Arbitration in Brazil: the law, costs, timelines and enforcement

The short version

• Arbitration in Brazil runs under Law 9,307 of 23 September 1996, the Arbitration Act, substantially amended by Law 13,129 of 26 May 2015, and covers institutional and ad hoc cases alike.
• Brazil did not adopt the Model Law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL); it is absent from UNCITRAL’s list, alongside the Netherlands and England and Wales.
• A domestic award is final. It is not appealable and needs no court homologation (art 18). It can be set aside only on the grounds in article 32, by an action brought within 90 days of receiving the award (art 33 §1).
• A foreign award is enforced only after it is homologated, that is, formally confirmed for use in Brazil, by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the court that recognises foreign judgments and awards (art 35).
• Brazil joined the New York Convention in 2002, in force on 5 September 2002, with no reservation, so it applies the Convention to awards made anywhere.
• There is no AI rule written for arbitration. The National Council of Justice (CNJ) Resolution 615 of 2025 governs AI in the courts only, and the general AI bill, PL 2,338/2023, is still before the Chamber of Deputies. For the Model Law seats by contrast, see arbitration in Singapore and arbitration in India.^{1,2,3,6,7,19,22}

What law governs arbitration in Brazil?

One statute governs arbitration in Brazil: Law 9,307 of 1996, titled in Portuguese “Dispõe sobre a arbitragem”. It applies to institutional and ad hoc arbitration, at law or in equity, covers domestic and international cases, and contains the chapter on recognising foreign awards (arts 34 to 40). Article 1 lets any person capable of contracting arbitrate disputes over “direitos patrimoniais disponíveis”, property rights the party is free to dispose of.¹

Law 13,129 of 2015 reworked much of the Act. It added public-administration arbitration (art 1 §1) and, in new chapters, pre-arbitral interim relief and the carta arbitral, a request the tribunal sends a court to carry out an act on its behalf (arts 22-A to 22-C). It reworded the set-aside clause, which kept the 90-day window to annul an award that the original 1996 Act had already set (art 33 §1), and updated art 35 to name the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) as the homologating court. That competence had itself moved from the Supreme Federal Court to the STJ under the Constitution years earlier (see the enforcement section). The reforms section below dates each change.^1,2,14

Brazil is not a Model Law jurisdiction. The Model Law is UNCITRAL’s 1985 template for national arbitration laws, amended in 2006; Brazil does not appear on UNCITRAL’s status list for it. The Act stands on its own, which matters when parties used to a Model Law seat read it. For two Model Law seats by contrast, see arbitration in Singapore and arbitration in India.⁷

Brazil brought the New York Convention, the 1958 treaty on recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, into domestic law by Decree 4,311 of 23 July 2002. It acceded on 7 June 2002, with effect from 5 September 2002, and made no reciprocity or commercial reservation. A reciprocity reservation would limit the Convention to awards made in another contracting state; Brazil took none. For the Convention’s refusal grounds, see the New York Convention grounds.^3,6

Why do parties choose Brazil as a seat, and how does arbitration compare with the courts?

Parties pick arbitration in Brazil over litigation for the usual reasons, with two local draws. First, the public administration, direct and indirect, may arbitrate disputes over disposable property rights (art 1 §1), so a state body or a concession-holder can be a party. Second, because Brazil took no reservation to the New York Convention, an award made abroad is treated the same as one from a contracting state.^1,6

Against the courts, the main point is finality. A domestic award has the effect of a court judgment (art 31), is not open to appeal and needs no homologation (art 18). The STJ treats arbitration as having a jurisdictional nature and enforces the precedence of the chosen arbitral forum, with the courts reviewing only afterwards (see the courts section below, and CC 139.519/RJ).^1,12

We make no caseload claim, and we do not call Brazil the most-used seat in the region. The 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London carries no verified Brazil line, and the only Brazilian aggregate figures come from a self-published survey, not a primary source.⁸

Which institutions run arbitrations in Brazil, and under what rules?

