify to the Tribunal on any issue of fact or expertise may be any individual, notwithstanding that the individual is a party to the proceeding or in any way related to a disputing party. Unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal, statements 14 A/CN.9/1239, para. 30. 15 A/CN.9/1195, paras. 23-43. Annotations to SP I are found in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.254, paras. 27.A/CN.9/1246 by witnesses, including expert witnesses, shall be presented in writing and signed by them.

7. The Tribunal shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence offered.

8. The Tribunal shall, at the request of a disputing party or on its own initiative,

exclude documents, exhibits or other evidence: (a) Which were obtained contrary to the law of the State where they were collected; (b) Which were falsified or fabricated or are found to be fraudulent; or (c) The use of which as evidence is prohibited under the applicable law or privileges.

9. The Tribunal may, at the request of a disputing party or on its own initiative, order a visit to any place connected with the dispute, if it deems the visit necessary, and may conduct inquiries there as appropriate. The order shall define the scope of the visit and the subject of any inquiry, the procedure to be followed, the applicable

order a visit to any place connected with the dispute, if it deems the visit necessary, and may conduct inquiries there as appropriate. The order shall define the scope of the visit and the subject of any inquiry, the procedure to be followed, the applicable time limits and other relevant terms. The disputing parties shall have the right to participate in any visit or inquiry. Notes

10. The Commission may wish to: — Consider adding the words “to the requesting party” at the end of the first sentence in paragraph 3 to confirm that paragraphs 3 and 4 address document production whereby parties request, exchange and submit “documents” (understood broadly to refer to information in any form) among each other. Whether such document is presented as evidence to the Tribunal is not addressed in those paragraphs. By contrast, the remaining paragraphs of SP I address “evidence”, which the disputing parties present to the Tribunal either on their own initiative or upon the request of the Tribunal, to prove the facts relied on in support of their claims. The phrase “documents, exhibits, and other evidence” is retained (see UARs 27) to refer to the different types of documentary evidence; — Consider whether to revise the opening phrase in the second sentence in paragraph 3 to read: “In making that determination and in establishing the procedure”; — Consider whether paragraph 4 should expressly mention the possible “existence” of such documents as another circumstance to consider, although this may be implied by the phrase “all relevant circumstances”; — Consider whether paragraph 5 needs to be included in SP I as it relates to evidence but merely replicates UARs 30(3) and in that connection, whether the non-compliance by a disputing party with the procedure established under paragraph 3 is addressed under paragraph 5 or should be addressed separately in the SP; — In light of the above, consider the placement of paragraphs 3 and 4, including whether those paragraphs would fit better after paragraph 5, which would highlight the linkage between paragraphs 2 and 5 (if retained);

separately in the SP; — In light of the above, consider the placement of paragraphs 3 and 4, including whether those paragraphs would fit better after paragraph 5, which would highlight the linkage between paragraphs 2 and 5 (if retained); — Confirm that broad discretion is provided to the Tribunal to make determinations under paragraph 8, including with respect to the State where the evidence was collected and the applicable law (also relating to where the use of such as evidence is prohibited); — Consider whether the reference to “applicable law” in paragraph 8(c) should be further clarified (e.g. by referring to “applicable rules of law”, “domestic” law or “domestic law of the disclosing party or applicable 519A/CN.9/1246 6/19 privilege”).'® An alternative formulation could be based on article 7(2)(c) of the Transparency Rules, so that the subparagraph would read: “The use of which as evidence is prohibited, in the case of the evidence of the respondent State, under the law of the respondent State, and in the case of other evidence, under any law or rules determined by the Tribunal to be applicable to the use of such evidence.”

Provision II: Bifurcation!”

1. A disputing party may request that an issue, including a plea that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction or the assessment of damages, be addressed in a separate phase of the proceeding (“request for bifurcation™). A request for bifurcation does not prejudice any right that a disputing party may have to raise any other objections on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal [pursuant to article 23 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or the relevant provision in the applicable rules].

2. Arequest for bifurcation shall be made as soon as possible and shall state the issues to be bifurcated. The Tribunal shall fix the period of time within which submissions on the request for bifurcation shall be made by the disputing parties.

Rules or the relevant provision in the applicable rules].

2. Arequest for bifurcation shall be made as soon as possible and shall state the issues to be bifurcated. The Tribunal shall fix the period of time within which submissions on the request for bifurcation shall be made by the disputing parties.

