2026 PAW: Bridging Continents: The Turkic Region’s Growing Influence in Arbitration

The 10th edition of Paris Arbitration Week (“PAW”) demonstrated that the core of our profession is international cooperation, a shared commitment to understanding diverse perspectives and engaging with emerging actors from all around the world. As global dynamics evolve, we must broaden our focus to new centres of influence that shape the future of dispute resolution.

For the third consecutive year and held in the Azerbaijan Cultural Centre, the Turkic Arbitration Association invited leading arbitration practitioners and institutional representatives to examine key developments across Turkic jurisdictions. Co-hosted and co-organised by the Azerbaijan Arbitration Association and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, the event featured Anna Guillard Sazhko (Independent Counsel and Arbitrator), Kamalia Mehtiyeva (University of Paris Est Crétel), Patricia Nacimiento (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer), Adilbek Tussupov (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer), Islambek Rustambekov (Tashkent State University of Law), Nazlı Arıkan (Arikan Partners Law Firm) and Christopher Campbell-Holt OBE (AIFC Court and IAC).

Nacimiento opened the event by highlighting Central Asia and the broader Turkic region as an increasingly strategic geopolitical hub. She emphasized shifting global dynamics unfolding around Iran, the growing regional influence of Turkic states, and the urgent need for stable and credible dispute resolution mechanisms. In this context, she positioned the region as a promising emerging center for international arbitration.

Turkey

Starting with Turkey, Arıkan, from a counsel’s perspective, highlighted that arbitration reflects a dynamic and evolving commercial environment, where disputes arise across a wide range of sectors, including corporate, technology, and broader commercial relationships. However, construction and infrastructure projects continue to play a significant role. This prominence is closely linked to the strong international presence of Turkish contractors, who successfully undertake major projects across various regions, from Europe to the Middle East and North Africa.

Arıkan also noted that arbitration in the region has gained increasing visibility and institutional strength in recent years. Institutions such as the Istanbul Arbitration Centre provide flexible and user-friendly procedural frameworks that support efficient dispute resolution. This institutional development is complemented by a growing arbitration community composed of experienced lawyers, arbitrators, experts, and companies familiar with arbitration practice.

Uzbekistan

Putting the spotlight on Uzbekistan, Rustambekov highlighted that the solar energy sector has become increasingly active over the past years. While some companies are now bringing investment-related claims against Uzbekistan, the sector’s rapid growth has naturally led to more arbitration, litigation, and alternative dispute resolution cases. He also highlighted that a growing number of law firms are entering Uzbekistan to handle these matters, reflecting the rising prominence of the country in regional investment disputes.

Building on these observations, Tussupov highlighted that, like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan has historically set important precedents in investment disputes and has attracted considerable foreign investment across multiple sectors. Encouragingly, the number of claims against Uzbekistan remains relatively low compared to earlier stages of its economic development.

Another significant positive development that Rustambekov highlighted was the strong support shown by Uzbek courts toward arbitration. According to Rustambekov, approximately 98% of international arbitral awards are recognized and enforced, demonstrating arbitration friendliness of the Uzbek system. In this regard, Tussupov added that while judicial confirmation of awards is essential, it is still important for courts to carefully consider parties' arguments, to ensure that the arbitration system is not abused.

Kazakhstan

The discussion then shifted to the AIFC International Arbitration Center ("IAC") in Astana, exploring the types of disputes it administers. Campbell‑Holt explained that the IAC has grown rapidly since its establishment in 2018 and he also mentioned that the court is now handling nearly 300 arbitrations annually. Tussupov attributed IAC‘s growth, impressive caseload and its track record to the strong State support.

Campbell-Holt said that the IAC is part of the broader institutional framework of the Astana International Financial Centre, which also includes a separate commercial court, the "AIFC Court", where Campbell-Holt also serves as a Registrar and Enforcement Judge. He emphasized that the AIFC Court operates independently from the national judicial system, with judges appointed from the UK. In his account, this structure serves as a necessary safeguard designed to reassure foreign investors through institutional and structural distance from local legal structures. His remarks indicate that the presence of highly experienced foreign judges enhances confidence in the court’s independence and ultimately attracts more investment, as it signals to international investors that the country’s legal environment is recognized by international professionals, and capable of supporting complex cross-border transactions fairly and reliably.

At the same time, this raised the question of whether the institutional model may benefit from further adjustment. Tussupov proposed that future development might benefit from greater inclusion of local lawyers into the bench of the AIFC Court. This could allow for a “spill-over” effect, enabling the exchange of experience between the English judges of the AIFC Court and the local Kazakh lawyers. Similar approach of gradually involving local lawyers has been undertaken by the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC).

Responding to this proposal, Campbell-Holt clarified that the AIFC Court intentionally requires the court to remain composed exclusively of foreign judges, adding, “We will not have Kazakh judges,” to underscore the point. His remarks consistently returned to the importance of external (foreign to Kazakhstan) expertise as the primary foundation of institutional trust. This perspective appeared to diverge from broader panel reflections, which suggested that greater inclusion of qualified lawyers from the Turkic region would be desirable.

Azerbaijan

The discussion then turned to Azerbaijan, where Mehtiyeva addressed whether the country presents unique features in dispute resolution or shares common trends with other Turkic states. She emphasized the strong sense of a growing “Turkic legal family,” reflected in increasing cooperation, recurring arbitration events, and expanding professional networks across the region.

From a sectoral perspective, she explained that Azerbaijan experiences dispute patterns similar to other Turkic jurisdictions, particularly in construction and infrastructure projects. At the same time, renewable energy projects—especially in the solar and wind sectors—are expanding rapidly, often in cooperation with international partners. Alongside these emerging sectors, traditional industries such as oil, gas, and mining continue to play an important role and are likely to remain key sources of future disputes.

Mehtiyeva also emphasized Azerbaijan’s distinctive geopolitical position as a defining feature of its arbitration landscape. Located along major trade routes connecting Europe and Asia, Azerbaijan serves as an important transit and commercial hub. Recent geopolitical developments, including the reopening of regional transport corridors, are expected to increase cross-border commerce and, consequently, dispute resolution activity. She further pointed to the growing importance of the aviation sector and ongoing efforts to explore how arbitration can better serve disputes arising in international air transport.

Conclusion

Beyond its discussions, the event proved to be a truly memorable gathering, owing much to the careful planning and dedication of Guillard Sazkho. The discussion highlighted that the Turkic region is no longer merely emerging but is increasingly positioning itself as a confident and pragmatic actor in the global arbitration landscape. Over the past decade, the region’s commitment to strengthening partnerships, together with evolving regulatory frameworks has allowed it to establish itself as a credible, neutral bridge between Europe and Asia. Beyond institutional reforms, the region’s emphasis on hospitality, service quality, and cost-efficient hearings demonstrates that arbitration friendliness is being developed not only in law, but also in practice.

Equally significant is the human dimension reflected by the panelists themselves. Their perspectives illustrate a generation of highly skilled practitioners combining technical expertise with multilingual capabilities, cultural awareness, and adaptability to diverse legal and commercial environments. This enables professionals from the Turkic region to operate across jurisdictions, reinforcing the region’s role as a natural bridge-builder between different legal traditions, markets, and business cultures and positioning it as an increasingly important connector between Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Its inclusion is therefore not only beneficial within the region but also increasingly essential to arbitration processes globally.