Permanent Court of Arbitration

This page is now open for community updates

As one of the world’s oldest institutions devoted to the peaceful resolution of international disputes, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law between states and other global actors. PCA was created by the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The PCA is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. Despite its name, it functions not as a permanent court with standing judges but as an administrative body that facilitates arbitration, conciliation, and other dispute resolution processes tailored to the parties’ needs.

The PCA handles a diverse range of disputes, from territorial boundaries and treaty interpretation to investment and environmental issues. It offers procedural flexibility, operating under various rules, including its own PCA Arbitration Rules and the widely used UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. With over 120 member states and a panel of eminent jurists nominated by governments, the PCA has become a trusted forum for resolving complex international conflicts in a legally sound and neutral manner.

Beyond its headquarters in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the PCA has opened offices in various cities (e.g. India, Vienna, Singapore, Mauritius, etc.) in order to make its services more accessible in different regions of the world.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) established its office at VK Krishna Menon Bhawan in New Delhi on May 13, 2024, marking the first step in making India a global arbitration hub. To celebrate this milestone, a conference on International Arbitration and the Rule of Law was organised by the Supreme Court. This step will not only make Arbitration more accessible in India but will also reduce the costs that parties bear in the process of ADR.

Permanent Court of Arbitration, as defined in international instruments

Convention For The Pacific Settlement Of International Disputes [The Hague Convention] of 1899 and 1907

Article 20 of the 1899 Convention formally established the PCA, stating: “with the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the signatory Powers undertake to organize a Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention.” Additionally, a similar definition (similar phrasing and substance) has been provided under Article 41 of the 1907 Convention For The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which was the revised draft of the 1899 Convention.

Committee Of Legal Advisers On Public International Law by Council of Europe

The Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law is a body of the Council of Europe, which comprises 47 member states. Its main aim is to express views and coordination among these legal advisors on matters of public international law. Consequently, under this report, they have explained the structure and importance of PCA, due to the growing importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution. This committee plays an important role in law and policy-making. They elaborate on PCA as the first permanent intergovernmental organisation to provide a platform for the resolution of international disputes through arbitration. The PCA has its own modern rules of procedure, which are based upon the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The PCA oversees arbitration, conciliation and fact-finding in disputes involving various combinations of states, private parties and intergovernmental organisations. Not only do states seek recourse to the PCA, but international commercial arbitration can also be conducted under PCA auspices.

UNCTAD document of Dispute Settlement: Permanent Court of Arbitration

This document was published as an educational resource explaining the legal basis, functions and procedures of PCA. It is an essential resource because it clarifies how the PCA serves as a neutral forum for resolving diverse international disputes all over the world. For the PCA, this document helps raise awareness and understanding of its crucial role in the field of arbitration.

Legal Provisions Related to PCA

Establishment of PCA

The PCA was established by the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes and was settled at The Hague in 1899 during the first Hague Peace Conference. The Conference was called together at the request of Czar Nicolas II of Russia. The 1899 Convention was revised at the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, by the adoption of a second “Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.” Although the majority of States are parties to the 1907 Convention, both Conventions remain in force. Consequently, there are currently 125 Contracting Parties to the PCA.

History of PCA

Among the aims of the Conference had been the strengthening of systems of international dispute resolution, especially international arbitration. The delegates at the Conference were mindful that, during the previous 100 years, there had been a number of successful international arbitrations, starting with the “Jay Treaty” Mixed Commissions at the end of the 18th century, and reaching a height with the Alabama arbitration in 1871-1872. In addition, the Institut de Droit International adopted a code of procedure for arbitration in 1875. This movement toward arbitration as a means of international dispute resolution was continued in 1899, and the most concrete achievement of the 1899 Conference was the establishment of the PCA as the first global mechanism for the settlement of disputes between states.

Shortly after the First Peace Conference, 1899, the Second Peace Conference was held in 1907, in order to revise and re-adopt the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1907. Through the Convention of 1907, the countries of Central and South America were also invited to become contracting parties. Both the 1899 and the 1907 conventions became the founding conventions of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The states that wish to become members of the PCA have to sign and ratify any of these conventions, either the 1899 one or the 1907 one [India ratified the 1899 convention on 29-07-1950]. To support the mission of the Court, its Founding States decided to build a dedicated courthouse to encourage States to resolve their disputes peacefully: the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Palace of Peace. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, which in 1913 took up residence in the Peace Palace. It also serves as the PCA’s main hearing facility and hosts dozens of international arbitration hearings every year.

