Download

Revista Română de Arbitraj, Volume 20, Issue 1 (2026)

Cristina Emilia Alexe (General Editor, Revista Română de Arbitraj; Independent Arbitrator, ACEADVISOR)

July 25, 2026

The first trimester of 2026 came in full force with news and developments in the field of international arbitration with an early January announcement from the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC) of a Memorandum of Understanding with the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) through joint conferences, seminars, and workshops, and in technology-related task forces and working groups.1 1 January 2026 was also the first day that the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) expanded eligibility for expedited procedures by increasing the monetary threshold of the maximum amount in dispute from HK dollars 25 million to HK dollars 50 million (approximately US dollars 6.4 million), enabling more users to apply for streamlined proceedings.2

The SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC) published on 20 January 2026 a useful guide on The UNCITRAL Model Law and the Swedish Arbitration Act: A Comparative Analysis for International Practitioners showcasing the familiarity with but also deviations from the Model Law in Sweden.3 They followed on 29 January 2026 with an updated SCC Practice Note on emergency arbitrator decisions 2023-2025 marking 15 years since the SCC became the first major international arbitration institution to introduce the emergency arbitrator mechanism in 2010. It mentions that 80% of emergency decisions were rendered within the five-day time limit prescribed by the SCC Rules.4

January 2026 also saw the publication of the final outcome (from December 2025) in a landmark case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California regarding the use of AI by arbitrators, LaPaglia v. Valve Corporation,5 a dispute in which a consumer sought to vacate an arbitration award against Valve Corporation, alleging, amongst other grounds, that the arbitrator improperly used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to generate the decision, outsourcing his adjudicative role to AI (Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (USA) permits vacatur where an arbitrator "exceeded their powers"). The Court decided to vacate the arbitral award:

because, by relying on AI to reach his ruling, Arbitrator Saydah exceeded his authority bound by the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement. The parties' arbitration agreement empowers "a neutral arbitrator" to resolve disputes between them. The agreement also binds the arbitrator, who is responsible for supplying "a written decision" and a "statement of reasons" for their holding. An arbitrator's reliance on generative AI to replace their own role, and the parties' submissions, in the litigation process betrays the parties' expectations of a well-reasoned decision rendered by a human arbitrator.6

On 30 January 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commission on Arbitration and ADR globally launched the ICC Report, Toolkit, and Factsheet on Expedited Procedures (EPP) containing the: (i) EPP Report - a comprehensive review of how the EPP has been applied in practice under the ICC Rules since its introduction in 2017; (ii) EPP Toolkit - a practical guidance note for arbitrators appointed under the EPP, designed to help tribunals meet tight timelines and navigate key junctures in EPP proceedings, and (iii) EPP Factsheet - a document showcasing the success of EPP proceedings, backed by 2017-2024 statistics with a total of 865 EPP cases, of which 189 cases only in 2023.7

At the beginning of February, the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) announced its new Board for the 2026-2028 term.

On 12 February 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) released preliminary statistics for its dispute resolution services for 2025 indicating 881 cases filed under the ICC Arbitration Rules (30 began with Emergency Arbitrator applications) and 13 cases filed under the ICC Appointing Authority Rules, bringing the total number of new cases registered to 894 thus ranking 2025 among the top three years in terms of case volume for the ICC Court of Arbitration with a milestone of 30,000 total cases in December 2025. In 2025, 169 new cases were administered under the ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions. Parties came from 147 countries or independent territories, the top three nationalities were the United States (11.2%), Brazil (8.4%), and Spain (5.6%). As to places of arbitration chosen under the ICC Rules, the ICC reported 123 cities across 70 countries or independent territories, with the top 10 jurisdictions being France, the United Kingdom, the US, Switzerland, Singapore, Brazil, Spain, Germany, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates. The aggregate value of ICC cases pending at the end of 2025 reached US dollars 299 billion, with disputes ranging from just below US dollars 2,500 to US dollars 31 billion. In 2025, the ICC Court achieved its second-highest annual total for approved awards with 607 awards, of which 444 final awards, 118 partial awards, and 45 awards by consent.8

The Hong Kong international Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) followed up soon on 13 February 2026 releasing its 2025 numbers with 582 new cases, including 388 arbitrations, 281 of which were administered under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and other rules. The total amount in dispute across all arbitration cases filed in 2025 rose to US dollars 16.2 billion. 85% of all arbitrations, and 93% of all administered arbitrations, were international in nature involving at least one non-Hong Kong party and with parties coming from 61 jurisdictions involving 17 different governing laws in 2025. 96.6% of all arbitrations commenced in 2025 were seated in Hong Kong. The following industry sectors were prevalent corporate and shareholder disputes (23.6%), maritime (19.9%), sale of goods (14.2%), commercial (10.9%), construction (9.2%), financial (7.7%) and cryptocurrency and blockchain (7.2%).9

