The Contents of Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management (Ciarb), Volume 92, Issue 2 (2026)
May 21, 2026
In its second issue for this year, Arbitration continues to target and engage with pressing questions which lie at the heart of international dispute resolution.
In her Editorial to this issue, Prof. S.I Strong writes:
As some of you may recall from my last editorial, the journal has adopted a new policy on artificial intelligence (AI) to protect and promote the integrity of the scholarship contained in these pages. Like many courts around the world, we hoped that prohibiting certain uses of AI and requiring explicit disclosures regarding permitted uses of AI would eliminate the possibility of AI-generated errors in the work we publish. Unfortunately, that has not been the case, and we have already had to depublish a case note on sports arbitration from our last issue due to concerns about the quality of the research.
On its face, the error did not appear significant. It involved a single reference relating to a proposition that could be supported post-hoc through other, verifiable authorities. However, even a single citation to a non-existent case – i.e., a hallucination – is enough to call the propriety of an entire analysis into question.
We recognize that AI is frequently considered to be a useful, time-saving device, though experience and empirical studies can suggest otherwise. However, even the most vehement supporters of AI recognize that it is incapable of recognizing its own shortcomings. Humans must ensure the correctness of each and every AI output, resisting the temptation of ‘cognitive surrender’ to machine-based thinking. That is why Arbitration holds its authors to the highest level of integrity in reporting their use of AI.
This error was found thanks to an alert reader who contacted our editorial team. We thank that individual and hope that they and others will do the same if any questionable items appear in the future. We also expect future contributors to comply with best practices in legal research by rigorously checking the work of any AI tools they use or by simply avoiding AI altogether, as a number of our authors have. Should AI-related errors arise in the future, the journal may move from mere depublication of the offending article to a more robust approach, including by identifying offending authors by name in future editorials.
We do not believe any AI-related issues exist in the current issue, which offers an exciting array of scholarship on a diverse range of subjects, including – somewhat ironically – technology in arbitration. Three pieces consider the advantages and disadvantages of remote proceedings, beginning with Nouman Cheema’s analysis of the effect of decision fatigue and Zoom fatigue on the performance of arbitral tribunals in hybrid (part remote, part in-person) proceedings. Cheema’s empirical and interdisciplinary perspective offers novel insights that are both useful and interesting.
The next two articles both respond to one of the journal’s more popular past pieces, Similar ≠ Equal – a Nuanced Approach to Remote Hearings: A Dutch Perspective, by Bas van Zelst. First, Amy Schmitz considers van Zelst’s analysis from the perspective of US law, concluding that properly designed remote hearings can make arbitration more accessible, efficient, and just, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and other parties operating under constrained resources. Next, Vu Lan Nguyen considers van Zelst’s points from a Singaporean perspective, arguing that Singaporean law does not require tribunals to avoid ordering remote evidentiary hearings when one of the parties objects, as van Zelst suggested should be true in the Netherlands. Instead, Nguyen takes the view that tribunals should and will rely on a fact-specific balancing exercise informed by efficiency and reasonableness when making such a determination.
The fourth article in this issue considers the newly established Arbitration Tribunal for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property. As Panagiota Nasi notes, the unique nature of this tribunal allows arbitrators to not only resolve legal disputes but also provide a fair and just solution that takes into account historical asymmetries, evidentiary gaps, and moral considerations.
Next, Ajar Rab considers the use of soft law in matters of arbitral procedure. In particular, Rab focuses on the tribunal’s ability to rely on soft law instruments under the UNCITRAL Model Arbitration Law and the governing contract. In so doing, Rab answers key questions about the applicability of IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration and the Prague Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration in situations where one of the parties objects.
Issue 92:1 saw the beginning of a new initiative involving annual updates relating to the law and practice of different regions. Divya Kesar provides our second such update, providing an overview of key developments in the United Kingdom and the European Union over the last year. Kesar not only offers useful guidance to scholars and practitioners, she also considers whether ‘a distinctively European approach to commercial arbitration’ is in the process of developing.
The issue concludes with two book reviews. This first, by Paul Sandosham, considers the second edition of Arbitral Awards by Leng Sun Chan, and the second, by Gordon Blanke, discusses A Practitioner’s Guide to Arbitration in the Middle East and North Africa by Essam Al Tamimi. As always, we hope that you enjoy the pieces presented to you in these pages.
We are happy to announce that the latest issue of Arbitration is now available and includes the following contributions:
ARTICLES
Hybrid arbitration hearings – where some participants attend in person while others join remotely – have become a permanent fixture of international dispute resolution. However, this format introduces significant cognitive challenges for arbitrators that threaten decision quality, procedural fairness, and ultimately award enforceability. This article addresses a critical gap in arbitration literature by synthesizing psychological research on decision fatigue with procedural best practices from major arbitral institutions. It proposes a comprehensive Tribunal Fatigue Mitigation Framework complete with practical checklists and a model procedural order designed for immediate implementation in ICC, LCIA, SIAC, DIFC-LCIA, and HKIAC arbitrations. The central research question examined is: How can tribunals structure hybrid hearings to minimize fatigue and procedural errors without compromising fairness or efficiency? The answer lies in recognizing that hybrid hearings demand a fundamentally different procedural approach than traditional in-person proceedings – one that accounts for the psychological toll of sustained videoconferencing, the asymmetry between remote and physical participants, and the heightened cognitive demands placed on decision-makers who must simultaneously process digital and physical inputs.
