Over the past four years, the international arbitration landscape has undergone a profound transformation. The 2021 Queen Mary – White & Case International Arbitration Survey already signaled a geographic shift in arbitral preferences, with Singapore and Hong Kong rising alongside the traditional European hubs of London and Paris. By 2025, this trend has consolidated into what can only be described as a new multipolar order. The latest survey reveals that Beijing now ranks among the top four global arbitral seats, and Guangzhou has officially entered the top tier of preferred seats, joining London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, and New York. Arbitration, it seems, is moving east. This development reflects more than a redistribution of geographic preference. It is the result of strategic, technological, and institutional investments. China’s sustained commitment to innovation—through digitalization, e-signatures, AI integration, and forward-looking arbitral regulation—has positioned Guangzhou as a central node of BRICS-led arbitral cooperation. The creation of the BRICS Joint Arbitration Mechanism, under the leadership of the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (GZAC), represents a decisive step toward a multipolar architecture of international arbitration, offering an alternative to the traditional Euro-Atlantic axis. This issue of the RBADR reflects these global shifts through contributions from Brazil, China, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Russia, South Korea, Colombia, India, and other jurisdictions, exploring both theoretical and practical dimensions of arbitration and mediation in a changing world. We begin with Kaishatayeva (Kazakhstan), who examines confidentiality and trust in AI-assisted mediation and proposes governance frameworks for responsible AI adoption. In the same technological vein, Pachahara (India) develops an AI Toolkit for Arbitrators, distinguishing between acceptable, undesirable, and egregious applications of AI in arbitral practice. Magdalena (Poland) offers a timely analysis of China’s new arbitration rules, emphasizing how digitalization and AI integration through institutions such as CIETAC, SHIAC, and GZAC are reshaping procedural models. This is complemented by Wang Tianxi and Wang Yan (China) in their BRICS Initiative Report, which outlines Guangzhou’s strategic ambition to establish itself as a preferred international arbitration seat. From a conflict-resolution perspective, Oztarsu (South Korea) analyzes the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the transformation of mediation amid trust erosion and militarization. This geopolitical lens resonates with Zenin et al. (Russia), who explore how different legal subjects influence territorial sovereignty and ADR mechanisms. Turning to comparative legal studies, Tnalin and Kizdarbekova (Kazakhstan) analyze the causes of civil disputes among entrepreneurs across jurisdictions. At the same time, Tsuvina and Serhieieva (Ukraine) discuss mediation reforms in the context of EU accession. On the Russian front, several contributions examine internal developments in ADR. Valeev and Nasyrova (Russia) highlight the interaction between mediation and the notariat, emphasizing the potential of notarized mediation agreements. Lipinskiy, Musatkina, and Avdonina (Russia) provide a comparative legal analysis of ADR in the U.S. and Russia. Davronov (Uzbekistan) presents a rich comparative study of criminal mediation models in the U.S., Germany, and post-Soviet states. At the same time, Valeeva (Russia) explores the positive legal responsibility of ADR actors, blending philosophical and legal analysis. Russia is also discussing arbitration in BRICS+ countries. A key illustration of this was the 2025 Kazan International Legal Forum, organized by Kazan Federal University, which featured panels on the topic with participation from speakers—both in person and online—from most BRICS+ jurisdictions. This issue also embraces emerging thematic frontiers. Vargas-Chaves (Colombia) proposes an innovative roadmap for animal custody mediation in divorce proceedings—one of the first contributions in Latin America to conceptualize mediation as a tool for animal justice. Finally, Gromova, Ferreira, and Podshivalov (Russia/Brazil) explore the future of arbitration through quantum technologies, proposing a multilevel regulatory framework for what they call Quantum Arbitration. The trajectory from the 2021 to the 2025 international arbitration surveys makes one trend unmistakably clear: arbitration is increasingly multipolar, technologically enhanced, and geopolitically plural. Guangzhou’s rise as a preferred seat is emblematic of this transformation—anchoring BRICS cooperation and signaling the diversification of arbitral power centers. In other words, the field is shifting from West to East, and from adjudication to innovation. This issue of the RBADR embodies these dynamics, bringing together contributions from four continents to reflect on how ADR evolves with the world: integrating technology, embracing new jurisdictions, and responding to social, legal, and geopolitical change. As editors, we are proud to present this volume as part of our dedication to academic excellence, legal innovation, and the global dialogue on dispute resolution.

