2026 PAW: Construction Arbitration in Transition: Trends, Risks, and a Blueprint for Better Practice

Paris Arbitration Week (“PAW”) 2026 once again confirmed the central role of construction and infrastructure disputes within international arbitration. Against the backdrop of geopolitical instability, economic pressure, and rapid technological development, two standout panels offered complementary perspectives on how the field is evolving and how it can improve.

These sessions provided a coherent picture: while construction arbitration continues to evolve in response to external pressures, its effectiveness ultimately depends on disciplined practice, strategic thinking, and procedural innovation.

I. New Trends in International Construction Arbitration

The first event, New Trends in International Construction Arbitration, organised by the Istanbul Arbitration Center (“ISTAC”), focused on emerging developments shaping construction disputes, including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) obligations, technological change, and regional challenges. The panel featured Ziya Akıncı (ISTAC), Hamid Gharavi (Derains & Gharavi), and was moderated by Çağrı Cem (Tahan Cem), with contributions from Michael Lightfoot (Gateley Legal), François Paetzold (SSB AG), David Coyne (Diales), and Akın Volkan Arıkan (Arıkan Partners).

Kicking the panel off, Akıncı introduced the rising arbitration center with strength and experience in handling construction arbitration in particular. ISTAC’s procedural efficiency, fast track mechanisms that have been proven to minimize timelines to months, and expertise in the area were highlighted. Akıncı also touched upon the critical position of Turkiye in the current geopolitical climate, since the region has been highly affected by the ongoing conflict and relevant sanctions. Remaining as a stable and reliable hub for arbitration, Turkiye and ISTAC pose a safe harbour for construction projects that involve foreign investment and cross-border interest. Accordingly, Akıncı cited the rising number of disputes handled by the institution, broadening their portfolio, especially regarding mid-size international disputes.

A General Scope into Construction Arbitration and Regional Challenges

Gharavi introduced the general framework of construction cases and infrastructure disputes. In light of the current events in areas that have been attracting major foreign investment and construction projects for the past decade, he highlighted that, drawing on his case experience, there has been a rise in claims linked to projects that are no longer financially or security-wise viable in conflict-affected regions.

Economic instability and cash flow constraints were addressed by Gharavi as the main culprits of disputes and the elements that posed pressure on contractors, leading to claims raised due to performance and compensation. He also underlined that many arbitrators have been seeing cases in which state parties, especially more resource-rich jurisdictions, choose to settle and minimize the time and resources that flow into lengthy arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, Gharavi named Turkiye as an attractive destination not only for new construction investments, but also for resolving any disputes that may arise from such projects. The importance of carefully assessing jurisdictional conditions and admissibility requirements was underscored, especially in construction disputes, where the lack of substantial work in this regard may override the strength of the case on its merits.

Gharavi explained the anatomy of possible disputes under multiple alternatives. First, disputes arising from contractual claims that, from time to time, include umbrella clauses. Such instances may, in the future, develop the dispute itself to the level of treaty breaches. Second, with the introduction of the sovereign capacity of a state party, the dispute may become more multifaceted. This also brings together regulatory discrepancies as well; for example, a project may receive approval at the federal level, only for local authorities to refuse renewal or extension at a later stage. Therefore, especially for major projects involving state parties, the jurisdictional and substantive analysis may get complicated during the proceedings.

Rising ESG Considerations in Construction Disputes

The panel subsequently addressed the question of the rising interest in ESG compliance in construction disputes. Paetzold noted that there is a prominent rise in ESG requirements in construction contracts, and such requirements are even becoming a central feature, which reflects both local and international regulatory expectations. Lightfoot similarly named ESG considerations as permanent elements of standard form contracts for construction projects, particularly relating to environmental performance and sustainability. Not only from a secondary compliance lens, but also ESG was found to carry a strategic role or even a selling point in some projects.

