2.0 BIFURCATION IN ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS: ORIGIN AND TYPES
Particularly, the power of the arbitral tribunal to bifurcate jurisdictional issues derives from Article 41(2) of the International Convention for Settlement of Investment Disputes
On the other hand, by virtue of Article 44 of the ICSID Convention, bifurcation of arbitral proceedings may be of 'jurisdictional issues'. It may also be of 'merits.'
3.0 BIFURCATION ON GROUND OF JURISDICTION
For the tribunal to grant a request for bifurcation on jurisdictional ground, it must be satisfied that:
4.0 BIFURCATION OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS: CASE ANALYSIS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS
As it is, there appear to be a dearth of precedents on bifurcation of arbitral proceedings. This is more so in the Indian scenario. Hence, we shall deal with cases from other Jurisdictions which may well clear the path for the foreign cases, as and when they materialize.
5.0 BIFURCATION OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS: THE Indian POSITION
'An arbitral tribunal shall be competent to rule on questions pertaining to its own jurisdiction and on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement.'
'The arbitral tribunal may rule on any plea referred to it under subsection (3) of this section either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits; and such ruling shall be final and binding.'
As it is popularly asserted, anything that has advantages may well have disadvantages. With regard to bifurcation of arbitral proceedings, statistics has proven that it does not always ensure time-saving. This is because splitting a matter into different categories for separate hearings may not be as quick as hearing the matter all at once. Nevertheless, one thing is certain- bifurcation of arbitral proceedings better facilitates the ends of justice, thoroughness and efficiency. This concept is in need of further clarification so that this procedural device may work properly and ensure a more effective case management. The International Convention for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is yet to furnish this clarification as information on ICSID tribunals' decisions on bifurcation is largely lacking and not often publicly available.
In any case, the goal and aim of the arbitral tribunal is to issue a final decision at the earliest moment. However, if the arbitral tribunal is not able to issue a final award on the merits, it has to deal with issues of at least a procedural nature. In doing this, it should deal with preliminary issues before going on to the merits. Thus, it is a working submission that the arbitral tribunal has the statutorily backing to bifurcate arbitral proceedings in India, by virtue of section 12(4) of the Arbitration Act.
 See Saipem SPA v. The People's Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARC/05/07, 30 June 2009, para. 90.
 Lalive, 'Some Objections to Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration', in International Commercial Arbitration Important Contemporary Questions (2002 ICCA Congress, London)
 William W. Park, Arbitrator's Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction, ICCA Congress, Montréal 2006, 13 ICCA 8
Congress Series 55, "Selected Scenarios of Jurisdiction in Practice", p. 148 ff.
 Tulip Real Estate v. Turkey (Tulip Real Estate v. Turkey, para. 37).
 SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan, (ICSID ARB/01/13), Decision on jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, para. 184).
 Phoenix Action v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award 7 April 2009
 See section 49, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18 LFN 2004. See also Gilbert v. Wright (1904) 20 TLR 104, Re Becker, Shillan & Co. (1921) 1 K.B 391.
 In CME Czech Republic B. V. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), the Partial Award, was delivered on 13 September 2001. Final Award on 14 March 2003.
 In Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) a partial award was delivered on 17 March 2006, para 20. Here, an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration was initiated by a Notice of Arbitration from 18 July 2001.
 Where the final award was rendered on 3 September 2001. The Notice of arbitration was brought on 19 August 12, 1999.
 As reported by UNCTAD in a 2010 report on "Latest Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement"; Of the total 357 known disputes, 225 were filed with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or under the ICSID Additional Facility, 91 under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules, 19 with the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, eight were administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, five with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and four are ad hoc cases. One further case was filed with the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (RCICA). And any of the said investment arbitration is not barred of bifurcation by the applicable rules. Specifically, in an ICSID and ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration the issue of an award on jurisdiction is a common practice not an exception.
 Cap A18 LFN, 2004
 William Park, supra. See note (iii).
 See generally the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2004) (http://www.ibanet.org/LPD/ 3Dispute_Resolution_Section/Arbitration/Projects.aspx#guidelines).
 See section 12(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18, LFN 2004.