• As a primary aspect, in favor of legal certainty, the update transfers central elements of the case law established by the Swiss Federal Tribunal into PILA, and clarifies on application issues that have remained undecided until today. In particular, the amended PILA will expressly include the option of revision proceedings as well as the correction, explanation and complementation of arbitral awards. In line with established case law, the new law further expressly stipulates that auxiliary proceedings before state courts must be conducted in summary proceedings, thus clarifying the procedure type of such auxiliary proceedings.
• Another main goal of the update is to further improve PILA's clarity, conciseness and overall user-friendliness. It does so, firstly, by reducing references to other legal acts to the minimum, so that Chapter 12 of the PILA conclusively regulates itself. Secondly, the identical form requirement (i.e. any form allowing evidence by text) will apply to all arbitration clauses within the scope of international as well as national arbitration proceedings. And thirdly, the Swiss Federal Tribunal will accept submissions in English as the predominant language in international arbitration proceedings.
• Lastly, the update aims to strengthen party autonomy in line with recent international developments. As an example, the update expressly admits arbitration clauses that are included in unilateral legal transactions or companies' articles of associations.

Whilst PILA keeps its core characteristics, the following amendments are of practical importance:

A final arbitral award may be challenged through a revision proceeding.

As an extraordinary legal remedy, the revision allows the parties to challenge a final arbitral award in the event of the subsequent discovery of new facts or evidence, or an influence by criminal acts. Despite lacking an express provision under the current PILA, it is settled case-law and doctrine that international arbitral awards are also subject to a revision proceeding by analogous application of arts. 123 and 124 of the Swiss Federal Tribunal Act. For the sake of legal certainty and clarity, the new law expressly regulates the grounds as well as the procedure for a revision (cf. art. 190a amended PILA). A party may request the revision of an arbitral award in the following three events: (a) it subsequently learns substantial facts or finds decisive evidence which it was unable to produce in the previous proceedings despite due attention (excluding facts and evidence that arose after the arbitral award); (b) criminal proceedings have shown that the arbitral award was influenced by a crime or a misdemeanor to the detriment of the party concerned (irrespective of a conviction by the criminal court and possibly evidenced in another manner if the criminal proceedings cannot be carried out); or (c) a ground for the challenge of the independence and/or the impartiality of a member of the arbitral tribunal has, despite due attention, only been discovered after the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The request for a revision must be submitted to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (cf. art. 191 amended PILA) within 90 days of the discovery of the grounds for the revision, but, in any case except for lit. (b), within ten years since the arbitral award entered into legal force (art. 190a para. 2 amended PILA).

Moreover, the new law decides on the previously disputed question of whether the parties to an international arbitration proceeding can validly waive their right to revision in advance: If neither of the parties has its domicile, seat or habitual residence in Switzerland, the parties may in advance, through a declaration in the arbitration agreement or a subsequent agreement, waive their right to revision for the grounds according to lit. (a) and (c) as detailed above but not in the event of the influence by a criminal act pursuant to lit. (b)(art. 192 para. 1 amended PILA).

The explanation, complementation and correction provide remedies in cases of unclear or incomplete awards or awards containing editorial errors.

In the interest of legal certainty, a new art. 189a PILA codifies the already well-established case law and doctrine that an arbitral tribunal may make a correction, explanation or complementation of an arbitral award on its initiative or at the request of a party, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Such request must be filed within 30 days from the date of the formal notification of the arbitral award.

The parties’ duty to immediately challenge a violation of procedural rules will be enshrined in the law.

According to well-established Swiss case law, it is contrary to good faith if a violation of the procedural rules is not immediately challenged in an arbitration proceeding but merely asserted in a subsequent challenge proceeding. For sake of certainty, this fundamental procedural principle will be enshrined in a newly inserted para. 4 of art. 182 PILA. According to this paragraph, a party who continues the arbitral proceedings without immediately giving notice of a violation of the procedural rules, which has been detected or which could have been detected with due attention, may no longer assert this violation in the ongoing arbitration or a subsequent challenge proceeding.

