{"id":154074,"date":"2026-11-04T10:38:33","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T10:38:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=154074"},"modified":"2026-11-04T12:43:01","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T12:43:01","slug":"ecuador-international-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/ecuador-international-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Ecuador: International Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-154074","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-international-arbitration","jurisdictions-ecuador"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Santos Burbano de Lara<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/11\/Logo_principal-15.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Santos Burbano de Lara<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/11\/Logo_principal-15.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of International Arbitration laws and regulations applicable in Ecuador<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What legislation applies to arbitration in your country? Are there any mandatory laws?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Arbitration in Ecuador has constitutional recognition. Article 190 of the Constitution of the Republic (\u201c<strong>CRE<\/strong>\u201d) recognises it as a mechanism alternative to the ordinary courts for resolving disputes over matters capable of settlement. Its regulation is developed primarily in the Arbitration and Mediation Law (\u201c<strong>LAM<\/strong>\u201d), codified in December 2006 and last amended in 2018, and in its Regulations (\u201c<strong>RLAM<\/strong>\u201d), issued in 2021 and last amended in 2024.<\/p>\n<p>The Organic Code of the Judicial Function (\u201c<strong>COFJ<\/strong>\u201d) and the General Organic Code of Procedure (\u201c<strong>COGEP<\/strong>\u201d) apply on a supplementary basis. The Organic Law on the National Public Procurement System (\u201c<strong>LOSNCP<\/strong>\u201d) contains specific rules for arbitration in public procurement.<\/p>\n<p>Some provisions of the LAM are mandatory and cannot be excluded by agreement. The dispute must concern a matter capable of settlement (Art. 1 LAM), and the arbitration agreement must be in writing (Art. 5 LAM). In international matters, Article 422 of the CRE prohibits treaties or international instruments that cede sovereign jurisdiction to international arbitration bodies in contractual or commercial disputes between the State and individuals or legal persons.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country a signatory to the New York Convention? Are there any reservations to the general obligations of the Convention?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (\u201c<strong>New York Convention<\/strong>\u201d). The country signed the treaty in December 1958 and ratified it in January 1962. Two reservations apply. Under the reciprocity reservation, only awards made in the territory of another contracting State are recognised and enforced. Under the commercial reservation, the application is limited to disputes that Ecuadorian law considers commercial. In practice, the reservations have no effect: Article 42 of the LAM and Article 15 of the RLAM treat all international awards like domestic ones, and the more favourable domestic regime applies under Article VII of the Convention.<\/p>\n<p>The Constitutional Court of Ecuador (\u201c<strong>CCE<\/strong>\u201d) has removed any doubt on the need for prior recognition (see Question 30). Foreign awards are directly enforceable titles, and the enforcement judge may not require additional recognition or exequatur. The CCE first so held in judgments 3232-19-EP\/24 and 34-23-CN\/24, and confirmed the rule with <em>erga omnes<\/em> effect in judgment 6-22-IN\/25 (May 2025).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What other arbitration-related treaties and conventions is your country a party to?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In addition to the New York Convention, Ecuador is a party to the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (\u201c<strong>Panama Convention<\/strong>\u201d) and the 1979 Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards (\u201c<strong>Montevideo Convention<\/strong>\u201d). Both supplement the framework for international arbitration and for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the Inter-American sphere.<\/p>\n<p>Ecuador denounced the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (\u201c<strong>ICSID Convention<\/strong>\u201d) in 2009, with effect from 2010. It became a party again in September 2021. On its readmission, the CCE held that the ICSID Convention did not require prior legislative approval. The Court considered the ICSID Convention a framework instrument that requires specific consent from the State before any dispute is submitted to arbitration (Advisory Opinion 5-21-TI\/21).<\/p>\n<p>The position on investment treaties has been less stable. Between 2010 and 2013, the CCE held in several advisory opinions that the investor-State arbitration clauses of bilateral investment treaties (\u201c<strong>BITs<\/strong>\u201d) were incompatible with Article 422 of the CRE. From 2017, Ecuador denounced most of its BITs. In May 2017, the National Assembly approved the denunciation of twelve BITs.<\/p>\n<p>This position has changed recently. In March 2026, the CCE declared constitutional the BIT between Ecuador and the United Arab Emirates, subject to a condition (Advisory Opinion 19-25-TI\/26A). The Court expressly departed from its earlier case law, including Advisory Opinion 2-23-TI\/23, and held that Article 422 of the CRE applies only to contractual or commercial disputes between the State and private persons. Claims based on treaty obligations are therefore compatible with the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>The condition requires the treaty to exclude expressly the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal over contractual disputes. Once amended, the treaty must return to the Court for verification. It is not yet in force.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the law governing international arbitration in your country based on the UNCITRAL Model Law? Are there significant differences between the two? Are there any impending plans to reform the arbitration laws in your country? Has your jurisdiction adopted, or is it considering adopting, the amendments of 6 July 2026 regarding electronic awards and communications?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The LAM partially adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. It governs domestic and international arbitration in a single instrument. It shares with the Model Law principles such as party autonomy, separability of the arbitration agreement (Art. 5 LAM), the <em>kompetenz-kompetenz<\/em> principle (Art. 22 LAM) and minimal judicial intervention. International arbitration is addressed briefly in Articles 41 and 42. Article 42 allows the seat to be inside or outside Ecuador and requires special authorisations where a public entity is involved. (The CCE is currently hearing a case on the constitutionality of Articles 41 and 42.)<\/p>\n<p>The LAM differs from the Model Law in several respects. The grounds for annulment (Art. 31 LAM) are entirely procedural. Unlike Article 34 of the Model Law, they do not include arbitrability or public policy. The CCE has confirmed that these grounds are exhaustive (judgments 323-13-EP\/19, 31-14-EP\/19 and 327-19-EP\/24). Judgment 302-15-SEP-CC admitted grounds not provided for by law, but the Court later clarified that this criterion is not binding precedent.