(a) The arbitration tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with such rules of law as are chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given state shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that state and not to its conflict of laws rules.
§ 9-9-50.Rules applicable to disputes
Chapter 9. Arbitration · Article 1. General Provisions · Last amended 2012 · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceSection 9-9-50 has the tribunal apply the substantive law the parties chose (treating a chosen jurisdiction’s law as its substantive law, not its conflict-of-laws rules), falls back to whatever law the tribunal’s own conflict-of-laws analysis selects if the parties didn’t choose, permits decisions on equity only if the parties expressly authorized it, and always requires the tribunal to honor the contract’s terms and relevant trade usage.
Full Text of § 9-9-50
(b) Failing any designation by the parties, the arbitration tribunal shall apply the law determined by the conflict of laws rules which it considers applicable.
(c) The arbitration tribunal shall decide ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur only if the parties have expressly authorized it to do so.
(d) In all cases, the arbitration tribunal shall decide in accordance with the terms of the contract and shall take into account the usages of the trade applicable to the transaction.
Plain-English Summary
This section answers the question every international arbitration eventually faces: whose law governs the merits? The starting point is party choice — the tribunal applies whatever rules of law the parties picked to govern the substance of their dispute. And when parties designate “the law of” a particular jurisdiction, that means the substantive law of that place, not its conflict-of-laws rules, unless they say otherwise. That distinction avoids an endless loop where one jurisdiction’s conflict rules just point somewhere else.
If the parties never made a choice, the tribunal doesn’t pick a law at random. It runs its own conflict-of-laws analysis and applies whatever substantive law that analysis points to.
Two more limits round out the section. A tribunal can only decide the case on equitable grounds — ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur, deciding what feels fair rather than strictly applying legal rules — if the parties expressly gave it that authority; it is not a default power. And no matter which law governs, the tribunal always has to give effect to what the contract says and factor in the trade usages that apply to the transaction.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the tribunal decide which country’s law governs the dispute?
It applies the rules of law the parties chose as applicable to the substance of the dispute, and treats a designation of a jurisdiction’s “law” as referring to its substantive law, not its conflict-of-laws rules, unless the parties say otherwise.
What law applies if the parties never agreed on a governing law?
The tribunal applies the law selected by whichever conflict-of-laws rules it considers applicable.
Can the tribunal decide the case based on fairness instead of strict legal rules?
Only if the parties have expressly authorized the tribunal to decide ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur — that authority is not available by default.
Does the tribunal have to follow the actual terms of the parties’ contract?
Yes — in all cases, the tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Does trade custom play any role in the tribunal’s decision?
Yes — the tribunal must take into account the usages of the trade applicable to the transaction, regardless of which body of law otherwise governs.
Amendment History
Code 1981, § 9-9-50, enacted by Ga. L. 2012, p. 961, § 1/SB 383.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, published by the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Georgia Code Revision Commission / LexisNexis. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: georgia arbitration choice of lawex aequo et bono arbitration georgiagoverning law international arbitrationtrade usage arbitration decision