The Effect of Technological Developments on Construction Arbitration

As it is impossible to avoid the involvement of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in any modern sector, the panellists were also asked to address how this new tool was introduced to the dispute resolution realm. Coyne, having a more technical perspective on the construction arbitration handling, highlighted the practical benefits that AI tools provide during cases. In comparison to human capital, being able to process large volumes of data, organize documentation during the written stage and production of documents later, and adapting to the multinational and multilingual nature of arbitration have been the strong suits of AI. For experts in delay analysis like Coyne himself, these tools are handy in analysing the delay with documented records.

On the other side of the panel, Arıkan represented the more conservative approach towards the use of AI in arbitral proceedings. It was mentioned that, even though the ongoing transition from document-focused processes to a more data-driven one is inevitable, the decision-making must be handled exclusively by human reason. Arıkan concluded his words, saying that the use of AI in awards would significantly undermine the role of arbitrators and deem them obsolete.

The rising interest in AI was compared to earlier technological developments, such as Building Information Modelling (“BIM”), which was thought to revolutionize construction projects. However, BIM’s areas of use and the efficiency gained from it have been limited. Accordingly, a similar diminishing curve of the benefits gained from modern technologies may appear in the long run after the AI craze.

II. The Art of Construction and Infrastructure Disputes: A Blueprint for Better Arbitration (CMS)

As infrastructure and energy projects grow in scale, ambition, and urgency, so too does the complexity of disputes arising from them. Against a backdrop of compressed timelines, evolving regulatory frameworks, and mounting geopolitical pressures, arbitration practitioners are increasingly called upon to manage disputes that are both high-value and high-risk. In this regard, the second event, The Art of Construction and Infrastructure Disputes: A Blueprint for Better Arbitration, hosted by CMS and moderated by Shale Daly (CMS), featuring David Melchior (Westinghouse Energy Systems), Margie Skeen (Fluor), Michael Grüb (GE Grid Solutions), Sarah Vasani (Vasani International Arbitration), and Tomas Vaal (Netherlands Arbitration Institute), discussed improving arbitration practice, from dispute prevention and case management to procedural efficiency and tribunal engagement.

Preventing Disputes at the Project Design Stage

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was that the most effective disputes are those that never arise. Melchior opened by emphasising the importance of structuring projects in a way that minimises the likelihood of claims. Central to this objective is the careful drafting of contractual provisions, particularly those allocating risk. Clear, precise, and balanced risk allocation, he argued, remains one of the most powerful tools available to parties seeking to avoid disputes altogether.

Skeen complemented this perspective by shifting the focus from contractual drafting to project execution. Even the most well-drafted contracts, she noted, can give rise to disputes if misapplied in practice. Poor communication, strategic misuse of contractual provisions, and adversarial conduct during performance often generate unnecessary claims. In this sense, dispute prevention is as much about behaviour as it is about drafting.

The Role and Limits of Dispute Adjudication Boards

The panel also examined the role of Dispute Adjudication Boards (“DABs”), particularly in large-scale construction projects. Michael Grüb underscored the advantages of standing DABs, highlighting their ability to deliver prompt decisions in real time as disputes arise. This immediacy can be critical in keeping projects on track and preventing disputes from escalating.

However, Skeen cautioned that, in practice, DABs, especially ad hoc, are sometimes misused. Rather than serving as streamlined dispute resolution mechanisms, they risk becoming quasi-arbitral proceedings, with parties submitting extensive claims that undermine efficiency. Moreover, the lack of finality in DAB decisions, which may ultimately be revisited in arbitration, raises questions about duplication of effort and costs.

Despite these concerns, Grüb maintained that DABs serve an important “sanitising” function. By filtering and narrowing disputes at an early stage, they can reduce the number and scope of issues that proceed to arbitration.

Emerging Sources of Disputes: Geopolitics and Beyond

While traditional construction disputes, such as variations, delays, and disruptions, remain prevalent, the panel highlighted the emergence of new drivers of conflict. Vasani pointed in particular to the impact of geopolitical developments, including ongoing conflicts and global instability. These factors introduce new complexities into causation analyses, affecting supply chains, material costs, transportation, tariffs, and the invocation of force majeure. Skeen echoed this point, noting that such external pressures are increasingly shaping the disputes landscape in infrastructure and energy projects.