<\/p>\n<p>The LAM also contains no catalogue of grounds for challenging arbitrators and no complete regime for the taking of evidence. It provides no mechanism of judicial assistance in the taking of evidence equivalent to Article 27 of the Model Law. The COGEP, which is more formalistic, applies on a subsidiary basis.<\/p>\n<p>No bill for a comprehensive reform of the LAM has been identified. A bill to reform the COFJ, which includes amendments to the LAM, is before the National Assembly. It would grant arbitral tribunals powers to enforce their awards, analogous to those of judges.<\/p>\n<p>Ecuador has not adopted the UNCITRAL amendments of 6 July 2026 on electronic awards and communications. No formal process for their adoption has been identified. The LAM and the RLAM contain no equivalent regime. The use of electronic means in arbitral proceedings is addressed in the rules of the centres (see Question 41) and in the Electronic Commerce Law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What arbitral institutions (if any) exist in your country? When were their rules last amended? Are any amendments being considered?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The principal arbitration centres in Ecuador are the Arbitration and Mediation Centre of the Quito Chamber of Commerce (\u201c<strong>CAM CCQ<\/strong>\u201d), the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of the Guayaquil Chamber of Commerce (\u201c<strong>CAM CAC<\/strong>\u201d) and the Arbitration and Mediation Centre of the Ecuadorian-American Chamber of Commerce (\u201c<strong>CAM AMCHAM<\/strong>\u201d). There are also smaller centres in other cities. The centres are private-law entities, registered with the Judiciary Council (Art. 19 RLAM). They have full independence and autonomy (Art. 1 RLAM).<\/p>\n<p>The CAM CCQ Rules date from 2023. The CAM CAC Rules entered into force in October 2022. The CAM AMCHAM Rules have been supplemented by Annex 1 on emergency arbitration (reformed in April 2025), Annex 2 on the scrutiny of arbitral awards (August 2025) and Annex 3 on abbreviated arbitration (in force since February 2026). No formal amendments to any of these rules have been announced, although the centres are working on rules on the use of AI (see Question 44).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a specialist arbitration court in your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador has no specialised State courts for arbitration. The ordinary courts perform the supporting functions. The civil judges who would have had jurisdiction absent the arbitration agreement may grant interim measures before the tribunal is constituted (Art. 8(2) RLAM). The president of the provincial court hears the action to annul the award (Art. 31 LAM). The civil court of first instance of the debtor\u2019s domicile or of the place of its assets hears the enforcement of awards (Art. 14 RLAM). The COGEP and the COFJ apply to court proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Arbitration centres are autonomous private entities. They administer arbitral proceedings and do not exercise State jurisdiction (Art. 1 RLAM; Judgment 481-14-EP\/20).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the validity requirements for an arbitration agreement under the laws of your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The arbitration agreement must meet the general validity requirements for legal acts: capacity, consent free of defects, a licit object and a licit cause (Art. 1461 of the Civil Code). The LAM adds specific requirements. The agreement must be in writing, either as a clause in a main contract or as a separate submission agreement (Art. 5 LAM). The parties must have capacity to settle (Art. 4 LAM). The dispute must concern a matter capable of settlement, meaning rights that the parties may freely dispose of (Art. 1 LAM).<\/p>\n<p>Article 4 of the LAM adds four requirements where a public entity is involved. The agreement must be entered into before the dispute arises or, otherwise, after consulting the Attorney General, whose opinion is binding. The legal relationship must be contractual. The agreement must set out the method for selecting the arbitrators. It must be signed by the person authorised to contract on behalf of the entity. Failure to meet any of these requirements renders the agreement void.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are arbitration clauses considered separable from the main contract?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Article 5 of the LAM expressly recognises the principle of separability. The nullity, non-existence or ineffectiveness of the main contract does not necessarily affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. The tribunal retains jurisdiction to rule on its own jurisdiction even if the main contract is declared void. The CCE applies the principle in its <em>kompetenz-kompetenz<\/em> case law. It does not appear to have issued a ruling on separability as such.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts of your country apply a validation principle under which an arbitration agreement should be considered valid and enforceable if it would be so considered under at least one of the national laws potentially applicable to it?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No judicial ruling or express statutory rule in Ecuador enshrines a validation principle, understood as the rule that an arbitration agreement is valid if it is valid under at least one of the potentially applicable laws. The validity of the agreement is assessed under Ecuadorian law. No case law expressly adopting the principle in the conflict-of-laws sense has been identified.<\/p>\n<p>The CCE has applied the <em>pro arbitri<\/em> principle. In case of doubt, the arbitration agreement is upheld, and the arbitrators decide on its validity and scope (Judgment 707-16-EP\/21).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are asymmetric arbitration clauses \u2013 for instance, where one party has the right to choose between arbitration or litigation while the other party does not have this option \u2013 valid in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The LAM does not regulate asymmetric clauses, and no CCE decision on their validity has been identified. Nothing in the LAM prohibits them, provided the agreement is in writing and the matter is arbitrable. In principle, we see no reason to cast their validity into doubt.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an arbitration agreement? Are there any recent court decisions on these issues?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Article 6 of the RLAM extends the effects of the arbitration agreement to non-signatories in three scenarios. The first covers those who consented to arbitrate in good faith, through their active and decisive participation in the negotiation, conclusion, performance or termination of the transaction. The second covers those who seek to derive rights or benefits from the transaction, such as successors and assignees. The third covers the administrative bodies that originated the administrative acts, in arbitrations with public entities.