This study analyzes the concept of “excess of mandate” as a ground for set-aside in International Commercial Arbitration Law. In particular, it compares the US courts’ application of the concept in US law with Swedish courts’ application under Swedish law.

The study employs a standard comparative model. It examines the legal history, case law, statutory law, and legislative history of the two jurisdictions. The study seeks to identify, among other things, factual circumstances that would constitute excess of mandate in both jurisdictions, or lead to differing court rulings in each jurisdiction. Hypothetical scenarios are also used to identify unique and similar outcomes depending on the circumstances of a given case and the way in which the two different court systems apply the concept of excess of mandate.

The study concludes that, despite the fact that excess of mandate is treated as a wide-spread international concept in international arbitration, the concept’s application can vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This is due to, among other things, a given legislature’s purpose for writing the concept into national law and each jurisdiction’s procedural law traditions and practices.