These developments reflect a broader shift: construction disputes are no longer confined to technical or contractual issues but are increasingly influenced by macroeconomic and geopolitical forces.

Rethinking Case Management in Arbitration

To the question of whether arbitration is fully leveraging its hallmark flexibility, Vasani responded that it often is not. She advocated for a more proactive and strategic approach to case management, beginning with arbitrator selection. In line with professional guidelines (such as those of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators), parties should make greater use of arbitrator interviews: not to probe substantive views, but to assess availability, procedural preferences, and willingness to actively manage proceedings. Questions regarding how arbitrators would address dilatory tactics or whether they would consider interim cost sanctions can be particularly valuable.

Case Management Conferences (“CMCs”) were another underutilised tool. Vasani suggested that involving clients directly in early CMCs can underscore the commercial imperative for efficiency. She also proposed scheduling procedural steps, such as expert meetings, well in advance, even if their necessity remains uncertain. This proactive planning can significantly streamline proceedings.

Importantly, she encouraged tribunals to facilitate dialogue between parties, particularly in the early stages of a dispute. For example, convening experts before document production may narrow the issues in dispute and reduce the scope of disclosure. In one case cited, advancing quantum analysis helped determine whether pursuing liability issues was even worthwhile, thereby saving considerable time and costs.

Vasani also warned against “over-lawyering.” Excessive submissions, sprawling document production requests, and guerrilla tactics not only burden proceedings but risk alienating tribunals. Focus, clarity, and strategic restraint, she argued, are far more effective.

Cooperation and Focus

Skeen reinforced the importance of cooperation between parties. Drawing on her experience, she noted that agreeing in advance on procedural matters, such as hearing structure, sequencing of arguments, and time allocation, can greatly enhance efficiency and reduce confusion. She also emphasised the value of narrowing the issues in dispute. Selecting the most material arguments and avoiding unnecessary complexity helps maintain the tribunal’s focus on what truly matters. In relation to expert evidence, Skeen advocated for greater use of joint expert reports. By encouraging experts to agree on common ground and clearly identify areas of disagreement, parties can significantly streamline the tribunal’s task.

Enhancing Efficiency Through Greater Party Involvement

Vaal highlighted the benefits of increased party involvement in arbitral proceedings. As the individuals most familiar with the underlying facts, party representatives can play a crucial role in improving efficiency and ensuring that proceedings remain grounded in commercial realities.

He also pointed to institutional innovations, such as the Netherlands Arbitration Institute’s (“NAI”) digital platform, which allows party representatives to access and engage with case materials more effectively.

Vaal further discussed the introduction of mandatory CMCs under the 2024 NAI Arbitration Rules. While some tribunals have been reluctant to embrace these provisions due to concerns about limiting their procedural discretion, such measures can promote greater consistency and efficiency in practice.

Finally, he addressed the challenges posed by document production, which can significantly delay proceedings and, in some cases, be used tactically. The possibility of cost sanctions, he suggested, may help deter such conduct.

Streamlining Document Production

Returning to the issue of document production, Sarah offered a practical insight: requests are often drafted by junior lawyers keen to avoid omissions, resulting in overly broad and burdensome disclosure exercises. One effective strategy to mitigate this, she suggested, is to bring together parties, counsel, and experts early in the process. While this approach depends on the willingness of the parties, it can substantially reduce the scope of document production by clarifying what is genuinely in dispute.

Conclusion

These two panels highlighted both continuity and change in construction arbitration. While external pressures such as geopolitical instability, ESG requirements, and technological innovation are reshaping the landscape, the effectiveness of arbitration continues to depend on fundamental principles: clear contracts, disciplined advocacy, procedural efficiency, and meaningful engagement between parties, counsel, and tribunals. In this sense, the “blueprint” for better arbitration lies not in reinventing the process, but in using its existing tools more thoughtfully and effectively.

This post is part of Kluwer Arbitration Blog’s coverage of Paris Arbitration Week 2026.