<\/p>\n<p>Some awards have also relied on the group-of-companies theory and on the conclusive conduct of the non-signatory. Other awards have analysed the application of veil piercing to bind shareholders. Tribunals generally are reluctant to bring non-signatories into the arbitration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any recent court decisions and\/or legislative reform in your country concerning the choice of law applicable to an arbitration agreement where no such law has been specified by the Parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No recent case law or legislative reform has been identified on the law applicable to the arbitration agreement where the parties have not chosen one. The LAM contains no specific conflict-of-laws rule for the arbitration agreement. The parties may agree on it. Absent agreement, the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat, and no case law establishing a different criterion has been identified. Ecuadorian law has no statutory default rule equivalent to the one introduced in England by the Arbitration Act 2025.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is the law applicable to the substance determined? Is there a specific set of choice of law rules in your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Absent agreement, the law applicable to the substance is determined under the private international law rules of the Civil Code and of the inter-American conventions to which Ecuador is a party, including the Inter-American Convention on General Rules of Private International Law. These rules usually point to the law of the place of execution or performance of the contract. In international arbitration, the parties may freely agree on the applicable law (Art. 42 LAM).<\/p>\n<p>Article 3 of the LAM distinguishes arbitration in law from arbitration <em>ex aequo et bono<\/em>. In arbitration in law, the tribunal applies positive law and must be composed of lawyers. In arbitration <em>ex aequo et bono<\/em>, the arbitrators decide according to their sense of fairness and are not bound by any positive-law rules. They remain bound by the guarantees of due process, and a breach may lead to annulment of the award (Judgment 1057-19-EP\/24).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your country, are there any particular requirements for and\/or restrictions in the appointment of arbitrators?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Arbitrators must be lawyers, unless the arbitration is <em>ex aequo et bono<\/em> (Art. 3 LAM). Persons who lack capacity to appear in court on their own behalf cannot act as arbitrators (Art. 19 LAM). The LAM sets no nationality requirement. Where a public entity is involved, the arbitration agreement must set out the method for selecting the arbitrators (Art. 4 LAM).<\/p>\n<p>Article 16 of the LAM governs the appointment procedure. The parties may appoint arbitrators by common agreement, including from outside the roster of the centre, although the rules of the centre may grant the centre the right to reject such appointments. Absent agreement, the default mechanism is a draw conducted before the president of the arbitration centre. The same rule applies to multiparty arbitrations, unless the arbitration agreement provides otherwise.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the local courts intervene in the selection of arbitrators? If so, how?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The ordinary courts do not intervene in the appointment of arbitrators. Article 16 of the LAM assigns that function to the parties and, in administered arbitrations, to the arbitration centre. In ad hoc arbitrations, the appointment falls to the parties under the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n<p>Where the parties have not referred to a specific centre or to procedural rules, the RLAM deems the arbitration administered. The claimant may apply to the centre nearest to the place where the effects of the act or contract occurred, or to its place of business.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the appointment of an arbitrator be challenged? What are the grounds for such a challenge? What is the procedure for such a challenge?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Article 21 of the LAM applies to arbitrators the grounds for challenge that apply to judges, set out in Article 22 of the COGEP. They include kinship, interest in the outcome of the case, close friendship or manifest enmity with a party, and having expressed an opinion on the merits. Most of these grounds are poorly suited to arbitration. In practice, centres and tribunals use the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (\u201c<strong>IBA Guidelines<\/strong>\u201d) to assess conflicts. The IBA Guidelines are binding only if the parties so agree (see Question 27).<\/p>\n<p>The challenge is decided under Article 21 of the LAM. In a collegiate tribunal, the arbitrators who are not challenged decide. If they cannot agree, or if the challenge concerns a sole arbitrator or the whole tribunal, the director of the arbitration centre decides. Under Article 20 of the LAM, a disqualified arbitrator is replaced under the appointment procedure of Article 16, and a permanent vacancy is filled by the alternate arbitrator.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent developments concerning the duty of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, including the duty of disclosure?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No recent legislative or case-law development has been identified on the duty of independence and impartiality of arbitrators or on the duty of disclosure. Article 1 of the RLAM provides that arbitral tribunals have full independence and autonomy. The LAM and the RLAM contain no catalogue of standards of conduct and no free-standing disclosure regime. These matters are left to the codes of ethics that each centre must issue (Art. 40(e) LAM).<\/p>\n<p>The codes and bylaws of the CAM CCQ and the CAM AMCHAM require arbitrators to act with independence and impartiality and to disclose any circumstance that may raise justifiable doubts about them. A breach may give rise to a challenge on the grounds described in Question 16. No CCE decision on the merits of the standard of arbitral independence or impartiality has been identified.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are arbitrators immune from liability?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Arbitrators do not enjoy immunity from civil liability. The arbitrator who accepts the appointment must carry out the mandate and answers to the parties for the harm arising from its breach (Art. 18 LAM). Liability is limited to wilful misconduct or gross negligence and extends to the arbitral institutions, their directors and employees (Art. 7 RLAM). The same standard applies to unjustified delay in rendering the award (Art. 12 RLAM).<\/p>\n<p>The tribunal has 150 days to render the award, counted from the hearing at which it rules on its own jurisdiction and orders the evidence. The term can be extended once by an equal period (Art. 25 LAM). Expiry of the term does not entail loss of the tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction (Art. 12 RLAM).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the principle of competence-competence recognized in your country?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The <em>kompetenz-kompetenz<\/em> principle is set out in Article 22 of the LAM. It is for the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including pleas on the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement. The tribunal decides at the preliminary hearing, before hearing the merits. The decision is conclusive and cannot be reviewed by the annulment judge (Judgment 2520-18-EP\/23).<\/p>\n<p>The CCE has confirmed the principle consistently since judgment 011-17-SEP-CC. Where a party goes to the ordinary courts despite an arbitration agreement, the judge must verify the existence of the agreement and, once it is confirmed, step aside in favour of arbitration. The judge may not rule on the validity of the agreement or on the arbitrability of the dispute (Judgments 1758-15-EP\/20, 1737-16-EP\/21, 707-16-EP\/21, 1754-18-EP\/23, 2342-18-EP\/23 and 1010-18-EP\/23).