Arbitral fraud and the power of arbitrators in the <i>Nigeria v P&amp;ID</i> case: all that glitters is not gold

This study examined the role of ordinary bonds in proofs and showed that they have legal validity when a requirement exists: writing or signature; however, this authenticity is described as temporary authenticity. invalidity", whereby such validity would be waived if his validity was challenged by express denial or falsification. If the ordinary bond is valid, that authenticity reverts to the bond, His legal strength has become stronger than before, and he has addressed the scope of the authenticity of ordinary bonds between his parties and others when challenging his validity by denial or forgery, set out the arbitrator's power to assess the validity of the ordinary bond when challenged by denial or forgery. This study also discussed the authenticity of ordinary bond images in proof. This study found that the normal bond is only an argument for others if the date. Is fixed: The ordinary document should have no authority to prove except in certain cases, in which it has the same authenticity.

Applying conservation analysis, this article explicates the specific ways in which interruptions are strategized to adjust power relations in arbitration discourse. By analyzing the transcriptions of 18 authentic recordings of arbitration cases in Chinese mainland, this article ascertains the frequency and classification of interruptions, and further explains the discursive features of interruptions related to power. The analyses reveal that arbitrators in Chinese arbitral tribunals alternatively adopt the conflicting, conciliatory and emotional interruptions with/without discourse markers to represent variant degrees of arbitral power, satisfy the pragmatic needs of communication, and promote the arbitration proceedings. Discourse markers function as signals of interruptions and regulators of arbitral power, which are jointly adopted with interruptions by arbitrators to convey different communicative intentions. This study puts forward a new model of arbitrators’ interruptions and power which can be applied in the further studies of other professional domains, and the findings may have some important implications for arbitration discourse study in terms of the relationship between language and power.

This article provides a theoretical foundation with potential for direct practical implementation on the use of arbitral powers within international tax dispute resolution for the benefit of arbitrators and competent authorities. First, it introduces the notion of inherent and implied powers as a means to show how the characteristics of panels and interpretation can be used for the purposes of achieving faster the “right” solution to a dispute. Second, it shows how value created by disputes should be measured – through returns on investment of the dispute. The work shows that the measure can be used to compare the possible impact on the creation of value of different decisions of competent authorities in terms of drafting the legal framework of the dispute and arbitrators. Third, it gives an example on how arbitral powers can be used, making a case for the use of bifurcation within the context of international tax dispute resolution showing how further analysis of panel power is useful to enhance the system as is, without further reform. The work therefore raises awareness on how the current system can benefit from a broader discretion of arbitrators in managing international tax disputes especially if competent authorities expressly allow it and shows how such benefits can be measured. The article concludes with a practical example on the use of bifurcation to limit costs of a dispute and consequently enhance value.

The power of remission under Article 34(4) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law often rides on a thin line between arbitral autonomy and curial intervention. This is exemplified at various stages of its exercise including the grounds for remission, adjudication by arbitrators independent of court directions and enquiry upon resumption of setting aside proceedings. While remitting, courts seek to look into ‘curability’ of defects over the impact on other parts of the award, which may lead the enquiry beyond the scope of Article 34 (4). The power of arbitrators to accept fresh evidence often clashes with the scope of remission. The extent of court intervention upon resumption is bridled by independence of arbitrators, especially when the modified award has altered the grounds of setting aside proceedings under Article 34. An analysis of Indian and Singaporean judicial trend helps understand the practical nuances of remission. While both jurisdictions are open to remission, they differ with respect to extent of arbitral autonomy. Courts are yet to conclusively define curable defects vis-à-vis partial remission, scope of modification of awards and the extent of interference upon resumption. This article seeks to identify and address such issues in the application of Article 34(4). international arbitration, domestic arbitration, remission, partial remission, suspension of proceedings, Article 34(4) of UNCITRAL Model Law, arbitral tribunal, judicial intervention, powers of arbitrators, modified award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, curability, International Arbitration Act, Singapore Arbitration Act, resumption, fresh evidence.

Procedural flexibility and the prospect of a shorter and cheaper dispute resolution process have made arbitration one of the most common mechanisms for resolving commercial disputes in the United States. At the same time, parties should be aware of procedural and evidentiary issues that may arise in arbitration and that have yet to be resolved by the courts. This article examines one such issue, namely the scope of arbitral power to issue pre-hearing subpoenas to third parties pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. Federal circuit courts are split as to whether this power is available to arbitrators, with the majority judicial view adopting a restrictive interpretation of the Act and arbitral power. This split sends mixed signals to parties, counsel, and arbitrators, frustrating the objectives of the Act. The article proposes a novel rationale for a more flexible judicial approach. The article argues that the dominant narrow interpretation, when combined with a strict application of geographic limitations under the Federal Rules of Procedure with respect to compliance with subpoenas, may make enforcement of arbitral subpoenas to third parties impossible. The article then proposes several ways in which this enforcement gap may be overcome.

