ICCA Madrid 2026: Congress Day One Round-Up

The first full-day of ICCA Madrid 2026, held under the overarching theme International Arbitration: Local, Global or Both?, set the tone for the ICCA Congress (“Congress”) grappling with the central tensions of the field. The Congress opened with institutional remarks from ICCA President Dr. Stanimir Alexandrov and a keynote address by Dr. Hab. Marcin Czepelak, Secretary‑General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, who spoke about arbitration’s enduring strength, and how it is reinforced through its flexibility, enabling both global consistency and local responsiveness. Anna Joubin‑Bret, Secretary of UNCITRAL, closed the session by underscoring the foundational role of the New York Convention and the Model Law, while warning against complacency in the face of digital transformation and evolving legal challenges. With approximately 1,300 participants gathered in Madrid, the opening session framed the Congress’s overarching question as both timely and urgent.

Arbitration as a Stabilising Force in Today’s Geopolitical Landscape

Against a backdrop of resurging power struggles, in the panel moderated by Prof. Vladimir Pavić (University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law) and Tom Sikora (Exxon Mobil Corporation), the speakers David M. Bigge (Wordstone Dispute Resolution), Constantine Partasides KC (Three Crowns LLP), Natalie L. Reid (Debevoise & Plimpton) examined whether state-to-state arbitration can still function as a meaningful instrument of peaceful dispute resolution. Tracing its modern roots to the Jay Treaty of 1794, speakers recalled how arbitration has historically offered political leaders “legitimate cover” to resolve disputes without the domestic cost of negotiated compromise. The Brčko Arbitration was presented as a compelling success story; the South China Sea Arbitration, the Venezuela–Guyana boundary dispute, and the Beagle Channel arbitration each illustrated a different mode of failure. A recurring question was whether the increasing judicialization of arbitration has made it less politically attractive and whether a return to a more flexible, equity-based processes might better serve states today. The panel concluded cautiously that interstate arbitration remains valuable occupying the space between diplomacy and the use of force, but its effectiveness depends, ultimately, on political will.

Local Ripples, Global Consequences — How Sanctions Affect Arbitration Proceedings

The panel moderated by Franz Schwarz (WilmerHale), featuring speakers Dr. Diora Ziyaeva (Dentons LLP), Nils Eliasson (King & Spalding), Dr. Anna Kozmenko (Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt&Mosle LLP), Dr. Wei Sun (Zhong Lun Law Firm), examined the multifaceted impact of sanctions on international arbitration across four dimensions: historical context, substantive effects, procedural challenges, and systemic solutions. Sanctions are not a new phenomenon, but responses to their impact on arbitration have remained largely ad hoc, with recurring issues including enforcement fragmentation, licensing barriers, and threats to access to justice. On the substantive side, sanctions increasingly operate as a force majeure defence while creating asymmetries across jurisdictions, particularly where EU sanctions are treated as public policy at the enforcement stage. Procedurally, restrictions on payments, legal representation, and arbitrator appointments can significantly disadvantage sanctioned parties and undermine equality of arms. The panel concluded with a call for an international convention on sanctions and for arbitration to ensure procedural integrity by preserving enforceability. The central message was clear; while sanctions are external political tools, their ripple effects risk destabilising arbitration unless addressed through coordinated, systemic solutions.

