Reinforcing Germany’s Position as a Leading Arbitration Hub: A Coordinated National Strategy

The success of the recent 2025 German Arbitration Institute (DIS) Autumn Conference and the Berlin Dispute Resolution Days left no doubt: Germany has long held a respected position within the international arbitration landscape. Yet, in a globalized legal market exposed to competition and increasing user expectations, standing still equates to falling behind. Germany has the foundational elements to be a dispute resolution powerhouse – but it must act decisively and collaboratively to assert and cement its position.

DIS: Strategic Leadership and International Outreach

The DIS is the natural engine behind efforts to increase Germany’s international arbitration footprint (see the interview with Secretary General Ramona Schardt). In recent years, it has taken important steps in that direction with:

• The Berlin Dispute Resolution Days – established as an annual flagship event – now featuring an English-language format to cater to international audiences.

• The DIS@ArbitrationWeeks series expanding the institution’s presence across multiple jurisdictions, fostering collaboration and visibility.

• The Lunch DIScussions series facilitating knowledge sharing through regular webinars in the English language.

In the authors’ view, these initiatives can be deepened and broadened.

Adding English-language programs to German events, particularly DIS’ traditional spring conference which is traditionally held in German, would not just diversify attendance but also draw in more international users (as is the case, e.g., for the Paris Arbitration Week or the Swedish Arbitration Days). While the federal system of Germany and the diverse locations of the German industry justify a “wandering” spring conference, geographic accessibility remains an issue. The DIS could consider rotating other events across different cities.

Hybrid formats should be institutionalized, not be an occasional feature, as remote virtual participation enhances inclusivity and global reach.

Strategic partnerships with arbitral institutions worldwide, such as SIAC or SCMA, rather than only European institutions, would amplify DIS messaging through mutual promotion and shared events (such as their cooperation with CIETAC).

The DIS should also move beyond events and engage in targeted contract-level advocacy. The Presiding Committee, Board and Council members, together with the Secretary General could proactively visit German companies and their legal departments to promote inclusion of DIS Rules in cross-border contracts, particularly in industries with strong international engagement such as in construction, automotive, and renewable energy. The DIS would then not only be known to a select number of in-house counsel, but also to the business development and other management leaders in the industry.

The Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection: Enhancing Legal Infrastructure and International Accessibility

The role of the German Ministry of Justice ("BMJV") is indispensable in making Germany more arbitration-friendly. One of the most pressing priorities is to ensure that German arbitration-related case law is readily available in English, regardless of which court rendered the decision. Translating decisions and publishing them on a central platform would offer greater legal certainty to foreign parties considering Germany as a seat. To this end, the German Arbitration Digest, spearheaded by DIS40, is an excellent initiative that should be enhanced by providing the original and English translation of court decisions, together with a summary of the case. It should remain accessible, free of charge, easily searchable, and be up-to-date.

In addition, as part of Germany’s arbitration ecosystem, Germany’s visibility abroad can be enhanced through trade-law diplomacy: Joint trade and legal delegations, representing the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, DIS, and private stakeholders, could showcase Germany’s legal infrastructure and advocate for the inclusion of German governing law and DIS Rules in bilateral and commercial agreements (for instance, the SCC Arbitration Institute is included in the Swedish government’s new strategy for Sweden’s foreign trade which aims to encourage companies and investors to include SCC’s dispute resolution clauses in foreign investment agreements. These missions should be accompanied by high-level political figures, drawing on models from other jurisdictions (for instance, Singapore’s law minister or his deputy often joins SIAC roadshows abroad, lending weight and credibility to the initiative). These delegations will bring with them the greater bargaining power of the German industry as well as demonstrate the government’s support.

In terms of regions, as highlighted by DIS Secretary General Ramona Schardt in her recent interview, realistically, the incorporation of German law, a German arbitral seat, or the DIS Rules in larger transactions may be more readily accepted outside Europe, such as in the MENA region and Asia. Given the high reputation that German engineering and quality industry enjoy in the MENA region and Asia, greater opportunities are located in these regions, which should be the focus of trade delegations. More importantly, the majority of the jurisdictions and major economies in these regions are civil law jurisdictions, and the laws of some are even based on German private law or its traditions. In these efforts, it is important to highlight the neutrality of German law and arbitrators appointed in disputes under the DIS Rules.