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the approach of local courts towards a party commencing litigation in apparent breach of an arbitration agreement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The respondent in the court action must raise the arbitration-agreement objection when answering the claim. Failure to do so is a tacit waiver of arbitration, and the ordinary courts retain jurisdiction (Judgment 011-17-SEP-CC and subsequent decisions). If the objection is raised in time, the judge must verify the existence of the agreement and, once it is confirmed, decline jurisdiction and refer the parties to arbitration. The judge may not rule on the validity of the agreement or on the arbitrability of the dispute.<\/p>\n<p>A judge who declares the agreement void, merely optional or signed without sufficient authority, or who finds the matter non-arbitrable, encroaches on arbitral jurisdiction. The CCE reviews such decisions through the extraordinary protection action (Judgments 1758-15-EP\/20, 1010-18-EP\/23 and 2342-18-EP\/23). The action may be inadmissible if the challenged order is not considered final.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What happens when a respondent fails to participate in the arbitration? Can the local courts compel participation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>If the respondent fails to participate, the arbitration continues. Once the respondent has been served with the claim, its non-appearance does not prevent the proceedings from continuing (Art. 14 LAM). Two further rules apply.<\/p>\n<p>First, the respondent\u2019s silence is treated as a plain denial of the grounds of the claim (Art. 11 LAM). Second, if the domicile or residence of the respondent cannot be determined, service is made by two publications in a widely circulated newspaper. If the respondent does not appear within 10 days of the last publication, its silence is also treated as a plain denial.<\/p>\n<p>Local courts cannot compel participation. Their role is limited to assisting, in particular in the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards. Under the <em>kompetenz-kompetenz<\/em> principle, ordinary judges must refrain from ruling on objections to the jurisdiction of the tribunal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can third parties voluntarily join arbitration proceedings? If all parties agree to the intervention, is the tribunal bound by this agreement? If all parties do not agree to the intervention, can the tribunal allow for it?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no express regulation on the matter of third parties. If the parties to the arbitration do not consent to their participation, such third parties are barred from partaking in the arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>In Case 103-11 administered under the CAM CCQ rules, the tribunal held that its jurisdiction excluded all procedural rules or institutions that would allow outside third parties to intervene. In the annulment of Hidrotoapi EP v. Odebrecht, the President of the Pichincha Provincial Court held that third-party intervention of any kind is incompatible with the essence of arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Absent objection by the parties to the arbitration agreement, the result could be different. In case 026-05 administered under the CAM CCQ rules, the respondents filed a counterclaim against the claimant and its legal representative, who had not signed the arbitration agreement. The legal representative did not object to the jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator to hear the counterclaim. Hence, the sole arbitrator found an intent to submit the dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>If all parties agree to the intervention of third parties, we see no reason to bar them from participating in the arbitration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim measures are available? Will local courts issue interim measures pending the constitution of the tribunal? Are anti-suit and\/or anti-arbitration injunctions available and enforceable in your country? What is the approach of local courts in your jurisdiction to anti-arbitration injunctions issued in breach of arbitration agreements?  Have there been any recent decisions on this point?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The tribunal may order interim measures, which are binding on the parties (Art. 9 LAM; Art. 8 RLAM). The RLAM broadened the available measures. They include measures to maintain or restore the status quo, prevent the continuation of present harm or the materialisation of imminent harm, preserve the assets that are the subject of the proceedings or those of the debtor or the creditor, preserve evidence, secure the performance of obligations and preserve the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The list is not exhaustive.<\/p>\n<p>Before the tribunal is constituted, the interested party may apply to the civil courts for interim measures (Art. 8(2) RLAM). The competent judges are those who would have had jurisdiction absent the arbitration agreement. The available measures are those provided for in the COGEP and any other measure listed in Article 8 of the RLAM. The court applies the COGEP procedure for precautionary measures. A party may also request an emergency arbitrator (see Question 35).<\/p>\n<p>Ecuadorian law does not regulate anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunctions. Arbitral tribunals may order measures to preserve their jurisdiction (Art. 8 RLAM). Ecuadorian courts do not issue orders that prohibit a party from litigating abroad or from arbitrating. A similar result is reached through the rule that the court must decline jurisdiction where an arbitration agreement exists, as arbitration is to be favoured in case of doubt (see Questions 19 and 20).<\/p>\n<p>The main risk of interference with arbitration agreements has come from the local courts. The CCE has consistently rejected it. In judgment 308-14-EP\/20, the Court held that using the constitutional protection action to challenge arbitral decisions denatures the guarantee and constitutes undue interference of constitutional justice in arbitral justice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there particular rules governing evidentiary matters in arbitration? Will the local courts in your jurisdiction play any role in the obtaining of evidence? Can local courts compel witnesses to participate in arbitration proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The LAM regulates when evidence is presented. It does not address admissibility, types of evidence or evidentiary weight. Tribunals may apply the COGEP on a subsidiary basis where they consider it appropriate and where doing so does not contravene the principles of arbitration (Art. 10 RLAM). In practice, they are increasingly reluctant to do so. The parties may agree on evidentiary rules, subject to due process and equal treatment. The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence are used in international and domestic arbitrations, by agreement of the parties or decision of the tribunal.