Brazil has no single national institutional regime. Each chamber runs cases under its own rules, and the Act simply lets parties adopt the rules of an arbitral body (art 5). The main chambers include CAM-CCBC, CAMARB, CBMA, CAM-CIESP/FIESP and CAM-B3. We state rules and fees only where we opened the chamber’s own text.¹

CAMARB publishes its 2019 Arbitration Rules, separate Expedited Rules and an emergency-arbitrator procedure, with a public Cost Table. CBMA publishes its own rules and a cost schedule, which sets a fixed institution fee of R$4,000. CAM-CCBC’s site was behind a bot check on 30 October 2026, so none of its rules or fees is stated here. For which bodies have published an AI rule, see the AI rules tracker.^9,10,11

What should the arbitration clause say, and what can be arbitrated?

Only capable persons and disposable property rights (“direitos patrimoniais disponíveis”) can be arbitrated (art 1). The Act recognises two forms of agreement: the cláusula compromissória, the clause in a contract to arbitrate future disputes (art 4), and the compromisso arbitral, the submission of an existing dispute (arts 3, 9). A clause that names an arbitral body’s rules puts the case under those rules (art 5).¹

• The clause must be in writing. In an adhesion contract it binds only if the adhering party starts the arbitration, or agrees in a document attached or set in bold with a signature or initials specific to that clause (art 4 §1, §2).
• A clause is separable: the main contract being void does not necessarily void the clause (art 8).
• To draft well, name the chamber and its rules (art 5), the seat, the place where the award is made (art 10 IV), the number of arbitrators, which must be odd (art 13 §1), and the governing law (art 11 IV). The Act does not require a language clause, though naming one is good practice.
• Parties may arbitrate at law or in equity, and may choose the rules of law, general principles or trade usages, as long as public order and good morals are respected (art 2, §1, §2).¹

Government contracts are a special case. Arbitration involving the public administration is always at law and respects the principle of publicity (art 2 §3), so the state cannot arbitrate in confidence, and the same authority that signs settlements signs the arbitration agreement (art 1 §2). For federal port and transport contracts, Decree 10,025 of 2019 adds its own conditions: arbitration at law only, in Portuguese, seated in Brazil, with the proceedings public except for genuine trade secrets (arts 3, 3 IV).^1,5

How does a Brazilian arbitration run, step by step?

A Brazilian arbitration runs under the Act, with each chamber adding detail. The arbitration is instituted when the sole arbitrator, or all the arbitrators, accept (art 19). Any capable person the parties trust can be an arbitrator, in an odd number, and must act with impartiality, independence, competence, diligence and discretion (art 13, §1, §6). Before accepting, a candidate must disclose any fact that casts justified doubt on their impartiality or independence (art 14 §1).¹

• Interim relief. Before the tribunal exists a court grants it; once the tribunal is formed it keeps, changes or revokes that order, and new requests go to the arbitrators (arts 22-A, 22-B).
• Is arbitration confidential in Brazil? The Act imposes no general duty of confidentiality, but it shields confidential matters through the carta arbitral under seal (art 22-C), while keeping arbitration that involves a public body public (art 2 §3).
• The award must contain a report, the grounds, the dispositive part and the date and place, and be signed (arts 24, 26).¹

How long does arbitration in Brazil take, and what does it cost?

How long arbitration in Brazil takes depends first on the Act’s default deadline. The award is due 6 months from the start of the arbitration, or from an arbitrator’s substitution, unless the parties agree otherwise (art 23). The tribunal may issue partial awards, and the parties can extend the deadline. Federal port and transport contracts run on a longer clock. The award is due within 24 months of the terms of reference, the document that fixes the dispute’s scope, extendable once so the total stays within 48 months. The first response carries a minimum of 60 days (Decree 10,025, art 8). We give no average duration, because the only aggregate figure comes from a non-primary survey.^1,5

The cost of arbitration in Brazil is set by the chamber, not the Act. The figures below are CAMARB’s, from its Cost Table in force since 18 June 2019, and they scale with the amount in dispute.¹⁰