Members of PCA

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has 125 Contracting Parties, which are primarily member states of the United Nations. These states are responsible for nominating individuals to the PCA's Panel of Arbitrators and contributing to the organisation's budget. Being a party to the Hague Conventions of 1899 or 1907 automatically makes a state a Contracting Party to the PCA. Each Contracting Party state is entitled to nominate up to four persons of “known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrators” as “Members of the Court.” Members of the Court are appointed for a term of six years, and their appointments can be renewed.

Organs of PCA

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has a three-part structure consisting of the Administrative Council, the International Bureau, and Members of the Court.

Administrative Council

Its 125 Members act together to provide general guidance and direction to the PCA’s work and supervise the administration, budget, and expenditure of the organisation. Following the Founding Conventions, the PCA Administrative Council is made up of “the Diplomatic Representatives of the Contracting Powers accredited to The Hague, and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, who will act as President”.

The Administrative Council is also responsible for the appointment of a Secretary General, who then heads the International Bureau, the third wing of the PCA. It is the task of the Council to make annual reports of the workings of PCA.

International Bureau

The PCA’s Secretariat – the International Bureau – consists of an experienced team of legal and administrative staff of various nationalities. It is headed by its Secretary-General.

The International Bureau provides services such as financial administration, logistical and technical support for meetings and hearings, travel arrangements, and general secretarial and linguistic support. It also provides administrative support to tribunals or commissions conducting PCA dispute settlement proceedings outside the Netherlands.

Members of the Court

Members of the Court are potential arbitrators appointed by Contracting Parties. Each Contracting Party state is entitled to nominate up to four persons of “known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrators” as “Members of the Court.” Members of the Court are appointed for a term of six years, and their appointments can be renewed. Parties to a dispute may, but are not obliged to, select arbitrators from the list of the Members of the Court.

National Groups

The Members of the Court from each Contracting Party constitute a “national group,”. National groups are official panels of up to four individuals appointed by each member state of the PCA. The primary role of National Groups is to constitute a list of persons available to act as arbitrators when appointed by States in arbitration procedures under the auspices of the PCA. Additionally, each National Group has the exclusive right to nominate candidates for the election of judges to the ICJ. Unlike usual Arbitrators who serve as adjudicators in specific arbitrations, National Group serves as part of the Panel of Arbitrators maintained by the PCA.

The rules on the formation of National Groups and the qualifications of the individuals therein are laid down in the two constituent instruments of the PCA.

Governing framework

The governing framework of PCA, Arbitration Rules 2012, establishes a contractually adopted, institutionally supported procedural regime within PCA, allowing parties to a dispute to agree to submit their case under these Rules. These rules further build on the widely accepted UNCITRAL model. The Rules are adopted to reflect PCA’s institutional strengths, especially by empowering the International Bureau as registry and naming the Secretary-General as the default appointing authority. They incorporate flexible mechanisms, from choosing the number of Arbitrators and applicable law to accommodating a broad spectrum of subject matter, including International Law, Commercial disputes, etc.

In contrast, parties may also adopt a confidentiality protocol to protect sensitive commercial or governmental information. This protocol strengthens privacy safeguards beyond the default rules, ensuring that all communications, evidence, and awards remain private unless disclosure is legally required. Additionally, protocols may address joinder and consolidation, offering structured procedures to join additional parties or merge related proceedings to enhance efficiency and avoid inconsistent outcomes.

Finally, certain protocols may be sector-specific, tailored for particular areas such as environmental disputes, technology, or infrastructure projects. These may introduce specialised expert involvement, technical standards, or regulatory considerations. Collectively, the Optional Protocols are tools that reinforce party autonomy and procedural efficiency, allowing the PCA framework to remain adaptable and responsive to the evolving demands of international dispute resolution.

Jurisdiction

The PCA is not a ‘court’ in the judicial sense but an administrative organisation that facilitates the conduct of arbitrations. Its jurisdiction extends to disputes between States, between States and private parties, and between private parties where the dispute has a public international law dimension. Parties may choose to resolve their disputes under the PCA’s own rules of procedure or under other rules, including the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Article 26 Hague Convention I (1899) and Art. 47 Hague Convention I (1907) provide that the jurisdiction of the PCA may be extended to disputes between non-Contracting States or between Contracting States and non-Contracting States if the parties to a dispute agree to have recourse to the PCA. It also provides that the Bureau is authorised to place its offices and staff at the disposal of the Contracting States for the use of any special board of arbitration.

