The Contents of Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management (Ciarb), Volume 92, Issue 1 (2026)
February 14, 2026
With its first issue for this year, Arbitration introduces two new initiatives: a policy on the use of AI for journal submissions, which now forms part of the journal’s editorial guidelines, and the first of a series of regional ADR updates from around the world.
In her Editorial, Prof. S.I. Strong introduces these two initiatives:
“As you will see on the journal website, Arbitration seeks to protect and promote the integrity of the scholarship it publishes by outlining both permissible and impermissible uses of AI by authors. Not only do we now require authors to make disclosures to the editorial team about the use of AI to research and draft submissions, we also provide a starred footnote to advise readers of the nature and extent to which AI has been used on a particular piece. In so doing, Arbitration hopes to increase reader confidence in the quality of research featured in these pages while also encouraging other publications in our field to adopt AI policies of their own. While AI can be a useful tool when used properly, we as a profession must protect against practices that would diminish the quality of practical and academic research in the law.
Volume 92 also marks the initiation of a new substantive initiative. Cognizant of our readers’ need to keep abreast of recent developments around the world, Arbitration has decided to publish annual updates of events in different regions of the world in each issue. We hope that this new project will provide both a deep and broad understanding of global developments in our field.”
The Editorial then introduces the pieces in the current issue:
“Turning to the current issue, our first article is based on a research project recently undertaken by the Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Université concerning the possibility of a European Union (EU) law on international commercial arbitration. One of the research team members, Nima Nashrollahi Shahri, has provided an analysis highlighting the key findings from the study.
The next article, by Gabriel Melchiorre, provides an interesting countervailing perspective to the findings reported by Shahri. Melchiorre considers whether and to what extent it is possible to harmonize the enforcement foreign arbitral awards in the EU and offers a tangible proposal on how to achieve those ends.
Whereas the first two articles in this issue provide forward-looking analyses, the third piece, by Markos Kostantinidis, creates a cohesive conceptual framework of existing EU jurisprudence. In his article, Kostantinidis proposes an intriguing taxonomy of arbitration cases that have been brought before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).
The issue then shifts from an exclusively EU focus to a comparative one. In her article, Alexandra Goetz-Charlier compares the EU approach to data protection disputes to the United Nations’ approach. In so doing, she provides both organizations with useful suggestions for improvement.
The discussion then moves to Africa, with an article by Abdulhafeez Apena. In his piece, Apena considers interstate water disputes involving the River Nile, providing deep and timely insights into a timeless problem. Next, Tala Zein and Sarah Zein analyse issues relating to estoppel in international arbitration. Their discussion provides a useful and in-depth comparison of civil law and common law approaches.
The final article in this issue is our first regional update. The piece, which was written by Ben Hayward, focuses on recent developments in the Asia-Pacific region. Hayward provides an outstanding overview of recent, pending and proposed legislation, arbitral rules and judicial decisions, offering scholars and practitioners with useful insights into this part of the world.
The issue includes two case notes. The first, by Aayushi Singh and Mohak Rana, considers the groundbreaking decision by the CJEU in RFC Seraing v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). The second, by Dawid Marusczyk and Claudia Wortmann, addresses issues raised by the Supreme Court of Bavaria in its decision of 1 October 2024 relating to the production of evidence in arbitration.
We close the issue with the CIArb Australia Annual Lecture, given by Doug Jones. In his remarks, Jones focuses on diversity of experience in arbitration, an enduring subject of interest and importance.”
We are happy to announce that the latest issue of Arbitration is now available and includes the following contributions:
ARTICLES
This article engages with the Sorbonne Report, Towards an EU Law on International Commercial Arbitration?, a collective project launched in 2024 at the Sorbonne Law School under the supervision of Professors Mathias Audit and Sylvain Bollée. The Report examines the fragmented relationship between arbitration and the EU legal order, where the formal exclusion of arbitration from the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) contrasts with the constant entanglement of arbitral proceedings and European judicial cooperation. Rejecting the option of a stand-alone EU arbitration regulation, the Working Group advances targeted reforms through amendments to Brussels I Recast. Central among these is a ‘European passport’ enabling judgments of the courts of the seat of arbitration – validation, annulment, enforcement, and assistance – to circulate freely under Chapter III, without extending circulation to awards themselves. Complementary reforms clarify the arbitration exclusion, allocate exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the seat, establish a priority rule to prevent parallel litigation, confirm access to provisional measures, and protect arbitral awards against conflicting judgments. By drafting concrete legislative provisions rather than general recommendations, the Report suggests that a coherent EU interface with international commercial arbitration is possible. Its proposals aim to strengthen legal certainty, improve the attractiveness of EU seats, and show how incremental reform could reconcile arbitral autonomy with European judicial cooperation.