• Registration fee: R$5,000 to request the arbitration.
• Administration fee: set by band on the amount in dispute, starting at R$14,040 and capped at R$360,000.
• Each arbitrator’s fee: set by band; a co-arbitrator takes the reference figure, the presiding arbitrator the reference plus 15%, and a sole arbitrator the reference plus 30%. The maximum is R$650,000 for a co-arbitrator and R$747,500 for the presiding arbitrator.
• Emergency arbitrator: R$40,000, plus a R$15,000 administration fee and a R$5,000 expense advance; the administration fee is not refunded.
• Challenge to an arbitrator: the challenge committee is paid by band, from R$2,000 per member on disputes up to R$1 million.
• Worked example, R$100,000,000 in dispute, a three-member tribunal: the registration fee is R$5,000; the administration fee is R$187,740 (the band base of R$151,740 plus 0.072% of the R$50,000,000 above R$50,000,000); each co-arbitrator’s reference fee is R$247,260 and the presiding arbitrator’s is that reference plus 15%, R$284,349. The R$360,000, R$650,000 and R$747,500 ceilings bind only on far larger disputes.
• Who pays: the award decides each side’s responsibility for the costs and expenses of the arbitration (art 27), and the parties advance funds as the tribunal directs (art 13 §7).^1,10

What role do Brazilian courts play during an arbitration?

Brazilian courts support arbitration rather than run it, and step in only where the Act allows. They can compel a party that resists a valid clause to go to arbitration (art 7), grant urgent relief before the tribunal exists (art 22-A), and carry out acts the tribunal asks for by carta arbitral (art 22-C). The STJ has confirmed the precedence of the arbitral forum, once in a conflict between a tribunal under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules and a Federal Regional Court; the leading conflicts of competence are in the table below.^1,12,13

That limit on the courts comes from the arbitrator’s own authority. The arbitrator is the “juiz de fato e de direito”, the judge of fact and of law, and the award is not subject to appeal or to court homologation (art 18). Brazil applies kompetenz-kompetenz, the rule that the tribunal decides first on its own jurisdiction. The arbitrator rules on the existence, validity and effectiveness of the arbitration agreement (art 8 sole paragraph). A party raises any jurisdiction objection at its first chance to speak (art 20), and a court reviews that ruling only afterwards, through the annulment action.¹

Can you appeal or set aside an arbitral award in Brazil?

A domestic award cannot be appealed. The only route is an action to declare it null, to set aside the award on the grounds in article 32, and the court cannot review the merits. The action follows the common procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure and must be brought within 90 days of receiving the award, or the decision on a clarification request (art 33 §1). Nullity can also be raised in the defence to enforcement, the impugnação, if the winner is enforcing in court (art 33 §3).^1,4

Two STJ panels in 2026 sharpened this. REsp 2.210.332/SC treated the arbitrator’s jurisdiction as temporary, so the out-of-time ground turns on when the award was delivered, filed in the record within the deadline against notice to the parties after it. REsp 2.215.990 held that a breach of the duty of disclosure can ground annulment. REsp 2.101.901 set disclosure, impartiality and public order as conditions of a valid award, with the Brazilian Arbitration Committee (CBAr) admitted as a friend of the court. For AI and the annulment of awards, see AI use and setting aside arbitral awards.^16,17,18

How are awards enforced in and from Brazil?

A domestic award has the same effect between the parties as a court judgment, and if it orders a payment it is an enforceable instrument, a título executivo, enforced like a national judgment and needing no homologation (arts 18, 31).¹

A foreign award, meaning one made outside Brazil, is recognised or enforced only after homologation by the STJ (arts 34, 35). Law 13,129 of 2015 only updated article 35, whose original text still named the Supreme Federal Court. The STJ had in fact been the homologating court well before 2015: it holds that competence under the Constitution (art 105, I, “i”), and it homologated a foreign award on that basis in SEC 6.365 (2013), while article 35 still read “Supreme Federal Court”. The STJ can refuse homologation on grounds that mirror article V of the New York Convention: a party’s incapacity, an invalid agreement, lack of notice, an award beyond the agreement, an irregular tribunal, or an award not yet binding or set aside (art 38). It can also refuse for non-arbitrability under Brazilian law or an offence to national public order (art 39). The homologation itself follows the Code of Civil Procedure, which checks a competent authority, regular service even in default, effectiveness in the country of origin, an official translation, no manifest public-order offence and no conflict with a Brazilian decision already final, a matter of res judicata (arts 960 §3, 961, 963). Enforcement then goes to the competent federal court (art 965).^1,4,14