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) made available10 their 2025 statistics on 17 February 2026 indicating that as of the end of 2025 ICSID had registered 1,085 arbitration and conciliation cases under the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules, with 63 new cases in 2025, the second-highest number in a calendar year in its history. 58% of the new cases invoked ICSID jurisdiction via a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), followed by State-investor contracts (15%) and domestic investment laws (6%). In 2025, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 24% of new cases, South America for 20%, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia for 19%, while Central America and the Caribbean represented 13%, North America 8%, and Western Europe 6%; South and East Asia and the Pacific, as well as the Middle East and North Africa, each comprised 5%. In 2025, 24% of new cases involved the mining sector, 21% were related to the oil and gas industry, and 16% involved construction, with information and communication, finance, and electric power and other energy each accounting for 6%. As to case outcomes, of the arbitrations concluded in 2025, 67% were decided by a tribunal and 33% were settled or otherwise discontinued. From the disputes decided by tribunals in 2025, 53% of awards upheld investors' claims in part or in full, 31% rejected all claims on the merits, 11% declined jurisdiction, and 5% of cases were dismissed for manifest lack of legal merit. 60% resulted in no damages awarded to investors (for example, due to jurisdictional dismissals, findings of no liability, or liability without damages). In 9% of cases, damages awarded were under US dollars 10 million; 14% of cases resulted in awards between US dollars 10 million and US dollars 49 million; and in 18% of cases, awards exceeded US dollars 50 million.11

On 25 February 2026, France adopted the Law no. 2026-12212 regulating the statutory confidentiality regime for written legal consultations prepared by in-house counsel, distinct to that of secret professionnel (professional secrecy) applicable to French attorneys and from the broader English concept of privilege.

February closed with the publication of the Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-802/24 Reibel13 on 26 February,14 that, although not binding for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), reflected Advocate General Andrea Biondi's view that there is no prohibition on submitting to arbitration claims that may not be satisfied within the meaning of the regulation on restrictive measures against Russia. Although claims of that type may be made or brought before an arbitration tribunal, a favourable response must not be given to them. As the arbitration tribunal is bound by EU law, it is also required to comply with it and apply it correctly. Therefore, the prohibition on satisfying the claims, which follows from that regulation, is part of the public policy of the European Union. Consequently, a national court must ensure - of its own motion, if necessary - that the arbitration tribunal has acted in line with that prohibition.

On 4 March 2026, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) announced15 the launch of its Resolution Simulator that uses the same reasoning and analysis as their AI Arbitrator (for domestic construction disputes) to provide an AI-generated simulated decision based on the user's submissions and feedback.

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) opened consultation for the next edition of the LCIA Arbitration Rules and the LCIA Mediation Rules on 11 March 2026 until 11 May 2026, seeking input from the global arbitration and mediation community to support the development of modern and reliable rules for the next decade of international dispute resolution.16

Of the many institutional arbitration institutions that published their 2025 annual statistics in this first trimester, we also mention the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) announcing a number of 218 new cases for 2025 - the highest number in the institution's history with 193 (89%) DIS arbitrations, 7 (3%) DIS/Chamber of Industry and Commerce (IHK) arbitrations, 14 (6%) ADR and 4 (2%) DIS sports arbitration. The total value of disputes in DIS arbitration in 2025 amounted to almost EUR 4 billion. There is a significant percentage of multi-party arbitrations, 27% of arbitrations (52) involving three or more parties and the remaining 73% (141) being traditional bilateral disputes. The languages used remain German (71%) and English (29%). The top three sectors in 2025 were energy supply (23 cases), services (business) (18 cases), and hospitality (16 cases). As to gender diversity, 26.23% of arbitrators in DIS proceedings were female, an increase from 21.73% in 2024.17

Within the last days of March, the SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC) released their 2025 statistics with an accompanying webinar showcasing a total of 213 new cases registered having 568 parties of 50 different nationalities, with a total amount in dispute of EUR 4.6 billion of which 107 (50%) involved international disputes. In 26% of all 213 cases, none of the parties were Swedish. 54% (114 cases) were arbitrations registered under the SCC Arbitration Rules, and 38% (82 cases) were registered under the SCC Rules for Expedited Arbitrations (where the average amount in dispute was EUR 2,489,919). From a total of 289 appointments of arbitrators made by the SCC, from 33 countries across 4 continents, 49% of those appointed by the SCC Board were women. Of the arbitrations under the SCC Arbitration Rules that were concluded in 2025, 50% were concluded within 12 months from the referral to the arbitral tribunal, the average for the arbitral tribunal to render an arbitral award under the SCC Arbitration Rules in 2025 being of 13.6 months. Most recurring industries were real estate and construction, financial services, and retail and consumer products.18 The SCC also issued in March a new Practice Note on insurance-related arbitrations at the SCC examining insurance-related arbitrations administered by the SCC between January 2014 and December 2025, with the total amount in dispute reaching EUR 278 million and international cases representing 37% of the caseload.19