<\/p>\n<p>Documentary evidence is submitted with the initial pleadings. Witnesses and experts are heard at the evidentiary hearing. There is no document production or discovery, although tribunals often admit requests for specific documents held by the other party. Written witness statements are common in international arbitration and rare in domestic arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>The LAM refers to evidence at three points. First, the parties request evidence in the claim, the answer, the counterclaim and its answer. Second, once the tribunal has upheld its jurisdiction at the preliminary hearing, it orders the evidentiary steps and may request further evidence before the award. Third, failure to order requested evidence, or to take it despite facts requiring proof, is a ground for annulment (Art. 31 LAM).<\/p>\n<p>Arbitrators have no powers of compulsion over third parties for the production of documents or the attendance of witnesses. The LAM provides no mechanism of judicial assistance for the taking of evidence. The assistance of public officials under Article 9 of the LAM applies to the enforcement of interim measures (see Question 23). In practice, tribunals rely on the cooperation of the parties and of the witnesses they present.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What ethical codes and other professional standards, if any, apply to counsel and arbitrators conducting proceedings in your country? Do these codes and professional standards apply only to counsel and arbitrators having the nationality of your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The LAM and the RLAM contain no catalogue of standards of conduct. The arbitrator who accepts the appointment answers to the parties for the harm arising from a breach of the mandate (Art. 18 LAM). Liability is limited to wilful misconduct or gross negligence and also reaches the arbitral institutions (Art. 7 RLAM). Each centre must issue a code of ethics for arbitrators, mediators and secretaries (Art. 40(e) LAM). Independence and impartiality are grounds for challenge and self-disqualification (Art. 21 LAM; see Question 16).<\/p>\n<p>The COFJ regulates the conduct of judges and lawyers. Articles 330 and 335 of the COFJ set out the duties and prohibitions of lawyers in professional practice, and the Code of Professional Ethics approved in 1969 by the National Lawyers\u2019 Federation of Ecuador also applies. There is no specific body of professional conduct rules for counsel in arbitration. Counsel acting before the courts must hold a law degree and be registered with the Bar maintained by the Judiciary Council (Art. 324 COFJ). The LAM and the RLAM do not set specific qualifications for legal representatives in arbitration. Case law has not resolved the application of the COFJ rules to arbitration. In practice, counsel in domestic arbitrations are always authorised to practise law in Ecuador. No rule requires counsel in international arbitrations seated in Ecuador to be authorised to practise in Ecuador.<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between the parties and the arbitrators (<em>receptum arbitri<\/em>) is developed by doctrine rather than legislation. Ecuadorian commentary describes it as contractual. Its core duties are to render an enforceable award within the time limit, to conduct the proceedings diligently, to remain in office until the end and to keep confidentiality where the parties have agreed to it.<\/p>\n<p>The standards do not depend on nationality. The LAM sets no nationality requirement for arbitrators. Arbitrators deciding in law must be lawyers. The LAM does not address whether a foreign law degree satisfies that requirement. Any person with legal capacity may serve as an arbitrator <em>ex aequo et bono<\/em>. Whatever their nationality, arbitrators in administered arbitrations are bound by the LAM, the grounds for challenge and the code of ethics of the centre.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your country, are there any rules with respect to the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Arbitration in Ecuador is confidential only if the parties so agree (Art. 34 LAM). Absent an agreement or institutional rules, there is no implied duty of confidentiality. The agreement cannot override the rights of third parties. Where the arbitration is confidential, copies of the record are given only to the parties, their lawyers and the judge hearing the annulment action. The parties may ask the president of the provincial court to take measures to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information.<\/p>\n<p>The centres may include information on arbitrations in statistics and publications, and publish decisions, without identifying the parties (Art. 11 RLAM). The CAM CCQ Rules (Art. 6) and the CAM AMCHAM Rules (Art. 25) oblige the participants in the proceedings to refrain from disclosing information on them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are the IBA guidelines on conflicts of interest and other similar soft law sources viewed by courts and tribunals in your jurisdiction? Are they frequently applied? Have any developments under the 2024 IBA Guidelines, including the expanded Orange List, the treatment of social media conduct, or due diligence obligations on parties, and the UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators been addressed by courts and tribunals in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The IBA Guidelines are soft law. They are binding only if the parties so agree. Local arbitral institutions and practitioners regard them favourably. They are used mainly to fill gaps in the LAM, such as the absence of rules on disclosure and on the standard of independence. Tribunals and centre directors have applied them, although not systematically.<\/p>\n<p>Examples include the ad hoc arbitration Chaparro v. Ecuador, which followed the November 2007 judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The tribunal applied the IBA Guidelines to decide a challenge to one of its members. It found the grounds of the former Code of Civil Procedure insufficient and described the Guidelines as a catalogue of general standards and illustrative cases, widely accepted internationally. In CAM AMCHAM arbitration 6-16, the Director of the centre decided a challenge in August 2016. The Director applied the Orange List item on arbitrators who had acted as counsel to a party in the previous three years, and held that Orange List situations call for disclosure but do not necessarily create a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n<p>There do not appear to be public decisions of Ecuadorian courts or tribunals on the 2024 edition of the IBA Guidelines, including the expanded Orange List and the treatment of social media conduct, or on the UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators. The UNCITRAL Code binds Ecuadorian arbitrations only if the parties adopt it. The IBA Guidelines are persuasive guidance with clear institutional support. Public evidence of frequent judicial application, or of established Ecuadorian case law, is lacking.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are the costs of arbitration proceedings estimated and allocated? Can pre- and post-award interest be included in the principal claim and costs incurred?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The LAM contains few rules on costs. It delegates their estimation to the centres, whose rules must set out the administrative fees and fee schedules. In ad hoc arbitrations, the fees are agreed with the arbitrators. The allocation of costs falls to the tribunal, which must specify it in the award.