Right to Regulate — ESG & Climate Change

Taking as its starting point that states not only have the right but a duty to regulate, the panel, moderated by Prof. Dr. Ursula Kriebaum (University of Vienna), with speakers Saadia Bhatty (International Dispute Resolution, Gide, London), Laurence Boisson de Chazournes (Matrix Chambers and University of Geneva), Dr. Margie-Lys Jaime (Ministry of Economy and Finances of the Republic of Panama), Christian Leathley (HSF Kramer, New York and London), focused on how that duty can be exercised effectively within the investment arbitration framework. Three structural tensions within ISDS were identified as risking an implicit tilt against investors: an artificially strict foreseeability standard used to dismiss forum shopping claims; the weaponization of the illegality defence; and the asymmetric treatment of MFN clauses. The concern raised was that tribunals, in seeking to preserve ISDS legitimacy, may afford excessive deference to states even though international law already provides sufficient tools to protect both sides equally. The evolution of investment treaty practice was framed as a structural normative shift: from first-generation BITs locking states into investor protection obligations, to instruments like the AfCFTA Investment Protocol, where investor obligations become a condition of treaty protection — a direct reversal of first-generation investment treaty logic. The International Court of Justice’s unanimous July 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change was identified as a significant, if indirect, contribution to investment law. It confirmed state obligations of vigilance, prevention, and enforcement, with direct implications for foreseeability and legitimate expectations in investment disputes. On the reform front, UNCITRAL Working Group III and the forthcoming UNIDROIT-ICC project on international investment contracts were highlighted as concrete efforts to embed the duty to regulate within the arbitration framework.

Resolving Disputes Beyond Earth — Arbitration in the Age of Space Commerce

The panel featuring Rachael O’Grady (Mayer Brown International LLP), Yi-Shun Teoh (RPC), Laura Yvonne Zielinski (Space Arbitration Association) as speakers, moderated by Ana Stanič (E&A Law), explored how the rapid expansion of the space economy is outpacing existing legal frameworks. With over 14,000 active satellites today and projections of 100,000 by 2030, space has become critical global infrastructure — yet the governing framework, rooted in the Cold War-era Outer Space Treaty, was designed for a state-centric world and offers weak enforcement mechanisms. Four categories of disputes were identified: state-to-state conflicts, investor-state disputes arising from regulatory change, commercial disputes between private actors, and an ungoverned gap for disputes between private parties without contractual or treaty protection. The speakers noted that challenges including space debris, frequency scarcity, and growing militarisation reflected in the geopolitical fragmentation visible in the Artemis Accords compound the problem. The panel concluded that the current system is inadequate, and called for new, institutionalised dispute resolution mechanisms capable of addressing the complexity of space-related disputes.

Global Standards, Local Rules — Navigating Technical Disputes in International Arbitration

The panel on Global Standards, Local Rules, moderated by Heidi López Castro (Uría Menéndez) opened with a framing observation: capital moves globally, but projects are executed locally. The speakers, Professor Sara K. Aranjo (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP), Gabriel Costa (Shell Group), Carlos A. Iso Floren (Shell Group), Dr. Kourosh Kayvani (HKA), Dr. Abayomi Okubote (Pensbury Attorneys & S), noted that in the energy sector, standardised contracts are indispensable tools for managing risk and enabling project finance — but most disputes arise not from the contracts themselves, but from a deficient or commercially motivated localisation process. The same diagnosis was offered from the African context: standard contracts are not the problem; what fails is the assumption that they can be applied without meaningful adaptation to local legal and regulatory realities.

On expert evidence, a key distinction was drawn between technical causation, and legal causation, which varies across jurisdictions and remains a matter for the tribunal to determine. The speakers remarked that the role of counsel is to discipline expert evidence, delimiting its scope and ensuring that technically persuasive conclusions do not substitute for legal analysis as after all, experts translate, they do not adjudicate. Expert models were also scrutinised: however sophisticated, they embed legal, factual, and commercial assumptions that often fail to reflect how projects actually perform in practice, particularly in emerging markets where execution is rarely linear.

On enforcement, the panel noted a structural shift: arbitration has increasingly become the endpoint rather than the starting point of technical dispute resolution, with adjudication, expert determination, and mediation forming part of a broader toolbox. Yet, local legal systems do not always recognise these mechanisms as binding, creating enforcement gaps. The panel’s closing call was for an ex-ante approach: parties must design their dispute resolution framework with enforceability in mind from the moment of drafting, not as an afterthought when enforcement becomes necessary.

Day One of ICCA Madrid 2026 reflected the breadth and complexity of modern international arbitration, with panels collectively underscoring that the field must continue to adapt, legally, institutionally, and practically, to the demands of an increasingly interconnected and rapidly changing world.

Follow along and see all of Kluwer Arbitration Blog’s coverage of ICCA Madrid 2026 here.