The STJ treats homologation as a formal review. In SEC 6.365 the Corte Especial held that the court looks only at the formal requirements, not the merits, and that notice by email, courier and fax under the parties’ agreement did not offend public order. In SEC 11.106 it accepted that the obligations in a contract may be split between arbitration and the courts, and said homologation only “libera a eficácia nela contida”, releases the effect already in the award.^14,15

A Brazilian award is enforced abroad under the New York Convention, the 1958 treaty on recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, which has 172 parties; see New York Convention grounds and, for how courts weigh an award’s making against enforcement, AI and award enforcement. For enforcing a Brazilian award in England, see arbitration in London.⁶

What changed recently, and what is pending?

The last enacted change is the 2015 reform, Law 13,129 of 2015. It let the public administration arbitrate, created court-ordered interim relief before the tribunal and the carta arbitral (arts 22-A to 22-C), made the start of an arbitration interrupt limitation (art 19 §2), reworded the 90-day window to annul an award that the original Act had already set (art 33 §1) and updated art 35 to name the STJ as the court that homologates foreign awards, a competence it already held under the Constitution.^1,2

A bill to amend the Act is pending. PL 3,293/2021, in the Chamber of Deputies, would discipline arbitrator conduct and sharpen the duty of disclosure, so an arbitrator would have to reveal any fact that raises even a minimum doubt, a “dúvida mínima”, about their impartiality, together with the number of arbitrations they are sitting in. It would cap an arbitrator at ten concurrent appointments, require disclosure to continue after the procedure ends, and make annulment actions public. As of 30 October 2026 it sits at the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJC), marked “Aguardando Parecer”, awaiting the rapporteur’s report, subject to conclusive committee decision; its last recorded movement was on 28 April 2025. It is not law. The general AI bill is covered in the AI section below.²¹

What does Brazil say about AI in arbitration?

Brazil regulates AI in the courts and is debating a general AI statute, but no AI rule is written for arbitration: Law 9,307 is silent on it, and CAMARB’s 2019 rules do not address it. For the broader treatment, see AI in arbitration, and for the court-annulment angle, AI use and setting aside arbitral awards.^1,9

CNJ Resolution 615 of 11 March 2025 sets guidelines for the development, use and governance of AI in the Judiciary. Its article 10 bans certain judicial uses: AI with no human review or that creates absolute dependence on its output; profiling to predict crime or to ground labour decisions; ranking people to assess the plausibility of their rights, the merits of their case or their testimony; and biometric emotion recognition. The resolution is scoped to the courts and does not reach private arbitration. CNJ Resolution 674 of 25 March 2026 amended it, changing article 15 on the national AI committee for the Judiciary.^19,20

A general AI framework is working through Congress. PL 2,338/2023 was approved by the Senate plenary on 10 December 2024 and sent to the Chamber of Deputies. As of 30 October 2026 it is pending there, marked “Aguardando Parecer”, with its last recorded movement on 27 October 2026. It is a general statute on developing and using AI, not an arbitration rule. For how institutions compare on AI, see the AI rules tracker.²²

What is still open in Brazilian arbitration?

• Whether PL 3,293/2021 advances, and whether its stricter disclosure duty, its cap of ten concurrent appointments and the publicity of annulment actions become law.
• Whether PL 2,338/2023 passes the Chamber of Deputies, and how a general AI statute would touch arbitration.
• CAM-CCBC’s own rules and fees, which we could not verify because the site was not opened, are the main gap to close.
• How the STJ settles when an arbitral award counts as delivered for the out-of-time nullity ground, filing in the record against notice to the parties, after REsp 2.210.332/SC.
• That no Brazilian authority has yet addressed AI use inside an arbitration, as opposed to in the courts.^16,19,21,22