Amy J. SCHMITZ, Remote Arbitration Hearings: Access to Justice, Due Process, and SMEs
This article offers a US-focused response to van Zelst’s5 analysis of remote arbitral hearings under Article 1072b(4) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), which authorizes tribunals to order electronic hearings but requires careful calibration against core principles of procedural justice. Building on van Zelst’s emphasis on party parity, fairness, and reasoned, context-sensitive decision-making, the article examines the interplay between ‘hard law’ (the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the New York Convention) and ‘soft law’ protocols developed by leading arbitral institutions. It highlights a persistent ambiguity in FAA §7 regarding subpoena power in virtual proceedings that complicates remote evidence-taking and creates uneven procedural safeguards across jurisdictions. The analysis centres on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), for whom remote hearings can significantly reduce costs, lower environmental impacts, and enhance access to justice, yet also present risks of asymmetry in technology, witness management, and confidential communications. To address these tradeoffs, the article proposes a framework that integrates van Zelst’s five guidelines prioritizing party autonomy, dialogue, restraint, holistic balancing, and reasoned orders, with concrete technical and procedural safeguards drawn from institutional best practices (including International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), American Arbitration Association (AAA)/International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), and Singapore International Arbiration Centre (SIAC). The framework culminates in a practical ‘5 Cs’ approach to guide tribunals in structuring remote hearings that are both efficient and fair. The article concludes that, when grounded in principled discretion and robust safeguards, remote hearings constitute a durable advancement in arbitration, particularly for SMEs and other resource-constrained parties.
This article examines whether arbitral tribunals should exercise general restraint in ordering remote evidentiary hearings when parties disagree, focusing on Singapore law and practice in contrast to the Dutch approach articulated in Bas van Zelst’s article ‘Similar ≠ Equal – A Nuanced Approach to Remote Hearings’. While van Zelst argues that such restraint is required to safeguard the principle of parity between parties, this article contends that the Singapore framework adopts a more pragmatic and flexible stance. It also argues that most concerns commonly raised against remote hearings are either addressable through technological and procedural safeguards or overstated in principle. Accordingly, the article concludes that a general posture of restraint is neither doctrinally required nor practically necessary in Singapore, and that tribunals should instead conduct a fact-specific balancing exercise informed by efficiency and reasonableness.
Panagiota NASI, The Newly Established German Arbitration Tribunal for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property
This article examines the newly established arbitration tribunal in Germany concerning Nazilooted art during the Second World War. The tribunal replaces the former Advisory Commission that had been created to resolve such disputes and seeks to provide binding decisions. It represents a novel form of specialized arbitration for cultural disputes, distinguished by several innovative features. These include the possibility of unilateral recourse through the standing offer mechanism, the constitution of an interdisciplinary arbitral panel incorporating expertise from fields such as art history, and the application of the so-called Assessment Framework to the substantive resolution of claims. Beyond its procedural design, the institution operates as a mechanism for the institutional assumption of historical responsibility, integrating elements of moral redress and collective memory.
Ajar RAB, Use of Soft Law in Matters of Procedure
This paper explores the role and application of soft law in international arbitration procedure. It acknowledges the ongoing debate surrounding the normativity of soft law instruments but asserts their acceptance and use in practice. It examines the necessity of soft law in procedure, arguing that while lex arbitri and institutional rules provide flexibility, they often lack the detailed guidance needed for efficient proceedings. Thus, soft law instruments fill this gap, providing predictability and consistency based on international best practices. The paper identifies the sources of a tribunal’s power to apply soft law under the UNCITRAL Model Law and the arbitrator’s contract. It discusses when tribunals should resort to soft law, suggesting that seeking consensus among parties is ideal. However, in its absence, the tribunal can declare the applicable instrument, ideally in the first procedural order, to avoid the award being challenged by parties on the ground of ‘surprise’. Finally, the paper compares the IBA Rules and Prague Rules, noting their convergence despite different philosophies, and concludes that the choice of instrument is a discretionary matter for the tribunal, akin to a craftsman selecting tools, to be guided by the nature of the dispute while adhering to due process.
European commercial arbitration has had a busy two years. Legislative reform, institutional rule changes, and court decisions across the region during 2024–2025 raise a question worth asking: is a distinctively European approach to commercial arbitration taking shape? This article – the first in what is intended as a continuing series – surveys developments across a range of jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, and France, as well as changes to the rules of several major European arbitral institutions. The picture that emerges is mixed. There is real convergence around efficiency, procedural discipline, and the supervision of arbitral awards. But significant differences persist – in how far courts will intervene, how public policy is defined, and how the obligations of EU membership bear on arbitration practice. These are not merely theoretical questions. They bear directly on how parties structure dispute resolution clauses, choose their seat, and manage the risk of enforcement across borders.
BOOK REVIEWS
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
May 20, 2026
