The Fragile Anchor: Seat Validity, Transfer Doctrine, and Blockchain Hybridisation in International Arbitration

arbitral seat; arbitration agreement; transfer doctrine; forum necessitatis; Heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu v. Malaysia; blockchain arbitration; delocalisation; international commercial arbitration.

The arbitral seat has traditionally been regarded as the juridical anchor of international commercial arbitration, determining the applicable lex arbitri, identifying the supervisory courts, and shaping the framework for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. However, recent developments in international arbitration have challenged the conventional understanding of the seat. The emergence of doctrines permitting the transfer of the arbitral seat, the revival of delocalisation theory, and the growth of blockchain-based dispute resolution have raised an important but largely overlooked question: can procedural mechanisms relating to the arbitral seat operate independently of the validity of the underlying arbitration agreement? This article addresses that question through a doctrinal analysis of international arbitration instruments, domestic legislation, judicial decisions, arbitral awards, and contemporary academic scholarship. Particular emphasis is placed on the Heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu v. Malaysia litigation, the UNCITRAL Model Law, the English Arbitration Act 2025, and recent scholarship concerning blockchain-enabled arbitration.

The article argues that the authority to transfer or substitute the arbitral seat is contingent upon what is termed the Agreement-Validity Hierarchy, under which the existence of a valid arbitration agreement constitutes the foundation of arbitral jurisdiction, while procedural powers relating to the seat operate only after jurisdiction has been validly established. Through an examination of the Sulu litigation, the article demonstrates that procedural doctrines, including seat transfer and forum necessitatis, cannot create, enlarge, or cure arbitral jurisdiction in the absence of valid arbitral consent. The article further argues that blockchain-based arbitration and hybrid enforcement mechanisms inherit rather than eliminate this jurisdictional limitation. Ultimately, the article concludes that although the arbitral seat remains the organisational anchor of international arbitration, the arbitration agreement remains its constitutive foundation. As procedural innovation continues to reshape international dispute resolution, preserving this distinction will be essential to maintaining the legitimacy and enforceability of arbitral awards.