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) announced on 24 March 2026 the establishment of a new office in Paris. The ICSID Paris Office will be the Centre's first staffed office in Europe and its second location outside Washington, D.C., following the announcement of the ICSID Singapore Office in August 2025.20

March ended with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) announcing during the Paris Arbitration Week 2026 at the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR meeting through President Claudia Salomon that the ICC has approved a revised version of its Rules of Arbitration. The new Rules will enter into force on 1 June 2026. According to the official press release, the updated ICC Rules introduce new procedures and improvements to existing provisions, with a focus on streamlining proceedings and supporting effective case management but preserving the flexibility that characterises ICC Arbitration, including the ability of parties to select arbitrators and tailor procedures within the framework of the Rules. The ICC will release the 2026 Arbitration Rules and provide further information and practical guidance to support users and practitioners in due course before 1 June 2026.21

* * *

Our first issue for 2026 contains a diverse set of topics of interest for arbitration. We open the Articles section with a paper on Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clauses, or How Far Does Contractual Freedom Extend? from Bulgarian counsel and Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" PhD Candidate Iliyana Todorova, examining multi-tier dispute resolution clauses and the issues that could compromise their very purpose by delaying, rather than expediting the dispute resolution process, whilst showcasing practical and theoretical positions with regard to their mandatory character, legal nature, and consequences of their non-compliance in relation to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

This is followed by the second part of a comparative study on Statute of Limitations for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Part II), that shifts the focus from comparative law put forward in the first part to the examination of the practical implications of this issue under Romanian law, on the evolution of the domestic legal framework, the relationship with the New York Convention, as well as the manner in which these elements are reflected in the case law of Romanian courts. It highlights the difficulties generated by the absence of express provisions concerning the applicable time limit and the consequences of this legislative gap for the consistency of case law, as seen by seasoned international arbitration practitioner and academic Dr Cosmin Vasile, FCIArb (Board member of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania) and litigation counsel Teodora Niţu.

A long-awaited discussion on arbitration and consumer contracts is put forward by Professor Camelia Toader, former CJEU judge, Council Member of the European Law Institute (ELI), Member of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL), arbitrator and Director of the Research Center of Comparative Law "Leontin-Jean Constantinesco" University of Bucharest in Comparative View on Consent to Arbitration and Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts in Europe examining consent to arbitration in consumer contracts and its relationship with the right of access to justice, with a particular focus on the EU legal framework context bringing key CJEU case law on arbitration clauses and waivers of rights (including enforcement-stage review and the court's duty to assess unfairness ex officio).

Further on, Dr Yuliya Branimirova Radanova (post-doctoral researcher PhD Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania) discusses The New Era of Online Platform Dispute Settlement: Article 21 DSA - Out-of-Court Dispute Challenges and Potential Solutions by analysing in detail Article 21 of the EU Digital Services Act and its novel regulatory framework for out-of-court dispute settlement in the European Union's digital ecosystem, positioning itself as a key instrument for enhancing platform accountability and safeguarding users' fundamental rights. She examines how its dispute resolution mechanisms function in practice, assessing their effectiveness and long-term viability.

An interesting perspective on possible investment arbitration generated by regulatory uncertainty for large technology investors including FET arguments tied to legitimate expectations and transparency, and indirect expropriation concerns linked to operational control over data and platform conduct comes from international arbitration practitioner Pooja Damodaran, PhD candidate, in India's Emerging Digital Competition Law and Possible Investment-Treaty Claims by Big Tech Firms.

Case and Law Review focuses on a timely subject specific to arbitration in Bulgaria where Sofia-based lawyer Georgi Gaydarov, PhD candidate looks into the Applicable International Law for Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the Republic of Bulgaria with an analysis of case law and theory indicating the lack of uniform conclusions as to which law is applicable and, consequently, what the requirements are for a foreign arbitral award to be recognised and enforced within the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, highlighting the binding nature of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) for the Bulgarian courts.

Young Arbitration Practitioners' Essays features a paper on Reforming Investment Arbitration - Ensuring Fairness and Legitimacy in an Evolving Global Landscape from Bucharest based lawyer and arbitration aficionado Ştefania Gagu, LL.M. focusing on the ISDS legitimacy crisis by addressing what the author considers to be three systemic deficits: uneven access to arbitration mechanisms, fragmentation of jurisprudence, and insufficient public interest safeguards, whilst showcasing the developments made with the enhanced transparency rules and improved arbitrator appointment procedures.

Events and Developments in International Arbitration contains an expressive coverage of one of the most successful and visible arbitration events in Central and Eastern Europe, the Vilnius Arbitration Day 2025: The Baltic Arbitration Nexus where Lithuanian dispute resolution practitioner Dominykas Kirsis describes the latest edition and its works organised by the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration together with the broader Lithuanian arbitration community.