<\/p>\n<p>The general rule of the COGEP is that each party bears its own costs, unless a party has acted in bad faith. In international arbitration, tribunals more frequently apply the \u201ccosts follow the event\u201d approach. Under the COGEP, public entities cannot be ordered to pay costs. In judgment 1573-15-EP\/21, the CCE set aside the costs decision of an award. The tribunal had not identified the legal basis for the order and had not characterised the conduct of a public company as reckless or in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>Where payment of money is delayed, interest runs from the date of default (Art. 1575 of the Civil Code). Interest is governed by the applicable substantive law and, absent an agreed rate, by the rates set by the Central Bank of Ecuador. Awards are enforced as final judgments. At the enforcement stage, an expert liquidates the principal, interest and costs. Interest continues to accrue until payment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are applications for security for costs viewed in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Security for costs is not regulated in the LAM or the RLAM, and neither prohibits it. Applications are uncommon in practice. A tribunal may order it in the exercise of its general power to order any interim measure it considers necessary (Art. 8 RLAM).<\/p>\n<p>The LAM provides for two other forms of security. The tribunal may require security from the party requesting an interim measure, to cover the harm to the opposing party if the claim is dismissed. The party against whom the measure is ordered may request its suspension upon posting sufficient security (Art. 9 LAM). The annulment action does not suspend enforcement of the award, and suspension may be requested upon posting security (Art. 31 LAM).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What legal requirements are there in your country for the recognition and enforcement of an award? Is there a requirement that the award be reasoned, i.e. substantiated and motivated?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The award must be in writing, reasoned and rendered by majority vote. Lack of reasoning is not a ground for annulment under Article 31 of the LAM. It may be challenged through the extraordinary protection action where it affects constitutional rights (Judgment 323-13-EP\/19).<\/p>\n<p>Domestic awards need no recognition. They have the effect of a final judgment and are enforced as such (Art. 32 LAM). Article 363 of the COGEP lists the award as an enforcement title. International awards, whether rendered in Ecuador or abroad, are enforced in the same way, without exequatur (Art. 42 LAM; Art. 15 RLAM).<\/p>\n<p>The creditor need only file a certified copy of the award (Art. 15 RLAM) with the civil court of first instance at the debtor\u2019s domicile or where its assets are located (Art. 14 RLAM).<\/p>\n<p>Article 363(5) of the COGEP continued to refer to the homologation of foreign awards. In judgment 6-22-IN\/25, the CCE declared the provision conditionally constitutional. It read the provision as treating foreign awards as enforcement titles that need no homologation, as reintroduced by a 2018 amendment to Article 42 of the LAM. In judgment 3232-19-EP\/24, the CCE held that requiring prior recognition infringes legal certainty and the right to effective judicial protection.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the estimated timeframe for the recognition and enforcement of an award (domestic and international)? Can a party bring a motion for the recognition and enforcement of an award on an ex parte basis? Would the standard of review be different for domestic and international awards?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The statutory deadlines for complying with domestic or foreign awards are short. The debtor has five days to pay or file an opposition, and the enforcement hearing must be held within 15 days.<\/p>\n<p>Enforcement can be sought <em>ex parte<\/em> at the initial stage. The creditor files the award as an enforcement title, and the judge issues the enforcement order without prior hearing. The debtor is then notified and may oppose within five days on limited grounds. For international awards, Article 15 of the RLAM limits opposition to showing that the award has been complied with, that its enforcement has been suspended by a competent authority or that it has been set aside. Opposition does not suspend enforcement and is decided at the enforcement hearing.<\/p>\n<p>The standard of review is the same for domestic and foreign awards, as both are enforced directly without prior recognition. The enforcement judge does not carry out the examination provided for in Article V(2) of the New York Convention, as the local regime is more favourable (Art. VII of the Convention). Article 15(4) of the RLAM bars any action intended to delay, obstruct or impede the enforcement of an international award.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can arbitration awards be appealed or challenged in local courts? What are the grounds and procedure in this regard? Is it possible for parties to waive any rights of appeal or challenge to an award by agreement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Awards cannot be appealed on the merits. Article 30 of the LAM declares them non-appealable and excludes any recourse not provided for in the law. The only remedies before the tribunal are clarification and amplification. The annulment action is the sole means of challenge (Art. 31 LAM). It does not allow a review of the merits (Judgments 1703-11-EP\/19 and 1059-15-EP\/20).<\/p>\n<p>The annulment application is filed before the tribunal within ten days of the award becoming final. The tribunal forwards the file to the president of the provincial court within three days, and the court decides within 30 days.<\/p>\n<p>The grounds are limited to: (i) lack of service of the claim; (ii) lack of notice of procedural orders; (iii) refusal or failure to take requested evidence on facts requiring proof; (iv) a ruling on matters not submitted to arbitration or beyond what was claimed; and (v) breach of the procedure for appointing the arbitrators or constituting the tribunal.<\/p>\n<p>The CCE has confirmed that the grounds are exhaustive (Judgments 323-13-EP\/19 and 31-14-EP\/19). Lack of jurisdiction is not an independent ground for annulment, and the decision of the tribunal on its own jurisdiction cannot be reviewed in the annulment action (Judgment 2520-18-EP\/23). An award may also be challenged before the CCE through an extraordinary protection action, available where the award affects constitutional rights and the complaint is not covered by a ground for annulment (Judgment 323-13-EP\/19).<\/p>\n<p>Ecuadorian law contains no provision enabling an advance waiver of the annulment action. Whether the parties may exclude it by agreement is debated. The grounds cannot be expanded by contract. Article 34 of the LAM refers to the judge hearing the annulment action \u201cor any other recourse to which the parties have submitted\u201d, but the majority view rejects an additional instance before State judges. An agreed second arbitral instance is also debated, but there appears no reason to deny its permissibility under Article 38 of the LAM, if the parties so agree. Public-sector entities are not obliged to file the annulment action, save where there are clear grounds affecting the validity of the award (Art. 13(5) RLAM).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an award? To what extent might a third party challenge the recognition of an award?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Awards produce effects only between the parties to the arbitration (Art. 97 COGEP). Article 6 of the RLAM extends the arbitration agreement to three groups of non-signatories: those who consented through their active and decisive participation in the negotiation, conclusion, performance or termination of the transaction; those who seek to derive rights or benefits from it, such as successors and assignees; and, in arbitrations with public entities, the administrative bodies that originated the administrative acts. The award binds non-signatories who are brought into the arbitration on these grounds.