Procedure

If the parties to a dispute choose to hold arbitration at the PCA, they are required to sign a compromise, which specifies the subject matter of the dispute and the scope of the arbitrators’ authority. Unless the disputing parties agree otherwise, the default number of arbitrators is five. Each party appoints two arbitrators, only one of whom may be a national of that party or chosen from among the persons it selected as members of the Court. The four appointed arbitrators then select an umpire (or sur arbitre) or president of the tribunal, or alternatively, this individual is appointed by a mutually agreed third party.

Article 45 of the Hague Convention I (1907) further provides that if the States, so designated, fail to reach an agreement within two months, each State shall nominate two candidates from the list of members of the Court, and the umpire shall then be chosen by lot.

The process of Arbitration involves two phases: written and oral.

Written pleading involves the exchange of documents by the respective agents, who submit all materials containing the arguments relied upon in the case to both the tribunal and the opposing party. The oral hearing consists of the arguments of the parties only via their agents and counsel before the tribunal. Usually, the oral hearings are under the absolute control of the President and can be made public only when both parties agree towards the same. During the course of the hearing, the agents and counsel can raise objections and points with the tribunal deciding upon the issues. The PCA can also ask for any information that is necessary in deciding the case.

When the agents and counsel have submitted their explanations and evidence, the President declares the hearings closed. The deliberation of the tribunal in reaching the decision is private in nature, and it is decided by a majority of the members. The award, which is given, must have sufficient reasons to back up the same. The decision is read out in a public sitting where agents and parties are summoned to attend. However, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, any dispute arising between the parties as to the interpretation and execution of the award shall be submitted to the tribunal that pronounced it.

Official Documents related to Permanent Court of Arbitration

Host Country Agreement Between the Government Of The Republic of India And The Permanent Court of Arbitration (2008)

This is the host country agreement between the Government Of The Republic of India And The Permanent Court of Arbitration signed in 2008 between the Government of India and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It lays out the legal framework for the PCA to conduct hearings, meetings and other activities in India. It grants privileges, immunities and facilitates to ensure that the PCA can function independently and effectively within an Indian territory.  This agreement is extremely important as it enables PCA to operate without any bias or unnecessary restriction.

In accordance with the Host Country Agreement [HCA] Between the Government Of The Republic of India And The Permanent Court of Arbitration. Article 1 provides for "Permanent Court of Arbitration" or 'PCA', shall mean the Permanent Court of  Arbitration, based in The Hague. Additionally, Article 3 grants the PCA legal personality and capacity in India, allowing it to enter into contracts, own property, which is important for its functioning. Furthermore, Article 5 of the said agreement provides immunity for all PCA property and assets from legal processes unless PCA waives this immunity.

Further, as per Article 4 of the HCA, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has to coordinate on behalf of the Government all issues arising with respect to the implementation of the agreement. Also, article 6 of the HCA states that the PCA, including any space provided and used pursuant to article 3, shall enjoy mutatis mutandis, the same privileges and immunities as those accorded to the United Nations in the Republic of India pursuant to Article II of the UN convention (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946).

Official database

The PCA is currently acting as a registry in 7 interstate arbitrations, 1 other interstate proceeding, 95 arbitrations arising under bilateral or multilateral investment treaties or national investment laws, 109 arbitrations arising under contracts involving a State or other public entity, and 4 other proceedings.

This is the case information page on the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) website. It provides details on ongoing and past cases administered by the PCA.

This page provides detailed case information about the Neutral Expert Proceedings initiated under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.For illustration - https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/297/

The Documents available at the PCA website for the Indus Water Treaty Case.

India and PCA

The Maritime Boundary delimitation with Bangladesh

On 8 October 2009, Bangladesh submitted a request for arbitration under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in relation to the delimitation of its maritime boundary with India in the Bay of Bengal, following decades of bilateral negotiations and competing claims, even efforts to conclude an agreed legal framework following oil and gas exploration incidents in 2006-08, failed to conclude an agreement. The Tribunal's task was to first identify the land boundary terminus (from the 1947 Radcliffe Award) and delimit geographical boundaries of overlapping territorial sea, exclusive economic zones and continental shelf areas under 200 nautical miles and beyond between the States. An Annexe VII Arbitral Tribunal of five members was established in December 2010, administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. On 7 July 2014, the Tribunal made its Award: it unanimously confirmed jurisdiction, fixed the land boundary terminus, and drew an equidistance-based maritime boundary line for both Bangladesh and India to delimit maritime limits in the territorial sea, exclusive economic zones and continental shelf.

