The Contents of Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management (Ciarb), Volume 92, Issue 3 (2026)
August 30, 2026
In its third 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 part of its mission, Arbitration not only seeks to introduce and encourage innovation in dispute resolution, it also seeks to partner with other institutions pursuing similar goals. This issue provides an excellent example of both aspects of the journal’s purpose.
The discussion begins by considering settlement issues from two unusual perspectives. We start with Mariam Gotsiridze’s article on domestic implementation of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. As successful as the convention has been, gaining 60 signatories and 22 states parties since opening for signature on 7 August 2019, 43 signatory nations have yet to ratify or otherwise accede to the convention. States that are in the process of determining how best to implement the convention domestically will find Gotsiridze’s article extremely helpful.
Next, Nikolaos Voutyrakos and Akanksha Oak consider the enforcement of settlement agreements as a matter of arbitral jurisdiction, arguing that challenges to settlement agreements can and should be heard in arbitration rather than litigation. The authors do so by reframing the issue as a question of admissibility rather than jurisdiction, using the notion of separability to promote broad application of the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz (competence-competence). This analysis, like Gotsiridze’s, blends theoretical and practical learning in a useful and thought-provoking manner.
The discussion then turns to a series of papers developed as part of a research project conducted by the Centre for Comparative Private Law at the Institute of Legal Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The project, entitled Tax Arbitration in the European Union, examined the institution of tax arbitration and other alternative means of resolving tax disputes in the European Union. We are happy to offer seven articles from this project in open access form. Additional analyses focusing specifically on Polish questions of law are being published in English in the University of Warsaw’s journal, Studia Iuridica.
Five authors consider tax arbitration from different national perspectives. In addition to Mariana Melo Egídio’s piece introducing tax arbitration in Portugal (currently the leading jurisdiction in the field), we have articles authored by Mary Mitsi, Vasiliki Koukoulioti, and Divya Kesar (United Kingdom), Mika Nissinen (Finland), Miriam Galandova (Slovakia), and Maria Supera-Markowska (Spain).
Two articles take broader approaches. Krzysztof Lasiński-Sulecki considers tax arbitration from the perspective of the European Union while Levent Herberstein and Beata Gessel-Kalinowska vel Kalisz consider tax arbitration in the context of investor-state dispute settlement.
We conclude the issue with an update on free zone arbitration in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) by Gordon Blanke. The ADGM, which is located within the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is one of several judicial free zones around the world. This article provides an overview of proceedings under the ADGM Arbitration Regulations over the last ten years, offering a foundation for comparison with arbitration in other judicial free zones and providing key insights into arbitration in the Middle East as part of our ongoing series on regional developments.
We are happy to announce that the latest issue of Arbitration is now available and includes the following contributions:
ARTICLES
More than six years have passed since the signing of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the ‘Convention’). Since then, a significant number of jurisdictions have signed or acceded to the treaty. Consistent with the Convention’s flexible, minimalist approach, many Contracting Parties have joined without enacting specific implementing legislation. Others, however, have opted to introduce supporting domestic laws and procedures. Although the Convention does not mandate the adoption of implementing legislation, certain provisions necessitate at least a limited domestic legislative action to ensure its effective application. In practice, the legislative process has proven nuanced and, at times, complex, exposing a range of legal and procedural challenges. This article explores the legislative dimensions of implementing the Convention. It analyses domestic laws adopted by Contracting Parties, identifies key challenges and considerations, and where appropriate examines interactions with existing legal frameworks. By providing a comparative and practical overview, the study aims to provide guidance for states considering accession to the Convention and to support informed decision-making in developing effective implementation strategies.
The accord and satisfaction doctrine permits contractual obligations to be extinguished through mutually agreed substitute performance. Yet its intersection with commercial arbitration reveals a procedural vulnerability: purported settlements are weaponized as jurisdictional shields to oust arbitral tribunals and extinguish a claimant’s access to their chosen forum. This paper argues that this misuse rests on a doctrinal misclassification. Objections grounded in accord and satisfaction, particularly where settlements are contested on grounds of coercion or unequal bargaining power, are not jurisdictional but go to admissibility. This distinction, reinforced by the separability and competence-competence doctrines, ensures tribunals rather than courts evaluate the voluntariness of contested settlements. Building on this framework, the paper develops a contextual standard of proof, resolves the tripartite choice-of-law conflict between the lex contractus, settlement law, and lex arbitri, and offers concrete drafting templates for practitioners. The result is a principled framework protecting arbitral integrity without destabilizing legitimate commercial settlements.