<\/p>\n<p>A third party has limited means to challenge an award. There is no recognition stage to oppose, as neither domestic nor foreign awards require recognition. A third party that should have been a party may bring an extraordinary protection action (Art. 59 of the Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control). In the enforcement phase, it may file a third-party claim to protect its own assets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any rules \/ court decisions that regulate or prohibit third party funding of arbitration proceedings \u2013 for instance, where funding by an entity not involved in the dispute in return for a share of the eventual award may be barred \u2013 in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are no statutory rules or court decisions that prohibit or regulate third-party funding of arbitration in Ecuador. Neither the LAM nor the RLAM refers to it. Funding by an entity that is not a party to the dispute, in return for a share of the eventual award, is not barred. The doctrines of champerty and maintenance are not part of Ecuadorian law.<\/p>\n<p>There is no legal duty to disclose the existence of the funding or the identity of the funder. Disclosure obligations arise only from the rules of some centres.<\/p>\n<p>The CAM CCQ Rules require a funded party to disclose the funding agreement and the identity of the funder immediately to the centre, the tribunal and the other parties (Art. 117). The centre or the tribunal may request a declaration on the lawfulness of the funds and may suspend the proceedings if the party refuses to provide the information. Arbitrators must state their independence and impartiality towards the parties and, where applicable, their funders (Art. 97). In international cases, the notice of arbitration must name any funders (Art. 146).<\/p>\n<p>The CAM CAC Rules require a funded party to inform the tribunal, the opposing party and the centre of the funding and the identity of the funder when the funding is obtained. The tribunal may request further information, subject to professional secrecy (Art. 72).<\/p>\n<p>The CAM AMCHAM Rules contain no provision on third-party funding.<\/p>\n<p>Absent institutional rules, a tribunal may order disclosure to verify conflicts of interest, or the funded party may disclose voluntarily. There do not appear to be judicial decisions on the effect of non-disclosure on the challenge of arbitrators or on the allocation of costs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is emergency arbitrator relief available and recognized in your country? Are decisions made by emergency arbitrators readily enforceable?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Emergency arbitrator relief is available and recognised in Ecuador. Article 8 of the RLAM recognises it and leaves the procedure to the centres. The CAM CCQ, CAM AMCHAM and CAM CAC rules all provide for it. A party may request an emergency arbitrator before the tribunal is constituted, and the arbitrator must decide within 15 days of taking office. The constituted tribunal may modify, suspend or revoke the measure (Art. 9 RLAM). The CCE found this power compatible with judicial independence in judgment 74-21-IN\/25. Requesting an emergency arbitrator does not prevent a party from applying to the civil courts for interim measures (Art. 8(2) RLAM).<\/p>\n<p>Emergency arbitrator decisions are binding on the parties. Their enforcement, like that of interim measures in general, is a matter for the ordinary courts. Under Article 9 of the LAM, arbitrators may request the assistance of public officials directly only where the arbitration agreement so provides. Otherwise, any party may ask the ordinary courts to order enforcement of the measures without waiving the arbitration agreement. The CAM CAC Rules refer to the assistance of the public force to enforce the decision (Art. 25). The CAM CCQ and CAM AMCHAM rules contain no specific enforcement mechanism. A bill before the National Assembly would give arbitral tribunals enforcement powers analogous to those of judges (see Question 4).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there arbitral laws or arbitration institutional rules in your country providing simplified or expedited procedures for claims under a certain value? Are they often used?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The LAM and the RLAM do not provide for simplified or expedited procedures based on the value of the claim. The leading centres have introduced them in their rules, but they are not often used. Under the CAM CCQ Rules (Arts. 139-145), the abbreviated procedure applies where the claim and any counterclaim together do not exceed USD 200,000, or where the parties so agree. Under the CAM AMCHAM Rules (Annex 3, in force since February 2026), it applies up to USD 150,000. Both sets of rules require the express agreement of the parties where a State entity is a party. Under the CAM CAC Rules (Arts. 65-67), it applies to claims below USD 60,000 with no more than two parties, where the parties agreed to it in the arbitration clause or accept it when consulted. The CAM CAC procedure is conducted entirely online.<\/p>\n<p>Under the CAM CCQ and CAM AMCHAM rules, the procedure is conducted before a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator may limit the written submissions and the evidence and decide on the documents alone or after a single hearing. The CAM CAC rules also allow the tribunal to decide on the documents alone. The award is due within 60 to 90 days, depending on the centre.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the setting aside of an award that has been enforced in another jurisdiction or vice versa?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There do not appear to be recent Ecuadorian court decisions on the enforcement in Ecuador of an award set aside at the seat, or on the setting aside of an award already enforced elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p>Under Article 15 of the RLAM, the debtor may resist enforcement of an international award by showing that the award has been complied with, that its enforcement has been suspended by a competent authority or that it has been set aside by a competent authority. The CCE dismissed the actions of unconstitutionality against that provision in judgment 74-21-IN\/25. An annulment action pending at the seat does not of itself suspend enforcement. Recent CCE decisions on foreign awards concern the enforcement procedure. In judgments 3232-19-EP\/24 (May 2024) and 6-22-IN\/25, the Court held that foreign awards are enforcement titles that do not require prior recognition.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the issue of corruption? What standard do local courts apply for proving corruption? Which party bears the burden of proving corruption?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There do not appear to be recent Ecuadorian court decisions on corruption in arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>Public policy is not a ground for annulment (Art. 31 LAM) or for resisting enforcement (Art. 15 RLAM). The CCE has confirmed that the annulment grounds are exhaustive and exclude a review of the merits. Allegations of corruption can therefore be raised at the annulment stage only if they fall within one of those grounds. Ecuadorian law does not define corruption or set a specific standard of proof for it. The general rules of the COGEP apply. Each party must prove the facts it alleges (Art. 169 COGEP), so the party alleging corruption bears the burden of proof. Good faith is presumed, and bad faith must be proved.