ICCA Madrid 2026: Congress Day Two Round-Up

This post reports on the topics discussed during the panels held on the second day of ICCA Madrid 2026, the 27^th ICCA Congress held from 12 to 15 April and addressing the theme International Arbitration: Local, Global or Both?.

The Interplay Between Local Practice and Developing Universal Soft Law

During the first morning session of the second day, speakers Shahla Ali (HKU Faculty of Law), Domitille Baizeau (LALIVE), Thomas Clay (Clay Arbitration and Sorbonne University) and Felipe Ossa G. (Claro y Cia.), co-moderated by Valeria Galindez (Galíndez arb) and Samaa Haridi (King & Spalding LLP), addressed the interaction between local practices and international soft law standards in arbitration.

The panel analyzed the current practice and explored proposals on how to tackle the interplay between standardizing soft law and respecting diverse cultural customs in arbitration. The speakers considered how harmonized arbitration rules and local practices can coexist, whether and under which circumstances soft law may be applied and the role of arbitration practitioners in this regard. The panel also discussed how soft law could gain legitimacy and acceptance among the arbitration community.

Ethics and Soft Law: Are We Asking Too Much of Arbitrators and Counsel?

The second morning session of the second day was divided into two parallel panels. At one of the panels, the speakers Jose I. Astigarraga, Michele Potestà (LKK Arbitration, Geneva), Catherine A Rogers (Bocconi University and UC Law San Francisco) and Swee Yen Koh SC (WongPartnership LLP) – with Prof. Stavros Brekoulakis (National University of Singapore) as moderator – addressed whether arbitration ethical issues can be regulated under soft law standards.

The discussion revolved around the existence of different ethical standards across jurisdictions and how to tackle this contrast in arbitration. The speakers analyzed existing instruments including the UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Dispute Resolution, and discussed the feasibility of developing institutionalized mechanisms of accountability for arbitrators and a code of conduct for parties’ representatives. In this regard, the panel debated whether institutions and organizations, like ICCA and the IBA, might be the entities under whose auspices the mechanisms could be implemented and promoted. In fact, ICCA has already published a set of Guidelines on Standard of Practice in International Arbitration (Report No. 9), whose Spanish and Portuguese translations were launched during ICCA Madrid 2026.

Breaking Boundaries: The Evolving Role of Mediation and Conciliation

In the other parallel session, moderated by Conna A. Weiner (Conna Weiner ADR and JAMS), speakers Laurie Achtouk-Spivak (Cleary Gottlieb), Lady Justice Joyce Aluoch (Independent Mediator), Paul Sills (Arbitra International), and Hiroyuki Tezuka (Nishimura & Asahi and Japan International Mediation Center in Kyoto), examined the growing but uneven role of mediation and conciliation in international dispute resolution.

Mediation was framed as a flexible, cost-effective process, yet its uptake remains inconsistent. A key area of focus was the Singapore Convention on Mediation, intended to facilitate cross-border enforcement of settlement agreements. Despite its promise, limited ratification and uncertainties around implementation and enforcement continue to hinder its impact.

Regional perspectives revealed a fragmented landscape. The EU shows mixed results despite legislative support, while the UK has embedded mediation more firmly into practice. In East Africa, mediation is expanding rapidly, supported by both legal reforms and cultural alignment, though enforcement challenges persist. In Asia, particularly Japan, strong traditions of amicable settlement and growing institutional support continue to drive its use.

The panel also highlighted the limited use of mediation in investor-state disputes, citing issues of state authority, political sensitivities, and enforceability concerns.

A key takeaway was the need to move beyond the traditional “one-day mediation” model, and towards earlier engagement, better preparation, and tailored processes, positioning mediation as a central tool in dispute resolution, not merely an alternative.

Unpacking Privilege: Practical Solutions for an Unsettled Issue in International Arbitration

The first afternoon session was also divided into two parallel panels. In one of those panels, moderated by Philippe Pinsolle (Quinn Emanuel), the speakers Philippa Charles (Twenty Essex), Cristian Nitsch (Canadian Solar), Javier H. Rubinstein (University of Chicago Law School) and Francis Xavier (Rajah & Tann Asia), addressed the issue of privilege in international arbitration.