The parties may request the state court for interim measures too.

In line with the predominant doctrine, art. 183 para. 2 amended PILA expressly states that not only the arbitral tribunal but also the parties may request the state court for the adoption of interim measures.

The admissibility of a unilateral arbitration clause is confirmed from an arbitral perspective.

From the perspective of current conflict law, there is no reason to exclude an arbitration clause in a unilateral legal transaction (e.g. in wills, foundation deeds, prize competitions or trusts) or in a company's articles of association from the scope of art. 178 PILA. This is now expressly affirmed by the amended PILA.

In regard to arbitration clauses in wills, however, the admissibility thereof must be evaluated pursuant to Swiss substantive law of succession. In general, according to various (albeit controversial) doctrines, only those legal relationships are subject to an arbitration clause in a will which were only established by the unilateral declaration of the disposing person (by virtue of his autonomy). On the other hand, persons who already have a legal relationship with the disposing person by law are not bound by a unilateral arbitration clause.

All arbitration agreements must be in writing or evidenced by text.

Under the updated law, all agreements within an arbitral proceeding, in particular a declaration of opting-out and a waiver of appeal, must meet the identical form requirements of art. 178 para. 1 amended PILA, regardless of whether they are made in the initial or in a subsequent arbitration agreement. Under the updated provision, an arbitration agreement is formally valid if the parties' declarations of intent are in writing or any other form of transmission which allows the agreement to be evidenced by text.

A lacking designation of the seat of arbitration can be remedied.

If the parties fail to designate a seat of arbitration or have only established the seat in Switzerland without further agreement (i.e. "arbitration in Switzerland") and are not in a position to appoint the arbitral tribunal either, the amended art. 179 para. 2 PILA stipulates that in such cases the state court first seized shall have jurisdiction and be competent as juge d'appui to appoint the arbitral tribunal which will then pursuant to art. 176 para. 3 PILA designate the seat of arbitration.

Irrespective of the foregoing, in essence, PILA keeps its core characteristics.

Chapter 12 of the PILA is characterized by liberalism and flexibility, as it is also expressed in its brevity (currently 19 provisions, newly 24 provisions). Hence, the parties to an international arbitration proceeding are granted a high degree of party autonomy, especially in regard to the organization of the proceeding. An arbitral award can only be challenged on a few, narrowly defined grounds (cf. art. 190 et seq. amended PILA) and the only instance of appeal is the Swiss Federal Tribunal (art. 191 amended PILA). Contrary to newer arbitration laws, Chapter 12 of the PILA deliberately dispenses with a high degree of detail in order to suit as a legal framework for very different forms of arbitration (institutional arbitration, ad-hoc proceedings, sports arbitration, investment arbitration).

The Swiss legislative authority deliberately chose to retain these characteristics, thus waiving the idea of a total update of PILA. It is based on the existing and proven rules and is limited to selective improvements.

In particular, the idea to merge the provisions for national and international arbitration into a single act (code unique) was rejected, primarily for being incompatible with the traditional Swiss federalism. However, by newly introducing an opting-out possibility in art. 176 para. 2 amended PILA (inversely in the already existing art. 353 para. 2 Civil Procedure Code), the contracting parties are allowed to freely choose the applicable arbitration law to a large extent. This "open dualism" provides the parties with additional autonomy.

Also unchanged remained the relationship between state courts and arbitral tribunals. On the one hand, the update waives a regulation of the negative effect of the principle of arbitral competence. As a result, in the event of an arbitration plea, a state court must limit itself to a summary examination of the arbitration agreement, if the latter provides for an arbitral tribunal with seat in Switzerland. Only if the objection to arbitration relates to an arbitration with its seat abroad, the state court shall examine the arbitration agreement with full cognition. On the other hand, the idea of the establishment of one national and thus centralized juge d'appui was also waived during the legislative process as the establishment of such new judicial institution was considered to be disproportionate in relation to the few cases.