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country withdrawn from, or announced its intention to withdraw from, the Energy Charter Treaty?  What is the status of the sunset clause in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador is not a party to the Energy Charter Treaty and has not signed the European Energy Charter or the International Energy Charter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent court decisions or legislative developments in your country with respect to intra-European investor-State arbitration, the Energy Charter Treaty, or the enforcement of intra-EU? Are there any pending decisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador is not a member of the European Union or a party to the Energy Charter Treaty. No decisions are pending on these matters.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have arbitral institutions in your country implemented reforms towards greater use of technology and a more cost-effective conduct of arbitrations? Have there been any recent developments regarding virtual hearings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The leading centres have incorporated technology into their rules. The CAM CCQ, CAM AMCHAM and CAM CAC rules allow arbitrations to be conducted virtually, in person or in hybrid format. They provide for hearings by videoconference, filing and service of documents by email and an electronic case file. The CAM CAC rules provide for entirely digital arbitrations by agreement of the parties. The CAM CCQ Rules include an appendix on the use of telematic means in arbitration and mediation.<\/p>\n<p>On cost-effectiveness, the centres have adopted abbreviated procedures for lower-value claims (see Question 36). The most recent is the CAM AMCHAM procedure, in force since February 2026. The CAM AMCHAM Rules also require the tribunal and the parties to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner, taking into account the complexity and value of the dispute.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have there been any recent judicial and\/or legislative developments in your jurisdiction with regard to disputes involving ESG issues such as climate change, sustainability, social responsibility and\/or human rights?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Recent developments are mainly legislative and constitutional. In September 2026, a reform to the Organic Environmental Code entered into force. It strengthens the climate change regime and regulates carbon markets. In March 2026, the Organic Law for the Strengthening of the Strategic Mining and Energy Sectors entered into force. It reforms the environmental permitting regime for mining activities. Environmental and Indigenous organisations have challenged it before the CCE.<\/p>\n<p>On the judicial side, the CCE has addressed the rights of nature extensively. In judgment 27-21-JC\/25 (December 2025), it held that autonomous precautionary measures are an essential remedy against ongoing damage to nature and addressed their compatibility with property rights.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also supervises compliance with the 2023 popular referendum on the Yasun\u00ed National Park, held following its Advisory Opinion 6-22-CP\/23. In the referendum, voters decided to keep the oil in an area of the Park permanently underground. The Court ordered the progressive withdrawal of the oil operations within one year. An enforcement action filed in November 2025, alleging that the State has not complied, is pending.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Have any international economic sanctions regimes been implemented (either independently, or based on EU law) in your jurisdiction recently? Have there been any recent decisions in your country considering the impact of sanctions on international arbitration proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador has not adopted autonomous economic sanctions regimes or regimes based on EU law. It applies the targeted financial sanctions of the United Nations Security Council through an asset-freezing procedure under the anti-money-laundering legislation. The procedure was regulated in 2022 through resolutions of the Financial and Economic Analysis Unit (UAFE), the Judiciary Council and the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office. There are no recent decisions of Ecuadorian courts on the impact of sanctions on international arbitration proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country enacted any regulation and\/or implemented any rules, guidlines or regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI), generative AI or large language models in the context of dispute resolution?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador has not enacted regulation on the use of AI, generative AI or large language models in dispute resolution. In September 2026, the National Assembly archived a bill on the regulation and promotion of AI. Other AI-related bills remain pending, including a reform to the COFJ presented in June 2026. It would regulate the use of AI by judges, judicial officers and lawyers in court proceedings. Under that bill, AI could be used only as a support tool and could not be used to assess evidence or to reason judgments. Its use would have to be disclosed and verified.<\/p>\n<p>In June 2026, the Ethics Committee of the Judicial Function approved principles and guidelines for the responsible use of AI in the Judicial Function. They apply to the judiciary and do not apply to arbitral tribunals.<\/p>\n<p>In arbitration, the rules of the main centres do not yet address AI, and the centres are working on regulating it. Only persons with legal capacity may act as arbitrators (Art. 19 LAM), so an AI system cannot be appointed as an arbitrator. Arbitrators remain fully responsible for the reasoning of their awards, and the CCE may set aside awards that lack reasoning through the extraordinary protection action. Best practice is for arbitrators to disclose any use of AI tools.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any specific legal, institutional, or procedural frameworks in your jurisdiction governing the arbitration of digital asset or blockchain-related disputes?  Have there been any court decisions in your jurisdiction concerning the validity or enforceability of arbitration agreements incorporated into smart contracts or digital asset terms?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador has no specific legal, institutional or procedural framework for the arbitration of digital asset or blockchain-related disputes. Where the parties have agreed to arbitrate, these disputes are governed by the general arbitration framework.<\/p>\n<p>The Electronic Commerce Law recognises contracts formed through data messages. It also allows electronic means to be used to enter into and apply an arbitration agreement, provided they are compatible with the arbitration rules. Since 2019, the Commercial Code has recognised \u201csmart contracts\u201d (Art. 77). There is no specific law on blockchain. The National Assembly archived a bill on the matter in 2025, and a bill to regulate virtual assets was presented in October 2026.<\/p>\n<p>There do not appear to be Ecuadorian court decisions on the validity or enforceability of arbitration agreements incorporated into smart contracts or digital asset terms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">8845<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/154074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}