Download

The Contents of Revista Română de Arbitraj, Volume 19, Issue 3 (2025)

Cristina Emilia Alexe (General Editor, Revista Română de Arbitraj; Independent Arbitrator, ACEADVISOR)

February 8, 2026

The past summer months have seen plenty of action relevant to the international arbitration scene. Starting with early July, when the ICC International Centre for ADR announced the renewed collaboration with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that has reselected ICC to administer disputes related to the registration of new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), which appear at the end of Internet domain names, such as “.org” or “.net”.1

Paris was again at the forefront when a report on the opportunity of the EU lawmaker to include new provisions in the Brussels I Recast Regulation on international commercial arbitration, Towards an EU Law on International Commercial Arbitration?2 was released by a working group composed of French scholars chaired by Professors Mathias Audit and Sylvain Bollée (both Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne University), reminding us of the attempts made through the Heidelberg Report before Brussels I Recast was issued.

On 17 July 2025, the European Commission referred Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for contradicting the Union’s position on intra-EU arbitrations under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)3 after having initially sent a letter of formal notice in July 2024, followed by a reasoned opinion in March 2025 and not having the Commission’s concerns alleviated with the reply submitted by the Hungarian authorities to the reasoned opinion.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued on 23 July 2025 a groundbreaking non-binding unanimous Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change4 relevant both for international climate law but also for future international arbitrations, stating that a ”clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right and that countries need to take ”appropriate action to protect the climate system” or risk being in violation of international law..5

On 22 July 2025, the Toolkit on Prevention and Mitigation of International Investment Disputes was adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL),6 as a further step in the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) developed by UNCITRAL Working Group III. The Toolkit is intended to assist States in identifying and implementing effective measures to prevent and mitigate investment disputes by presenting a range of approaches currently employed by States and acknowledging that each State must develop its own approach based on its legal and institutional framework. It serves as an informational resource and focuses on the pre-dispute phase, exploring amicable solutions, including through mediation.7

Also in July, the ICC released the ICC Policy paper on AI governance and standards8 highlighting how divergent AI regulations across countries can lead to fragmented global markets and increased business costs and calling for greater coordination on the development of international, market-driven AI standards, to bridge legal differences, reduce compliance burdens, improve market access and enhance cross-border innovation.9

AI was also the subject of the UN General Assembly Draft resolution on Terms of reference and modalities for the establishment and functioning of the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence and the Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance of 18 August 2025 designed to build the UN membership’s capacity on AI by fostering shared knowledge, common understanding, and pooled experiences, equally benefiting all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries.10

Important news for arbitration was brought this summer by the 18th EU sanctions package against Russia through Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine that includes for the first time a duty for Member States to resist ISDS awards linked to EU sanctions against Russia, in a new Article 11f:

"Member States shall raise any available objection to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards that were rendered against them in investor-State dispute settlement proceedings in connection with measures imposed under this Regulation or Regulation (EU) No 269/2014."

Additional information is delivered in Recital 24 of this latest Regulation on sanctions insisting that Member States:

"should invoke any objection available to them in domestic or foreign proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of such awards. This includes raising the objection that the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the country where recognition and enforcement is sought, pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958”.11

On 26 August 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) announced the launch of the SIAC Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol12 intended to provide for arbitrations arising from an agreement among parties in the context of any restructuring or insolvency situation and of an Institute of Ethics in International Arbitration for research and training programmes aimed at setting, codifying and advancing best practices on ethics for both arbitrators and international arbitration counsel.13

End of August saw the Federal Court of Australia confirm four intra-EU ICSID awards against Spain in Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 102814 finding that Spain waived its foreign State immunity in all the proceedings for enforcement of the awards and that each of the awards in 9REN,15 NextEra,16 RREEF17 and Watkins,18 brought by 9REN and NextEra, and by the assignee to the RREEF and Watkins matters were found to be enforceable pursuant to section 35(4) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) federal legislation in Australia which provides for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, including based on the fact that there is no primacy of EU law in the context of public international law.

ASA – Swiss Arbitration Association User Council published a Whitepaper on Document Production on 9 September 2025,19 finding that users of international arbitration experience document production as a burdensome, costly, and all too often ineffective exercise. The Whitepaper proposes significant adjustments to current practice, making a number of practical recommendations to this effect: measures to be implemented at the contract drafting stage or during an arbitration, and designed for the parties themselves, the arbitrators, as well as the arbitral institutions.20

The ICC, through the ICC Institute of World Business Law, published on 10 September 2025 a Report on the impact of regulatory initiatives on the development of arbitration in Latin American and Iberian countries,21 assessing legislative proposals in Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru, and identifying key trends, challenges, and opportunities affecting arbitration.