3. When arequest for bifurcation is made along with a plea that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, the proceeding on the merits shall be suspended until the Tribunal determines whether to bifurcate, unless the disputing parties agree otherwise.

4. When determining whether to bifurcate, the Tribunal shall consider all relevant

circumstances, including whether: (a) Bifurcation would materially reduce the time and cost of the proceeding; (b) Determination of the issues to be bifurcated would dispose of all or a substantial portion of the claim; and (c) The issues to be addressed in separate phases of the proceeding are so intertwined as to make bifurcation impractical.

5. The Tribunal shall decide on the request for bifurcation within 30 days after the last submission on the request. The Tribunal may decide to accept the request in full or in part, or to reject it. The Tribunal shall state the reasons upon which the decision is based[, unless the disputing parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given].

The Tribunal shall fix any period of time necessary for the further conduct of the proceeding.

6. If the Tribunal orders bifurcation, it shall suspend the proceeding with respect to any issues to be addressed at a later phase, unless the disputing parties agree otherwise.

7. The Tribunal may, on its own initiative [and after consulting with the disputing parties], decide whether an issue should be addressed in a separate phase of the proceeding.

Notes

11. The Commission may wish to: — Delete the square-bracketed text in the second sentence of paragraph 1 (see third bullet point in para. 9 above); '

parties], decide whether an issue should be addressed in a separate phase of the proceeding. Notes

11. The Commission may wish to: — Delete the square-bracketed text in the second sentence of paragraph 1 (see third bullet point in para. 9 above); ' — Confirm that the square-bracketed text in paragraph 5 should be included.’® 16 A/CN.9/1195, para. 38. 17 A/CN.9/1195, paras. 44-55. Annotations to SP II are found in A/CN.9/WG.IIL'WP.254, paras. 8-13. 18 A/CN.9/1195, para. 46. 1 A/CN.9/1195, paras. 49-50.A/CN.9/1246

Provision III: Interim measures®

1. The Tribunal may, at the request of a disputing party, grant interim measures.

2. Aninterim measure is any temporary measure by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, the Tribunal orders a disputing party, for example [and without limitation], to

(a) Maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute; (b) Take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, (i) current or imminent harm or (ii) prejudice to the process itself; or (c) Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.

3. The disputing party requesting an interim measure under paragraphs 2 (a) to (b)

shall satisfy the Tribunal that: (a) Harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the disputing party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted; and (b) There is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on

the measure is not ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the disputing party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted; and (b) There is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim. The determination on this possibility shall not affect the discretion of the Tribunal in making any subsequent determination.

4. With regard to a request for an interim measure under paragraph 2(c), the requirements in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) shall apply only to the extent the Tribunal considers appropriate.

5. The Tribunal may modify, suspend or terminate an interim measure it has granted, upon application of any disputing party or, in exceptional circumstances and upon prior notice to the disputing parties, on the Tribunal’s own initiative.

6. The Tribunal may require the disputing party requesting an interim measure to provide appropriate security in connection with the measure.

7. The Tribunal may require any disputing party to promptly disclose any material change in the circumstances on the basis of which the interim measure was requested or granted.

8. The disputing party requesting an interim measure may be liable for any costs and damages caused by the measure to any disputing party if the Tribunal later determines that, in the circumstances then prevailing, the measure should not have been granted. The Tribunal may award such costs and damages at any point during the proceeding.

9. Arequest for interim measures addressed by any disputing party to a judicial authority shall not be deemed incompatible with the agreement to arbitrate, or as a waiver of that agreement.

10. The Tribunal shall not grant an interim measure:

(a) Which attaches or enjoins the application of the measure alleged to constitute a breach referred to in the claim; or (b) [Which impedes a State’s right to regulate in the public interest, including in order to protect life, health or environment.] Notes

12. The Commission may wish to consider:

a breach referred to in the claim; or (b) [Which impedes a State’s right to regulate in the public interest, including in order to protect life, health or environment.] Notes

12. The Commission may wish to consider: /CN.9/1195, paras. 56-62. Annotations to SP III are found in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.254, paras.