Mariana Melo EGÍDIO, Portugal: An Original Model of Tax Arbitration (II)
Portugal’s innovative and internationally unparalleled tax arbitration regime stands out for its welcome features of strengthening taxpayer’s protection, accelerating dispute resolution between the tax administration and the taxpayer, and reducing case backlog in administrative and tax courts. The regime emerged from a legislative process that began with the 2004 Reform of Administrative Litigation and included the creation of Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa (Centre for Administrative Arbitration; CAAD) in 2009. This article follows a previous paper that introduced Portugal’s national tax arbitration mechanism to an international audience – where the reasons for adopting tax arbitration, its constitutional conformity, and how arbitral tribunals interact with the CJEU were examined. This article will focus on the structure and organization of CAAD, covering topics that will allow a better understanding of a model that, even though original, can be replicated in other countries
Arbitration has transformed the resolution of cross-border tax disputes – yet in the United Kingdom, it remains absent from the domestic tax arena. With nearly 50,000 tax appeals overloading the tribunal system, the case for binding domestic tax arbitration is no longer theoretical. Drawing on Portugal’s Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa (CAAD), OECD standards, and the UK’s own treaty-based arbitration commitments, this article maps the constitutional, institutional, and procedural architecture required to make domestic tax arbitration viable within the UK’s legal framework. It advances more than a normative proposition – it demonstrates, through comparative institutional analysis, how arbitral expertise, procedural independence, and principled framework design can resolve systemic failures that adversarial litigation is structurally incapable of addressing.
Are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (DRMs) a solution to streamline tax dispute processes and improve legal protection? This article assesses the benefits of certain solutions related to tax disputes in the current Finnish tax system as part of the implementation of legal protection and operational efficiency, and reflects on alternative methods for resolving tax disputes, referring to the model used in Portugal. The article shows, among other things, that Finland has succeeded in establishing an effective pre-court process that safeguards legal protection, although it also involves critical dimensions that have an impact on the actual success of the process. The article also makes critical observations on the current shortcomings of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). The article also highlights critical observations on why alternative dispute resolution may not be the right way to resolve tax disputes. The findings presented in the article are useful for countries that seek to improve the efficiency of tax dispute processes and the effectiveness of legal protection.
Miriam GALANDOVA, Tax Disputes Resolution in Slovakia
Slovakia underwent a comprehensive reform of its administrative justice system in 2021–2022, which included the establishment of specialized first-instance administrative courts and the Supreme Administrative Court. Despite these changes, the resolution of administrative disputes, including tax disputes, remains exclusively within the framework of the state court system. This paper intends to provide a comprehensive legal and practical analysis of the current tax dispute resolution framework in Slovakia. It examines the mechanics available in the administrative process, the structure of the reformed administrative judiciary, and the operational shortcomings that render the system particularly burdensome for taxpayers. Finally, it briefly assesses the structural, constitutional, and legislative prerequisites for introducing a tax arbitration regime in Slovakia. Strongly inspired by the successful Portuguese model, this analysis aims to foster a discussion on how such an alternative dispute resolution mechanism could be replicated to ensure more effective tax justice.
Tax dispute resolution has incorporated arbitration-like elements as an increasingly relevant mechanism for resolving disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities, particularly in cross-border tax matters involving multinational enterprises (MNEs). In Spain, such mechanisms operate primarily within the framework of European Union law and are implemented through domestic legal instruments, alongside a structured economic-administrative review system incorporating quasi-arbitral features. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and institutional framework governing alternative tax dispute resolution in Spain, with particular emphasis on the interaction between EU-based procedures and domestic administrative review mechanisms. It examines the nature of the Spanish model, its procedural architecture, and its position within broader developments in tax governance. The study further identifies key practical and doctrinal challenges. Finally, it situates the Spanish system within a comparative context, including Poland and broader European and OECD-influenced developments, highlighting its relevance for taxpayers and its role in the evolving architecture of both transnational and domestic tax dispute resolution.
Tax arbitration is envisaged under the EU Arbitration Convention and the Dispute Resolution Mechanism Directive. In both cases, arbitration may be initiated when a mutual agreement procedure (MAP) is ineffective. The scope of the Arbitration Convention is limited to transfer pricing cases based on provisions reflecting the arm’s length principle and similar rules on dealings with permanent establishments, whereas the Dispute Resolution Directive goes further and covers other double taxation issues resulting from double tax treaties. Competent tax authorities are not required to follow a position adopted by arbiters issued on the basis of the above-mentioned acts, but if they choose not to follow it, they still must eliminate double taxation.
Levent HERBERSTEIN and Beata Gessel-Kalinowska VEL KALISZ, Tax Arbitration and ISDS
Both tax arbitration and investor – state dispute settlement (ISDS) operate in a prima facie similar environment of public law, both domestic and international, and both use instruments of dispute resolution that are typical for private mechanisms. This article examines and compares both systems with a particular focus on the concept of consent to arbitration, the waiver of sovereignty, the definition of the subject matter, the role of the tribunals within the framework of EU law, and the procedural aspects of arbitration.
Gordon BLANKE, Free Zone Arbitration in the ADGM: Taking Stock After the First Ten Years
This article provides an insight into the procedure of free zone arbitration as practiced in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) under the ADGM Arbitration Regulations. It explores the idiosyncrasies of this novel type of arbitration that allows the staging of a common-law-style arbitration in the midst of the Middle East through a legislative, judicial and institutional lens. In doing so, it shows the benefits of this type of arbitration and the reasons for its success in the region.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
You may also like
August 24, 2026