Domestically, at the federal level, greater ministerial participation in arbitration events is critical. The Berlin Dispute Resolution Days should include – as a norm – representatives of the BMJV and Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, not only to demonstrate governmental support but also to announce reforms as well as signal Germany’s commitment to arbitration modernization. The publicized reforms to Germany’s arbitration law, reflecting an up-to-date arbitration framework, are much anticipated not only by German arbitration and trade practitioners but also by the international arbitration community.

Legal Practice: Unlocking Internationalization and Competitiveness

Law firms and practitioners are central to the ecosystem. Germany must make it easier for foreign arbitration lawyers to enter the market. While the German legislator appears to have recognized English as the lingua franca of international arbitration, current regulations tend to deter non-German speakers from practising in Germany.

Relaxing regulatory and language requirements could make German law firms more attractive and internationally competitive. Firms should welcome foreign talent, and those that do, will send a strong signal to international clients that Germany is open, agile, capable, and speaks the language of foreign clients and counterparts.

Moreover, all stakeholders should lobby for high-profile arbitration conferences – such as ICCA or IBA Arbitration Day – to be held in Germany. These conferences attract global audiences, catalyse side events, and generate media coverage, all of which can only boost Germany’s visibility in the international arbitration community. The involvement of government leaders in opening sessions would reinforce Germany’s strategic commitment.

Finally, arbitration lawyers – especially those active internationally – should act as informal ambassadors for Germany as a seat, both in their networks and publications: they enjoy a high and enviable reputation in international commercial and investment arbitration proceedings. German-qualified lawyers are in high demand in all jurisdictions, and there is no reason why Germany should not itself provide the framework for German lawyers to excel in international arbitrations seated in Germany. The home-grown capacity, in combination with international colleagues located in Germany, is Germany’s future.

The Judiciary: Demonstrating Competence, Confidence, and Connectivity

The strength of Germany’s judiciary is one of its core assets. However, to international users, this remains undercommunicated. Judges play a much more visible role in other jurisdictions, speaking regularly at conferences and engaging in public dialogue on arbitration law.

While this is in part a function of the respective legal systems, nothing is preventing Germany from replicating this: German judges should be encouraged to speak at ICCA, CIArb lectures, or university events. Their contributions will highlight Germany’s robust and arbitration-friendly jurisprudence. Although German judges have increasingly participated in DIS and DIS40 events, this should be further encouraged and expanded significantly to include international events.

English-language proficiency should be the norm for judges hearing arbitration-related cases. This reduces the need for translations and enhances user confidence. Specialized training should be made available to familiarize judges with the relevant terms of art.

Germany already assigns arbitration matters to designated chambers at higher regional courts. This practice should be promoted and publicized internationally as a hallmark of judicial expertise.

Universities: Education and Long-Term Vision

Universities are the seedbed for long-term change, and the following further steps could be taken.

German universities should offer and integrate arbitration modules and specializations into the German law school curriculum and, ideally, involve local arbitration practitioners in such modules. Any course taught at a university or traineeship courses on arbitration should be conducted at least partially in English. This brings familiarity with the context and attracts internationalists amongst the new generation.

Successful LL.M. programs could be replicated in other legal hubs – such as Munich and Frankfurt – to attract foreign students and practitioners, as such hubs may provide greater opportunities to practise international arbitration in Germany. At a minimum, law faculties offering LL.M. programs in international dispute resolution should strive to provide guaranteed internships during or after the LL.M. course in German law firms: familiarity can only foster admiration and respect.

The Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Lecture, which is held every two years, is an excellent initiative that could be turned into an annual academic lecture series and ideally held in a hybrid format. It should involve leading practitioners, academics, and judges to foster a broader community around Germany’s arbitration offerings.

Timing: Coordinated Action and Legal Reform Must Begin Now

While reform of the arbitration law remains pending with a promise now of fruition, other steps – including outreach, hybrid events, judicial visibility, and promotion abroad – do not require legislative change and can be implemented immediately.

Conclusion: A Call for Strategic Coordination

The Karlsruhe roundtable highlighted the need for greater coordination amongst all stakeholders and clear external messaging. Only by immediately aligning efforts across institutions, ministries, the judiciary, practitioners, and universities, can Germany secure and expand its place as a trusted and attractive international arbitration seat.