2025 LAW: Flagship Conference

On 3 December 2025, the Old Library of the Guildhall in London opened its doors to the flagship conference of the inaugural London Arbitration Week (“LAW”). Practitioners, academics, government lawyers, funders and arbitrators from multiple jurisdictions convened to reflect on the rule of law and its role within an increasingly fragmented international landscape.

Across a day of keynote remarks and panels addressing legislative reforms, disputes involving sovereigns, geopolitical pressures, and cross-border enforcement, a unifying message emerged: the rule of law is under strain, and international arbitration faces a growing wave of criticism. To meet these challenges, speakers urged the arbitration community to continue engaging on ongoing reforms, to abandon costly and time-consuming practices, and to demonstrate through conduct that arbitration remains a legitimate and indispensable component of the rule of law.

Welcome Remarks and Keynote

The conference opened with welcome remarks from Paula Hodges KC, who highlighted London’s continued position as one of the world’s most active centres for dispute resolution. Home to the LCIA, LCAM, the QMUL School of International Arbitration, CIArb and a dense concentration of practitioners and arbitrators, London, she noted, remains a natural gathering point for international arbitration.

In his keynote, Professor Stavros Brekoulakis (National University of Singapore, 3VB) traced the foundations of the post-war international economic order (embodied in the creation of ICSID and WTO) to a fundamental belief that international commerce must be governed by law rather than State power. This rules-based order, he warned, is now under visible strain. The erosion of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, withdrawals from the Energy Charter Treaty, and even domestic guidance discouraging compliance with arbitral awards, all point to a declining commitment to international adjudication.

Professor Brekoulakis highlighted that the rule of law rests on two core principles: the supremacy of law over arbitrary State action and access to neutral adjudicatory bodies. Both are threatened when States portray international obligations as optional or subordinate to domestic political priorities. Restoring confidence in international institutions, he argued, requires renewed legitimacy, particularly through the meaningful integration of public-interest considerations into the review of awards involving States and public entities. Only then, he concluded, can the international community preserve the integrity of the rule-based order.

Global Legislative and Judicial Trends in Arbitration

Moderated by Shan Greer (BVI-IAC), the first panel surveyed recent legislative reforms and jurisprudential developments across several jurisdictions.

Siân Mirchandani KC (4 New Square Chambers) presented key features of the English Arbitration Act 2025 (“EEA”), highlighting the statutory clarification that, absent express choice, the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement. She also introduced the LCAM's expedited blockchain arbitration rules, tailored to digital-asset disputes and capable of producing awards within four months. Turning to case law, she noted pro-arbitration decisions such as Orange Transgroup v. Shein and K1 v. B, while also emphasising the recognition of consumer rights as public policy in Payward Inc. v. Chechetkin.

Turning to South America, César Pereira C.Arb FCIArb (Justen, Pereira, Oliveira & Talamini) highlighted Peru’s adoption of mandatory arbitration in post-government contracts, echoing Brazil’s long-standing model. He discussed Ecuador’s referendum rejecting the reinstatement of international arbitration for State entities and emphasised the growing role of contract-based investment arbitration, strengthened by ongoing ICC and UNIDROIT initiatives.

Robert Pé (Arbitration Chambers) reported that Hong Kong is considering reform of its Arbitration Ordinance. He emphasised the success of the 2019 Mainland–Hong Kong interim-measures arrangement and the 2024 HKIAC Rules, which strengthen diversity requirements, cybersecurity obligations and environmental considerations. Recent decisions confirm Hong Kong’s modern approach: service of notices of arbitration by SMS, judicial deference on virtual versus in-person hearings, and the rare setting aside of an award due to improper arbitrator conduct in a virtual hearing.

Professor Michael Hwang SC outlined the SIDRA Committee’s proposed reforms on Singapore International Arbitration Act, including allowing courts to award costs in successful set-aside applications and introducing a leave requirement for appeals. The Committee recommends retaining the three-month filing period, subject to fraud or corruption, creating an opt-in appeal on questions of law, and incorporating summary disposal to enhance procedural efficiency.

Last but not least, Nania Owusu-Ankomah Sackey (Bentsi-Enchill, Letsa & Ankomah) highlighted sweeping legislative modernisation across Africa. Several jurisdictions have updated arbitration statutes in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law, while institutions have embraced virtual and hybrid hearings, e-filing and third-party funding. Mauritius and Nigeria are emerging as regional hubs, with Nigeria’s Arbitration and Mediation Act notably allowing tribunal-level review of awards. Judicial support is growing, notwithstanding isolated setbacks such as a Kenya decision setting aside an award on grounds of disproportionate costs.

Shifting Paradigms in Arbitration Involving Sovereigns: Balancing Rule of Law and Access to Justice

Moderated by Dr Crina Baltag (QMUL), the panel explored disputes involving States, the climate transition and procedural legitimacy.

Mariana Pinto Schmidt (Chile Government), explored the tension between States’ environmental obligations and duties under investment treaties. Climate-related measures in the fossil-fuel sector have triggered disputes such as Exxon v. Netherlands and Rockhopper v. Italy. She warned of “regulatory chill” affecting renewable-energy incentives and noted that modern treaties increasingly delineate regulatory space. While older treaties lack such safeguards, she argued that their provisions must still be interpreted in light of contemporary climate obligations.

