The seat of the arbitration, which is a mere legal construct and not a physical place, is at the centre of most discussions on commercial arbitration. However, its actual role is the subject of considerable divergences of opinion. The issue is not just a matter for academic discussion. It often arises in the reality of arbitration, whenever arbitral tribunals are confronted with the multitude of procedural and even substantive issues for which no convincing or universally shared solution is available. According to the classic vision, the seat is the alpha and omega of an international arbitration since it is viewed as the source of its legal existence and governs essentially all aspects of the life of the arbitration. The conception at the other end of the spectrum does not recognize any role to the law of the seat, essentially because it considers domestic law as almost irrelevant in arbitration. Neither one of these visions provide an adequate account of the role of the seat in international arbitration, for which reason the authors propose a third approach more in tune with the reality of arbitral practice. Pursuant to the proposed minimalist approach, the seat operates as a connecting factor used by most modern domestic systems to determine the scope of application of their respective arbitration laws and the jurisdiction of their courts over cross-border arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, the connection of an arbitration to its seat is of the same nature of that of a contract to the law designated by the parties as its governing law and to the courts designated by a choice of forum clause.