14-17. 7119A/CN.9/1246 8/19 — With regard to paragraph 2, whether the phrase “and without limitation” should be retained, considering that paragraph 10 limits the granting of certain types of interim measures; — Whether interim measures involving the seizure of assets should be prohibited and expressly listed in paragraph 10. By way of background, the Working Group had removed from the list of examples in paragraph 2, the phrase found in UARs 26(2)(c) (“provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied”); > — The appropriate placement of paragraph 10 in SP III, which currently mirrors the structure of UARs 26 with paragraph 10 being the only additional paragraph. For example, it could be placed closer to paragraphs lor2; — Whether to retain paragraph 10(b), as it was questioned whether the Tribunal would be in a position to make the necessary assessment given the interim character of these measures® and that considering their temporary nature, it might be rare for interim measures to impede a State’s right to regulate. The Commission may wish to further consider whether paragraph 10(b) should be a factor to consider when the Tribunal grants interim measures. on IV: Manifest lack of legal merit®

1. A disputing party may object that a claim is manifestly without legal merit.

2. A disputing party shall make the objection as soon as possible after the constitution of the Tribunal and no later than 60 days thereafter. The Tribunal may admit a later objection if it considers the delay justified.

1. A disputing party may object that a claim is manifestly without legal merit.

2. A disputing party shall make the objection as soon as possible after the constitution of the Tribunal and no later than 60 days thereafter. The Tribunal may admit a later objection if it considers the delay justified.

3. The objection may relate to the substance of the claim or to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The objection shall specify the grounds on which it is based and contain a statement of the relevant facts, laws and arguments. The Tribunal shall fix the period of time for submissions on the objection.

4. The Tribunal shall decide on the objection within 60 days after the last submission on the objection.

5. If the Tribunal decides that all claims are manifestly without legal merit, it shall make an award to that effect. Otherwise, the Tribunal shall make a decision on the objection and fix any period of time for the further conduct of the proceeding.

6. A decision that a claim is not manifestly without legal merit shall be without prejudice to the right of the disputing party to raise a plea that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction or to argue subsequently in the proceeding that the claim is without legal merit.

Notes

13. The allocation of costs arising from the procedure in SP IV is addressed in SP

IX(3).

Pro on V: Security for costs>

1. The Tribunal may, at the request of a disputing party, order any party making a claim to provide security for costs. 21 A/CN.9/1195, para. 58 2 A/CN.9/1195, paras. 60-61. 2 A/CN.9/1195, paras. 63-69, A/CN.9/1124, paras. 107-118, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.214, paras. 520. Annotations to SP IV are found in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.254, paras. 18-22. 2 A/CN.9/1238, paras. 16-51. A/CN.9/1044, para. 94, A/CN.9/964, paras. 128-133, A/CN.9/WG.IIVWP.214, paras. 21-30. Annotations to the previous version of SPV (in A/CN.9/WG.IIVWP.253) are found in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.254, paras. 23-28.A/CN.9/1246

2. The request shall include a statement of the relevant circumstances and supporting documents. The Tribunal shall fix the period of time for submissions on the request.

3. The Tribunal shall decide on the request within 30 days after the last submission on the request.

4. In determining whether to order a disputing party to provide security for costs, the Tribunal shall consider all relevant circumstances, including:

(a) That party’s ability to comply with an adverse decision on costs; (b) That party’s willingness to comply with an adverse decision on costs; (c) The effect that providing security for costs may have on that party’s ability to pursue its claim; (d) The conduct of the parties; and (e) Inrelation to subparagraphs (a) to (d) or any other circumstance that the Tribunal finds relevant, the existence of third-party funding [, including whether the third-party funder agrees to cover any adverse decision on costs]. [For greater certainty, the Tribunal retains the discretion to order a funded party to provide security for costs even when the funding agreement includes a commitment by the third-party funder to cover an adverse decision on costs.]

5. Noting that States and regional economic integration organizations are presumed to have the ability and willingness to comply with an adverse decision on costs, the Tribunal shall not order a State or a regional economic integration

funder to cover an adverse decision on costs.]

5. Noting that States and regional economic integration organizations are presumed to have the ability and willingness to comply with an adverse decision on costs, the Tribunal shall not order a State or a regional economic integration organization making a claim to provide security for costs, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying such an order.

6. The Tribunal shall specify any relevant terms in an order to provide security for costs and fix the period of time for compliance with that order.

7. At the request of a disputing party, the Tribunal may at any time modify or terminate its order to provide security for costs.

8. Ifa disputing party fails to comply with the order to provide security for costs, the Tribunal shall suspend the proceeding with respect to that party’s claim. If the proceeding is suspended for more than 90 days, the Tribunal may[, after consulting with the disputing parties,] order the termination of the proceeding.

9. A disputing party shall promptly disclose any material change in the circumstances on the basis of which the Tribunal ordered security for costs.

Notes

14. While paragraph 1 requires a r