Also in September, the American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) announced it will release an AI arbitrator to deliver fast, cost-effective, and trusted dispute resolution set to be available in November 2025 for documents-only construction cases, a high-volume area where efficiency and speed are essential. The press release mentions that the AI arbitrator was trained on actual arbitrator reasoning from AAA-ICDR construction cases (more than 1,500) and calibrated and trained with human arbitrator input.22

On 22 September 2025, the European Union adopted the final text of an inter-se agreement on the non-applicability of the Energy Charter Treaty’s investor-state arbitration provision to intra-EU disputes.23

As to arbitration law developments, on 17 September 2025, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Mr John Lee, to the Legislative Council announced in the Annual Policy Address24 that a revision of the current arbitration law contained in the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609)25 entered into force in 2011 is underway.

We close our quarterly update announcing the release of a research project initiated in CE Europe that is the World Atlas of Arbitration 2025, editors Roman Kramařík and Tomáš Král, with contributors and arbitration experts from around the world in a comparative and updated format on a large number of jurisdiction questionnaires.26

* * *

A substantive and diverse Autumn issue of the Romanian Arbitration Journal starting with its Articles section containing Abusive Initiation of Investment Arbitration: Lessons for Ukrainian Investors, an excellent study on the abuse of process concept, the inconsistent case law on the matter and practical challenges in applying it, particularly in investment arbitration, also including practical implications for Ukrainian investors seeking redress against Russia under the terminated Russia-Ukraine BIT, all from Pavlo Lebediev, LL.M., PhD candidate (LL.M. in International Commercial Arbitration Law from Stockholm University) counsel based in Ukraine specialised in international trade, commercial and investment arbitration.

Going further with a study on what happens when parties have designated a specific arbitral institution to administer their arbitration and that institution subsequently ceases to exist, whether that institution left a successor or is simply defunct and how far can the principle Ut res magis valeat quam pereat be stretched, written by Anna Salomonsson LL.M. (Erasmus University Rotterdam), LL.M. (LL.M. in International Commercial Arbitration Law from Stockholm University), legal Counsel at the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) in Validity and Enforceability In Dubio: When Arbitration Agreements Designate Defunct Arbitration Institutions.

Professor Dr Ádám Boóc Head of the Department, Deputy Dean for International and Scientific Affairs Institute of Private Law Studies, KRE ÁJK, Budapest gives his Theoretical Observations on the Setting Aside of International Commercial Arbitral Awards examining the concepts, offering case law examples, from practice on the setting aside of arbitral awards in the context of the international or supranational concept of public policy.

A commentary on recent Romanian public procurement legislative changes and how they may be tackled in arbitration comes from seasoned litigation and arbitration counsels based in Bucharest Alexandra Măruțoiu and Valeriu Mina in Suspension of the Effects of the Notice for Termination of a Public Procurement Contract and the Emergency Arbitrator examining the admissibility of suspending the effects of a termination notice of a public procurement contract through an Emergency Arbitrator’s decision.

Young Arbitration Practitioners’ Essays includes a well-thought-out study from Alexandru-Nicolae Călin, LL.M. (LL.M. in International Arbitration from University of Bucharest) titled Investment Treaty Cases Arising out of Construction Disputes – Threshold Issues and Recent Case Law. It explores the notions of “qualifying investor” and “qualifying investment”, drawing on the language of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties, as well as the ICSID Convention, includes current trends, the impact of ISDS backlash, and the future of investment protection in large-scale construction projects, particularly in light of recent developments in intra-EU arbitration and the reform of investment treaties.

Case and Law Review is dedicated by independent arbitrator and counsel Mihaela Maravela, PhD candidate to Requests for Setting Aside Arbitral Awards: An Overview of Recent Case Law of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, a summary of decisions between June 2024 and June 2025 in cases where annulment of arbitral awards issued under the Rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Romanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CICA CCIR) was requested. It highlights the arguments or claims that were raised to obtain annulment of the arbitral awards, as well as the reasons based on which they were deemed well-founded or rejected.

Events and Developments in International Arbitration opens with Dispute Resolution from a Practical Viewpoint: The Launch of the SCC Arbitration Rules in Romania an outlook from Romanian lawyer, Csilla Andrea Mate, LL.M. (LL.M. in International Commercial Arbitration Law Stockholm University) on the launch of the Romanian version of the SCC Arbitration Rules, panel discussion on SCC’s role as a leading arbitral institution, the benefits of expedited arbitration and SCC Express as well as practical aspects for Romanian users.

DIS@ Bucharest and Vilnius showcases two successful events that the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) had in the past few months in the Central Eastern Europe region, one in Bucharest on settlement facilitation in arbitration and the one in Vilnius focused on ways to involve third parties in arbitration as seen by international arbitration counsel Dr Evgenia Peiffer and DIS Counsel Ivan Petrov, LL.M. (International Dispute Resolution LL.M., Humboldt University of Berlin).

The Book Review section contains a presentation on SOLVE. Mastering Conflict Resolution with the SOLVE Mediation Matrix from the authors, ADR experts, and international mediators Leonardo D’Urso, Constantin-Adi Gavrilă, and Julia Radanova, offering an invitation to a thought-provoking reading on the actual practice of ADR and mediation techniques.