This article proposes a harmonized EU framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, designed to complement the 1958 New York Convention (NYC). Despite the Convention’s global success, divergent enforcement practices among EU Member States continue to undermine legal certainty, delay recognition, and weaken confidence in arbitration. Through doctrinal and comparative analysis – including post-Brexit developments in the United Kingdom and practice in Switzerland as a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) state – the article argues for EU-level convergence grounded in party autonomy, procedural efficiency, and fundamental rights. Relying on Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), it outlines a three-tiered proposal: a Geneva Regulation applicable within the EU (a draft can be found in the Annex), a revised Lugano Convention for associated EFTA states, and a pan-European Geneva II Convention under the Council of Europe. This model would restore legal coherence, reinforce the rule of law in arbitral enforcement, and address structural concerns highlighted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The article critically discusses the stance of the European Union legal order towards international arbitration. By examining the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), the article presents a European taxonomy classifying international arbitration under the headings of (1) commercial-contractual, (2) investment treaty–based, and (3) sports disputes. It further analyses the taxonomy’s normative underpinnings, which are constitutional in nature and concern the autonomy of the EU legal order, the mutual trust between EU Member States, and the compliance of arbitral awards with EU public policy. In this light, the article argues that the EU law position appears contextual and insufficiently doctrinally coherent: this points to the need for the CJEU to engage with the importance and function of international arbitration as a system of dispute settlement. In this sense, and within the existing EU constitutional framework, sanctioning a virtually unrestricted judicial review of awards ought to be avoided in favor of preserving the effectiveness of arbitration in Europe.
This article analyses the UN and the EU internal data protection regimes, with a particular emphasis on their dispute settlement design. While IOs have a binding obligation to provide ‘reasonable alternative means’ of redress when they cause harm to others, there has been a growing trend to create special regimes for third-party claims arising out of their operations, including in the field of data protection. The first section argues that data protection has become an integral part of the debate on the accountability of IOs and that regional private law models have strongly influenced IOs’ internal regimes. The second section highlights the variability in the level of protection and dispute settlement design under the EU and UN respective frameworks. Ultimately, it concludes that the UN Secretariat is increasingly moving toward a rights-based approach, granting private individuals actionable rights.
This article examines the nature of interstate water disputes vis-à-vis the ongoing dispute over the access to, and the usage of, the river Nile by several countries that share its water. Respecting three countries currently deadlocked in negotiations, the article examines the history of the dispute between the respective states before addressing factors that pose potential barriers to its successful outcome. The article then proceeds to suggest possible strategies the respective states could adopt to make significant progress in the course of the negotiations, by which it is hoped that an amicable solution will be arrived at concerning the usage of the Nile.
Dr. Tala ZEIN & Dr. Sarah ZEIN, Estoppel in International Arbitration
The doctrine of estoppel plays an important role in international arbitration, preventing a party from acting inconsistently with their previous representations or conduct to the detriment of another. Grounded in the principles of good faith and procedural fairness, estoppel contributes to the stability and predictability of arbitral proceedings. This article explores the application of estoppel across common law and civil law, and examines its impact on arbitral procedure and awards. It highlights how arbitral tribunals rely on estoppel to protect legitimate expectations and to promote equitable outcomes in cross-border disputes.
The law and practice of commercial arbitration is always in a state of flux. Arbitral laws, arbitration rules, soft law instruments, and case law all develop and change, impacting commercial arbitration at both the international and regional levels. This article, the first of a new series, surveys select 2024–2025 developments in Asia-Pacific commercial arbitration law and examines the extent to which a regional approach to arbitration is thereby evidenced. In doing so, it contributes to our discipline’s understanding of how commercial arbitration currently fulfils its purposes of resolving merchant disputes and facilitating trade.
CASE NOTES
This case note examines the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) landmark ruling in RFC Seraing v. FIFA, which recalibrates the relationship between international sports arbitration and the EU constitutional framework. The case, arising from FIFA’s prohibition on third-party ownership (TPO) of football players and subsequent disciplinary sanctions against Belgian club RFC Seraing, tests the boundaries between arbitral autonomy under the New York Convention and the Union’s guarantees of judicial protection, competition, and economic freedom. Situating RFC Seraing within the CJEU’s broader arbitration jurisprudence – particularly Eco Swiss, Achmea, Nordsee, and International Skating Union – the paper argues that the Court consolidates a “conditional recognition model,” whereby arbitral awards engaging EU law acquire legal effect only after potential judicial review by a court competent to refer questions under Article 267 TFEU. This model affirms the enforceability of CAS awards while subjecting them to EU public policy scrutiny. The decision strengthens procedural safeguards and the primacy of Union values, yet exposes structural tensions between EU constitutionalism and the global uniformity of arbitral enforcement.
This case note discusses a recent decision on the enforcement of two Danish arbitral awards in Germany, in which the Supreme Court of Bavaria put a great emphasis on the matter of ordre public as well as on the principle of the production of evidence. Its ruling demonstrates once more the openness and liberal nature of the system of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention.
SPEECHES
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
March 6, 2026