Draft Emergency Application For Interim Measures

---
name: draft-emergency-application-for-interim-measures
task_id: arbitration-international-dispute-resolution/draft-emergency-application-for-interim-measures
description: Ensures an ICC interim measures application seeking letter of credit restraint and continued supply addresses the letter of credit autonomy principle directly, tests any no-oral-modification clause against extension or waiver communications, and frames any termination issue in support of irreparable harm.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: ICC Emergency Interim Measures Application (LC Restraint and Continued Supply)

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Treat this as a time-sensitive arbitral application for emergency or interim relief, not a merits brief.
- Identify the relief requested, the decision-maker, the governing arbitration rules, the underlying contract, and the factual trigger for urgency before drafting.
- If the source set contains multiple instruments or counterparties, enumerate them first and map each requested order to the correct instrument and actor.
- Draft the primary application first; any cover email, filing note, or transmittal is secondary.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Avoids pleading for LC restraint as if the underlying contract dispute alone defeats a complying demand; the application must confront the autonomy principle head-on and then plead the narrow basis for restraint.
- Misses that the draw basis may turn on the accuracy of the demand figure or supporting statement; the application should test the source documents for mismatched amounts, dates, or triggering events.
- Ignores a no-oral-modification clause or treats later extension/waiver communications as irrelevant; the application should analyze whether those communications support modification, waiver, or estoppel.
- Treats supply continuation as if it were simple prohibitory relief; it is mandatory relief and needs a stronger showing on urgency, necessity, and irreparable harm.
- Fails to assess whether termination was procedurally effective under notice-and-cure requirements, weakening the narrative for continued performance.
- Describes breach in the abstract without tying it to materiality, payment history, and the practical consequences of interruption.
- States legal conclusions without naming the governing rule, treaty article, arbitral rule, or doctrine that supports them.
- Drafts a general dispute summary instead of a targeted application with specific orders, urgency facts, and a clear litigation path.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Letter of credit autonomy principle: a standby or other letter of credit is independent of the underlying contract; a tribunal should only interfere in narrow circumstances recognized by the applicable law and arbitral framework.
- Fraud or analogous exception to autonomy: restraint generally requires a concrete, evidence-based showing that the demand is fraudulent, abusive, or otherwise outside the protection of autonomy under the governing law.
- ICC interim or emergency relief framework: plead the tribunal’s or emergency decision-maker’s authority under the applicable ICC rules and any governing law on interim measures.
- Provisional relief standards: emphasize urgency, risk of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience; for mandatory relief, explain why preservation of the status quo requires affirmative action.
- No-oral-modification, waiver, and estoppel doctrines: test whether later written or emailed communications, conduct, or extensions can operate as a modification, waiver, or estoppel under the governing law.
- Notice-and-cure and termination provisions: if the contract prescribes pre-termination steps, analyze whether they were completed and whether any purported termination was effective.
- Material breach and performance history: evaluate late payment, cure, prior tolerance, or course of dealing in context rather than as isolated events.
- Contractual and procedural authority: cite the arbitration clause, ICC rules, governing law provisions, and any relevant statutory or case authority for each legal proposition actually relied on.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Begin with a short procedural posture section: who is asking, what is being asked for, why the tribunal can act now, and what event created the emergency.
- Separate the relief into distinct heads, and analyze each head on its own logic rather than blending LC restraint and supply continuation together.
- For LC restraint, state the autonomy principle first, then identify the specific exception urged, then connect that exception to the source record with concrete facts.
- For the draw challenge, verify the opposing party’s figures and stated basis against the documents in the file; flag discrepancies and explain how they bear on entitlement to draw.
- For supply continuation, explain why damages would be inadequate, why interruption would cause operational harm, and why the order is needed before the tribunal can be constituted or can hear the merits.
- For no-oral-modification analysis, identify the clause, then test later communications for express written amendment, waiver, or estoppel-style reliance.
- For termination, reconstruct the notice, cure, default, and termination sequence chronologically; if steps were skipped or compressed, use that defect to support urgency and irreparable harm.
- For materiality, situate the alleged breach against prior performance, payment behavior, cures, and any tolerance shown in the course of dealing.
- When the record contains more than one timeline, party, or contested event, lay them out separately before analysis; do not collapse distinct episodes into a single narrative.
- End each head of relief with the precise order sought, framed in tribunal-ready terms.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Use chronology as the organizing spine: contract formation, performance history, notice, alleged default, communications, threatened draw, termination steps, filing window, and requested interim period.
- Distinguish vertical relationships between the contract, the LC, any amendments or extensions, and the arbitration agreement; do not let the LC analysis bleed into the underlying merits without signaling the boundary.
- Where there are layered decision-makers or instruments, specify which actor must be restrained, which party must continue performance, and which undertaking or security is implicated.
- If the application seeks both restraint and continued supply, explain how the two forms of relief interact temporally: preserve funds or status quo now, maintain performance pending constitution of the tribunal, and avoid irreversible downstream disruption.
- If the source set includes multiple alternative triggers or contingencies, enumerate them first and then analyze each separately; do not merge alternative factual predicates.

## 6. Output structure conventions
- Write as an application to the tribunal or emergency decision-maker in formal advocacy style.
- Use a conventional sequence: introduction and relief sought; factual background; jurisdiction and procedural basis; interim relief standard; LC restraint; continued supply; no-oral-modification / waiver / estoppel; termination and irreparable harm; balance of convenience; proposed orders; urgency and timeline.
- Make the requested orders specific and operational, identifying the restrained conduct, the affirmative supply obligation, the duration of relief, and any reporting or undertaking requirements.
- Include a short, date-driven urgency section that shows why relief is needed before the main arbitration can be constituted or before the threatened act occurs.
- Cite controlling authority inline where each legal proposition is advanced, using the governing law, ICC rules, treaty article, statute, regulation, or leading case as appropriate.
- Keep the draft self-contained and action-oriented; do not leave the reader to infer the legal basis or the practical effect of the order.