The Contents of Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 42, Issue 5 (October 2025)

We are happy to inform you that the latest issue of the journal is now available and includes the following contributions:

Darren Leow, State Immunity and the Recognition and Enforcement of ICSID Awards: Taking Stock

This article analyses recent decisions on the interaction between domestic state immunity laws and the recognition and enforcement of awards made under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), focusing primarily on the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Infrastructure Services Luxembourg v. Kingdom of Spain. First, it is argued that proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards should not involve any question of state immunity (or its purported waiver). It is only when considering the award’s execution that the question of immunities arises. Second, if that first proposition is incorrect, then it is improper to rely solely on the language of Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention for the purposes of establishing that a respondent state has waived its jurisdictional immunity or that it has submitted to the jurisdiction of the enforcing court. The language of provisions within ‘framework’ Conventions like the ICSID and New York Conventions do not on their own supply conclusive evidence of a state’s waiver of immunity. Courts should instead have regard to more specific indicia of waiver. Before English courts, the question of waiver in ICSID award registration proceedings is more properly addressed via the arbitration exception in Section 9 of the State Immunity Act (SIA), rather than via section 2.

Kanishka Bhukya, Template Justice on Trial: A Critical Analysis of DJP v. DJO’s New Standards for Arbitrators

In international commercial arbitration, a delicate balance exists between safeguarding procedural integrity and preventing tactical disruptions. However, the Singapore Court of Appeal’s (SGCA’s) decision in DJP v. DJO threatens this equilibrium by establishing new standards for arbitral conduct that significantly impact repeat appointments. To that end, this article critically examines two problematic principles emerging from this decision: the ambiguous threshold for permissible ‘copying’ in arbitral awards and the impractical ‘equality of information’ requirement among tribunal members. Although intended to protect procedural fairness, these standards place arbitrators in an untenable position, demanding artificial mental segregation between related proceedings while failing to acknowledge how human cognition naturally incorporates accumulated knowledge. Moreover, by importing judicial standards into arbitration without corresponding remedial mechanisms and treating all copied content equally regardless of type, this decision risks transforming natural justice principles into strategic weapons against unfavourable awards, potentially undermining arbitration’s core advantages of expertise, efficiency, and finality.

Dan Perera and Aaron Tan, AI Guidelines in International Arbitration: Revolutionary or Cautionary? A Comparative Analysis

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal industry, particularly in international arbitration, is rapidly reshaping traditional practices. In arbitration, AI now plays a pivotal role in areas such as arbitrator selection, legal research, document review, and even predictive analysis of decisions. However, as AI usage grows, so do the risks. Unregulated AI could jeopardize a client’s right to fair legal representation and undermine due process, potentially leading to miscarriages of justice and the invalidation of arbitral awards. Furthermore, AI-generated errors, such as ‘hallucinations’ by language models, have raised concerns about the accuracy of legal work that uses AI. In response, arbitral institutions have developed guidelines to mitigate these risks, with organizations such as the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Centre (SVAMC) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) offering guidelines for responsible AI use in arbitration proceedings. These guidelines aim to safeguard confidentiality, ensure due process, and provide clarity on AI’s application in arbitration. As AI continues to evolve, these guidelines will be crucial in balancing innovation with the integrity of the arbitration process, ensuring that AI’s transformative potential is harnessed without compromising fairness and justice.

Kyriaki Noussia, Mohammed Al Muqaim and Stanislava Nedeva, How to Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: Appeals and the English Arbitration Law Reform

The English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is founded on the principle that arbitration gives effect to the parties’ choice to refer their disputes to arbitration and that courts should only intervene to support and not displace it. This article discusses the Arbitration Reform Project of the Law Commission, specifically appeals under section 69 of the AA 1996, with a special focus on shipping, where arbitration is the preferred dispute resolution method, so as to explore how the right to appeal in law is used differently in different categories of disputes, reflecting the different expectations of the parties involved. Where appeals on questions of law are permitted, there is in practice a tendency to abuse this mechanism, as questions of fact are often cloaked as questions of law. Additionally, we observe an inconsistent exercise of discretion of the courts in granting leave under section 69(3)(c)(ii) of the AA 1996 which requires both that the question be of general public importance and that the tribunal’s decision be at least open to serious doubt. Courts seem to be not too readily granting leave, but rather reluctant to do unless the requirements set by law exist. This article also discusses the only new change regarding appeals in arbitration, namely, the new section 67 of the AA 2025. Previously (i.e., before the 2025 reforms), section 67 of the AA 1996 allowed a party to challenge an arbitral award, and courts could review all evidence and arguments even if not previously submitted to the tribunal (as per Dallah v. Pakistan, (2010) 10 UKSC 46 – court’s de novo jurisdiction). In contrast, the 2025 amendments restrict courts from rehearing evidence or entertaining new objections unless they were previously undiscoverable, and limit reviews to tribunal materials unless justice requires otherwise. Our analysis shows that the appeals regime under section 69 of the AA 1996 is sound in principle as it strikes an appropriate balance between finality and legal oversight and therefore has been retained, as confirmed in the Law Commission’s final report. However, this article argues that the English High Court must take care to avoid any misapplication of the statutory requirements when granting leave to appeal on questions of law under section 69.

Bas van Zelst, DAA 2015 Quo Vadis? An Empirical and Substantive Analysis of Decisions on Applications for Set-Aside of Arbitral Awards under the Dutch Arbitration Act of 2015: Has the Dutch Legislator Reached Its Objectives?

This contribution investigates whether the Dutch Arbitration Act in force as of 1 January 2015 (DAA 2015) meets the legislator’s desire to limit the number of successful actions for set-aside of arbitral awards and the duration of set-aside proceedings. It analyses decided cases in setting-aside proceedings on the basis of both empirical and doctrinal research. The research finds that the number of granted set-aside applications under the DAA 2015 has dropped by about two-thirds (from 23% to 6.8% of cases) when compared to the DAA of 1986. Against this background, it is submitted that three key areas remain in which the Dutch legislator and the Dutch courts would – in view of the legislator’s objectives with the DAA 2015 – do well to provide further clarity on the state of Dutch arbitration law.