Kai-Uwe Karl (GE Renewable Energy) highlighted the increasing number of disputes arising from the energy transition and the failure of many legal systems to adapt commercial law frameworks to the realities of long-term renewable energy projects. Uncertainty over the enforceability of limitation-of-liability clauses, he argued, threatens investment and may undermine States’ decarbonisation commitments.

Lucy Winnington-Ingram (Reed Smith) focused on the persistent problem of parallel proceedings involving treaty and contract claims, raising concerns about cost, efficiency, inconsistent results and double recovery. She highlighted the limits of fork-in-the-road clauses (which typically require triple identity) and divergent approaches of tribunals, citing Patel v. Mozambique, in which an ICC tribunal enjoined the claimant from pursuing UNCITRAL proceedings (an order ultimately disregarded by the latter). She concluded that any type of solution will remain dependent on party consent and institutional coordination.

Ayse Yazir (Bench Walk Advisors) discussed challenges faced by funders in climate-related investor-State claims, particularly uncertainty around damages and causation. While commercial claims remain attractive, ISDS cases carry higher risks, including State delay tactics. She also expressed support for the UNCITRAL Working Group III’s case-by-case approach to security for costs and emphasised the need for rigorous due diligence on funders, as insufficient funds can jeopardise claims.

The Evolving Landscape of the Rule of Law in the Current Geopolitical Climate: Risks and Opportunities for ADR

The panel, moderated by Cristen Bauer (CIArb), examined how geopolitical environment is reshaping international law and the legitimacy of international dispute resolution mechanisms.

Marike Paulsson (Council for International Dispute Resolution of the Kingdom of Bahrain) opened with a powerful call, urging legal professionals to embrace their role as gatekeepers of international law amid rising “electrifying sovereign forces”. This growing sovereigntist mindset, she warned, fuels anti-arbitration sentiment and a perceived retreat from international legality. She urged the professionals to engage with State representatives involved in reform processes and emphasised the growing importance of negotiation and mediation.

Lord Christopher Bellamy KC (Monckton Chambers), identified four core elements of the rule of law: legality, equality before the law, independent adjudication, and effective access to justice. While the UK remains strong, he pointed to systemic pressures such as court delays and prohibitive litigation costs, mirrored in arbitration through concerns over costs, inequality of arms and confidentiality in matters of public interest. Referencing Uber v. Heller and Pechstein v. Switzerland, he questioned whether arbitration consistently delivers timely and affordable justice.

Drawing on his experience at the European Court of Human Rights, Tim Eicke KC (Essex Court Chambers) reflected on the Court’s approaches to Russia’s actions in Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014) and Ukraine (2022). Even after Russia’s expulsion, the Court continued documenting violations to preserve an authoritative legal record. He noted the Court’s reliance on investment arbitration awards when assessing the legality of the Crimea occupation, evidence of cross-fertilisation between dispute resolution systems. Maintaining such records, he argued, is essential to prevent impunity and support future re-engagement.

On a positive note, Toby Landau KC (Duxton Hill) emphasised the remarkable resilience of the transnational arbitration framework built on the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law. Arbitration still provides neutral, depoliticised and predictable adjudication essential to global commerce. He called on counsel, arbitrators and academics to protect system legitimacy by avoiding delay, excessive cost, bias and over-zealous advocacy, and by embracing their role as guardians of an indispensable legal structure.

Turning Awards into Assets: The Rule of Law in Cross-Border Enforcement

Moderated by Sebastian Neave (Veleda), this panel addressed the increasingly complex world of award enforcement.

Christiane Deniger (Burford Capital), stressed that enforcement proceedings can take 3–5 years, often cost more than the underlying arbitration, and debtors are increasingly sophisticated in concealing assets. Sometimes, she noted, successful enforcement simply requires waiting for mistakes, such as identifying a debtor’s yacht from a photograph posted by a friend of his children on Instagram.

In turn, The Rt. Hon. Dame Elizabeth Gloster, DBE, PC (One Essex Court) expressed concern about speculative claims and counter-claims, which can obstruct settlement discussions. She urged defendants to consider security for costs applications, although tribunals remain cautious in granting those, and noted that security for the claim, while theoretically possible, remains rare. She also highlighted the careful approach of English courts, referencing Djanogly v. Djanogly & Ors, in which the court scrutinised a tribunal’s treatment of limitation periods.

Septimus Knox (SRM), outlined the role of investigators: mapping enforcement jurisdictions, identifying assets, and analysing ownership structures. Complexity varies significantly by jurisdiction, often complicating asset tracing.

David Lee (Appleby), explained that, in the Cayman Islands, disclosure of beneficial-ownership information requires a legitimate interest tied to anti-money-laundering purposes. Asset-recovery litigants therefore face hurdles. Disclosure orders are possible but difficult to obtain, and digital-asset tracing presents additional challenges.

Motion: This House [Does not] Believes that Pleadings Are Better than Memorials

The conference concluded with a lively debate on whether pleadings are better than memorials, a motion that quickly animated the room. It was moderated by Sir Bernard Eder, who set a playful tone by inviting both teams to wear boxing robes and gloves.

The pleadings team, in blue, represented by Judy Fu (3VB) and Franz Schwarz (WilmerHale), sustained for the simplicity of pleadings and the advantages of tailoring evidence to the truly debated issues. Opposing them, the memorials team, in red, Professor Dr Maxi Scherer (ArbBoutique, LCIA, QMUL) and Duncan Bagshaw (Norton Rose Fulbright), argued that memorials offer a more comprehensive and internationally compatible format.

After strong arguments and “punches” on each other positions, the memorials team won the vote by public acclamation.