The panel explored the differences on the approach and regulation of privilege across jurisdictions and discussed whether it would be desirable to develop soft law standards for harmonizing its application in international arbitration. In this vein, the speakers considered the impact that developing arbitration privilege guidelines might have on aspects such as the parties’ equality and expectations and debated the implications of implementing rules as the MFN (most-favored nation). Additionally, the panel addressed how, and at what point of the procedure, privilege rules may be established.

Knowledge and Innovation: Scholarship, AI, and the Future of International Arbitration

In the other parallel session, moderated by Prof. Dr. Stephan Schill (University of Amsterdam), featuring speakers Nakul Dewan KC (Twenty Essex), Dr. Thomas Lehmann (National University of Singapore), Prof. Dr. Carlos Alberto Matheus López (School of Law at the Universidad César Vallejo, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú PUCP and the Peruvian Judicial School), Colin Seow (Colin Seow Chambers), and Natalia Marina Zibibbo (Freshfields), the discussion focused on how artificial intelligence (“AI”) is reshaping arbitration’s knowledge base and practice.

AI is increasingly influencing legal research, case management, and advocacy, particularly in document-heavy phases, allowing practitioners to shift from data processing to strategic analysis. However, the panel highlighted significant risks, including bias, lack of transparency, and hallucinations, all of which raise concerns for procedural fairness and reliability.

A key point emphasized was that AI lacks consciousness or true understanding: rather than “artificial intelligence,” it was described as closer to “dead intelligence” – a system capable of processing and reproducing information, but not reasoning or judging in a human sense.

Particular attention was given to the concept of the “uncanny valley”, as AI begins to mimic human reasoning without truly understanding it, raising deeper questions about trust and accountability in adjudication. Speakers also stressed that AI bias reflects unequal access to data, with underrepresentation of developing jurisdictions risking the reinforcement of dominant legal narratives. Ensuring broader access to AI and more diverse datasets was therefore seen as essential.

The panel ultimately stressed that, despite its transformative potential, AI must remain a tool rather than a decision-maker, with human judgment and accountability at the core of international arbitration.

The Promise of Diversity

The second afternoon session was also divided into two panels. In the panel moderated by Charles H. Brower II (Wayne State University Law School and Institute for Transnational Arbitration),  the speakers Prof. Dr. Giorgio Fabio Colombo (Ca' Foscari University of Venice), Kun Fan (UNSW Law & Justice), Mélida Hodgson (Arnold & Porter), Dr. Hamed Merah (SCCA), Marike Patrani Paulsson (Council for International Dispute Resolution of the Kingdom of Bahrain) and Kiran Sanghera (HKIAC), discussed diversity in arbitration.

The panel considered the broad concept of diversity, including not only different regional origins but also diverse cultural and educational backgrounds, and emphasized the impact it might have on arbitration’s legitimacy. The speakers also discussed the importance of giving voice, presence, and opportunities to those that are not yet in relevant spaces, and referred to institutional and academic initiatives that support diversity in arbitration, including the ones developed by ICCA. Additionally, the panel highlighted the relevance of genuinely promoting diversity and presented a set of recommendations to be implemented.

From Paper to Purpose: Reviving Efficiency in Arbitration

In the other parallel session, moderated by Dr. Georgios Petrochilos KC (Three Crowns LLP), the speakers Grant Hanessian (Hanessian ADR, LLC), Dr. Levent Herberstein (Permanent Court of Arbitration), H. E. Justice Sapna Jhangiani (DIFC Courts), Martina Polasek (ICSID), and Tim Robbins (Robbins Arbitration), addressed the growing concern that arbitration has drifted toward excessive procedural complexity and inefficiency.

The panel emphasized that efficiency is not a new concern, but one closely tied to arbitration’s legitimacy: delays, excessive costs, and overly voluminous submissions risk undermining access to justice. A central theme was the need for a paradigm shift toward proactive case management and cooperation between tribunals and parties.

The panel identified key drivers of inefficiency, including tribunal passivity, “over-lawyering,” and permissive procedural frameworks. In response, institutional reforms were highlighted, introducing tools such as mandatory case management conferences, arbitrator availability disclosures, page limits, and stricter timelines.

Speakers also explored practical tools to “unbury” arbitrators, including narrowing issues early, limiting document production, and encouraging more focused submissions. While views differed on the extent of tribunal intervention, there was broad agreement that greater engagement, potentially including midstream guidance could significantly improve efficiency, provided due process was respected.

The panel ultimately underscored that arbitration is only as efficient as its users allow it to be, requiring a shared commitment to disciplined and purpose-driven proceedings.

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