The Contents of Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 42, Issue 6 (December 2025)

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

Raoul J. Sievers, To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? Arbitrability of Sanctions-Related Disputes in the EU

Upon the Swedish Court of Appeal’s request to the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘ECJ’) for preliminary ruling in NV Reibel v. JSC VO Stankoimport, the article examines the arbitrability of disputes related to EU sanctions regimes using the example of claims under Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014 (‘Regulation’).

The article establishes the relevant understanding of the concept of arbitrability in the EU before discussing and rejecting the notion that the arbitrability of matters pertaining to the Regulation follows from the Regulation itself, namely from its Article 11(3).

The article subsequently takes note of the ECJ’s jurisprudence precluding the interpretation of EU law by arbitral tribunals. While acknowledging the fact that commercial arbitration is commonly exempt from this jurisprudence, the article questions whether this also applies to sanctions-related disputes.

The article further assesses jurisprudence on the arbitrability of claims under the Regulation and other EU sanctions regimes from Member-State courts. In this regard, the article points out the lack of civil penalties for transactions in breach of the Regulation as considered by courts in some of these jurisdictions to determine the arbitrability of related disputes. The article concludes that claims under Article 11(1) of the Regulation are arbitrable under EU law.

David von der Thannen, The ‘End of History’ and International Arbitration: An Empirical Study on the Civil v. Common Law Divide

When lawyers speak of comparative law, they mostly think of the ‘civil’ and the ‘common law’ − two legal traditions that are widely viewed as isolated from one another. In the realm of international arbitration, however, these traditions inevitably collide. Accordingly, authors have rightly referred to arbitration as a ‘real-life laboratory for the development of a procedural Esperanto’. But much of the academic work emerging from this laboratory seems to draw primarily on anecdote and the authors’ personal experiences. This paper moves beyond such anecdotal approaches and examines the alleged civil v. common law divide empirically. Based on generative interviews with twenty-six of the world’s ‘most in demand’ arbitrators, it concludes that, within international arbitration, significant differences between civil and common law have largely faded over time. By contrast, experienced international arbitrators apply a de facto ‘Uniform Code of Arbitral Procedure’. Exploring the content of this framework − and borrowing from Francis Fukuyama’s famous theory − the article argues that international arbitration today has reached its own ‘End of History’. That is, the common law − including many of its typical features − has triumphed and now represents the dominant approach in international arbitration.

Francesco Tedioli, Reforming Arbitral Powers in Italy: Jurisdiction, Interim Measures, and the European Legal Order

This article reassesses the reach of the 2022 Cartabia Reform on Italian arbitration. It focuses on three levers: (1) arbitrators’ interim measures when conferred by the parties (Article 818 c.p.c.) and their enforcement through state courts; (2) corporate arbitration; and (3) jurisdictional objections and the codified competence-competence rule (Article 817 c.p.c.). Using comparative sources and recent case law, the article argues that what affects outcomes is not an inherent ‘structural asymmetry’ but coordination frictions – namely: the need for judicial intervention to give effect to non-pecuniary orders; heterogeneous procedural pathways across fora and rules; and contact points with EU law (public-policy review, intra-EU enforcement constraints, and state immunity). The reform does not create a self-contained regime; it yields a court-supported model whose performance turns on how legislators, courts, and arbitral institutions implement the new powers (e.g., by drafting clauses that grant interim powers, streamlining enforcement protocols, and clarifying court – arbitration interfaces). The conclusion sets out targeted proposals to foster a more coherent and predictably enforceable arbitral order.

Abir Al Mahdouri, Public Policy and the Enforcement of AI-Generated Arbitral Awards

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into international arbitration raises significant public policy challenges, particularly when AI is used to render arbitral awards autonomously. This paper evaluates the enforceability of AI-generated awards under the 1958 New York Convention (NYC), with particular emphasis on the public policy exception and associated due-process guarantees. It discusses three principal concerns: namely, the requirement that arbitrators be natural persons, the necessity of reasoned awards, and the risk of algorithmic bias compromising impartiality and fairness. Drawing on comparative jurisprudence and emerging soft-law guidance, the analysis demonstrates that, although party autonomy may in principle accommodate technological innovation, prevailing legal frameworks present significant obstacles to recognition and enforcement.

Jake Lowther and Håvard Sanne-Halvorsen, When Size Matters: Jurisprudence from Norway on Conflicts of Interest

This article examines the Supreme Court of Norway’s (Court) judgment in case HR-2025-921-A, which addresses the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. The case concerned an application to set aside an arbitral award based on the alleged incorrect composition of the arbitral tribunal in an ad hoc arbitration. The judgment considers inter alia the threshold for disqualification of arbitrators v. court judges, the threshold to disqualify a lawyer from acting as an arbitrator because of their law firm’s client relationship with a party to the case, and the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure. The judgment is significant for international arbitration practitioners due to its detailed consideration of the 2024 International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. The Court ultimately found that the arbitrator’s law firm’s client relationship with one of the parties to the arbitration did not give rise to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator’s impartiality and independence, despite a breach of the duty to disclose. The case highlights the importance of making a specific assessment of the nature, scope, and duration of client relationships in assessing arbitrator impartiality, and builds upon the general rule ‘if in doubt, disclose’, to add ‘and ensure the parties are aware of the disclosure’.