Indus Water Treaty Dispute

This dispute originates from Pakistan's 2016 Request for Arbitration based on Article IX of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty regarding India's construction of the Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects on the Jhelum and Chenab tributaries, which Pakistan claimed exceeded its water rights.  India argued that any technical matters should be referred to a Neutral Expert without recourse to arbitration and, after a terrorist incident at Pahalgam, declared the Treaty "in abeyance," unilaterally refusing to recognise an arbitral tribunal. Nevertheless, the PCA formed a three-member Court of Arbitration in 2022, despite India's objections and boycott, and operated on the basis of the treaty that provides the arbiter authority to adjudicate on Pakistan's claims.

In the expedited preliminary phase, concluded in February 2023, the tribunal heard India's challenges to its own jurisdiction, including the absence of a "dispute," a lack of proper constitution, and the pendency of Neutral Expert proceedings in parallel, and, via a supplemental award dated 27 June 2025, unanimously upheld its jurisdiction. The PCA held that once jurisdiction is established, it cannot be defeated by subsequent events, that the Treaty contains no provision for unilateral suspension, and that parallel processes are commonplace in public international law. The tribunal rejected all of India's objections and held that the proceedings could advance to the merits phase.

The 'Enrica Lexie' Incident (Italy v. India)

On June 26, 2015, Italy requested Annexe VII arbitration under UNCLOS against India regarding the criminal prosecution by India of two Italian marines involved in the killing of two Indian fishermen on board the Enrica Lexie tanker on February 15, 2012, in India's EEZ. Following Italy's request for provisional measures and India's written observations, in July 2019 the Tribunal held written pleadings and an oral hearing at The Hague. The PCA announced its Award on May 21, 2020 (the dispositive published on July 2, 2020), finding that the two marines benefited from functional immunity, ordering India to terminate the criminal proceedings, and directing the Parties to negotiate compensation for the death of the fishermen, physical and mental damages (moral harm), and damage to property. With the Parties' consent, the Tribunal formally closed the proceedings on October 12, 2021.

Research that engages with the Permanent Court of Arbitration

The distinctive role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in shaping the future of international dispute resolution

This article by Celine Lange on the National University of Singapore has sought to highlight the unique position occupied by the PCA within the international dispute resolution landscape, demonstrating how its distinctive features position it to effectively address the new types of cases that have been arising recently in the various fora. This article argues that increased advocacy and outreach efforts are essential, and the PCA, as a neutral intergovernmental organisation, is particularly well-positioned to lead the field of Arbitration.

From its Origins to Actuality: The Permanent Court of Arbitration

This piece, by Maria Belen Moreno on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, contends that Commercial Arbitration has come a long way. This is a result of several factors, such as the efficient handling of cases by the institution, its intervention in diverse initiatives such as the UNCITRAL Working Groups, and, of course, the continuous and steady growth of arbitration as a reliable dispute resolution mechanism for both investment and commercial cases. As arbitration keeps trending positively as a dispute resolution mechanism, actors such as the PCA should keep playing a pivotal role.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Peaceful Resolution of Transboundary Freshwater Disputes

This paper argues that Transboundary freshwater disputes will likely continue to arise around the world and may lead to violent conflict. Neither judicial settlement by a permanent court nor non-binding mechanisms, however, have proven entirely adequate to resolve them. It is precisely in this context, therefore, that arbitration can serve as an effective dispute resolution alternative, and it has the greatest potential for doing so by way of the PCA and its Rules.

Issues And Challenges

While the PCA is praised for contributing to international peace, it also faces criticism because it lacks the power to compel states to comply with its decisions. Unlike domestic courts, the PCA operates without law enforcement agencies or immediate mechanisms to enforce its rulings. As a result, its effectiveness largely depends on states’ voluntary compliance, and some nations choose to ignore the tribunal’s judgments.

Another criticism of the PCA is the length and cost of its proceedings. Although the PCA provides a flexible and neutral forum, arbitration can be time-consuming and expensive, placing a significant burden on smaller states or less-resourced parties. The complexity of international legal disputes, combined with procedural requirements and the need for expert evidence, often results in lengthy timelines and high legal costs. This can discourage some parties from pursuing arbitration at the PCA, limiting access to justice and potentially favouring wealthier or more powerful states and entities.