The purpose of this article is to address the question of arbitrability of administrative conflicts, generally and as characteristic of Portugal. Although the use of arbitration in conflicts where public entities intervene in private relationships is usually allowed, European legislatures commonly consider administrative disputes as a type of controversy excluded from arbitration. It is indeed easy to raise strong arguments against alternative dispute resolution when public administration is implicated. Nevertheless, none of the objections usually raised seems to be unbridgeable. Consequently, the article aims to critically analyse the main arguments against the power of arbitrators to rule on public conflicts. Presently, the Portuguese law allows administrative arbitration in a wide range of areas, from conflicts relating to administrative contracts to conflicts over the legality of administrative authority acts. The assessment of this regime makes it clear that the enlargement of the objective scope of administrative arbitration has to be accompanied by rules, which offer a response to the specific requirements of administrative law and a safeguard of public interest. In this sense, the analysis offers a critical review of the solutions of Portuguese law, which can be also used in comparable legal regimes of other European countries.

The protection of aliens under international law has progressed from the alien being a ‘clanless’ individual or outlaw completely at the mercy of the local lord, with no entitlement to the peace and protection of the locality in the earliest times to the modern, sophisticated investor–State dispute settlement mechanisms. It was only after the end of the Cold War, when foreign investments grew dramatically and hundreds of major investor–State disputes emerged, that interest in investor–State disputes sharpened. This essay demonstrates that several fundamental changes in the legal landscape have occurred since the constitution of the early compensation commissions of the eighteenth century leading to the modern system of resolution of investor-State disputes. First, a growing number of multinational enterprises operating globally have become major actors on the international public law plain, in areas that in the past were reserved only for States. Second, international organizations and other non-State actors have dramatically strengthened their influence with efficient international arbitration institutions dominating the system of investor-State dispute resolution after the end of the Cold War. The methods for resolving investor-State disputes have evolved primarily along the lines of creating specialised institutionalised forms. While early commissioners relied on their subjective understanding of justice and fairness, today the expectation is applying agreed set of rules (‘‘precept imposed from outside’’ using Hersch Lauterpacht’s language), so that failure to do so may result in annulment of the award. The evolution of various methods of international dispute settlement and the emergence of new methods, such as international investment courts, does not necessarily mean that the older forms of dispute resolution will die like the dinosaurs. They will continue to function, albeit with modifications and will inform the future models of international dispute settlement. Two recently published books represent the most sophisticated attempts to address the complex questions of the evolution of investor–State arbitration from a historical perspective. In The Evolution of International Arbitration: Judicialization, Governance, Legitimacy, Alec Sweet and Florian Grisel (hereinafter Sweet & Grisel) argue that a consolidation of arbitration power has occurred over the past century, and although the structure of authority in international arbitration remains nonhierarchical and pluralist, the regime has gradually acquired the properties of stable legal system. International Investment Law and History is a volume edited by University of Glasgow professor Christian Tams, University of Amsterdam professor Stephan Schill and University of Frankfurt professor Rainer Hofmann that includes contributions from academics discussing a broad variety of issues. Part II of this essay examines the evolution of investor–State dispute settlement mechanisms from compensation commissions dominated by sovereigns to current legal institutions. Part III traces the evolution of approaches to those who resolve the disputes and appointment mechanisms, which changed from political appointees to legal experts. Part IV shows that when it comes to the applicable law, it has evolved from almost unlimited discretion of adjudicators based on fairness and equity to formal external sources of law. Each part of this review essay starts with an overview of the relevant sections of both volumes and ends with my analysis of a large number of historical documents to give a more comprehensive understanding of the historical evolution of international investment law.

Abstract When judges are described as activists they are usually accused of either intruding into policy making best left to the legislative branches of government or intruding into values or social mores – matters best left to democratic processes, i.e. to “the people”. For an arbitrator to be an activist she would need to go beyond her duly conferred quasi-judicial powers, and arbitrators – and in particular investment arbitrators – have been accused of doing just that. Though there is a fine line between what constitutes activity and what constitutes activism, I suggest that arbitrators are not generally “activists.” First, they wield authority conferred on them by the arbitral agreement and by other sources of arbitral power. Second, particularly when the applicable legal standard is vague, this conferral includes quite broad authority to define and develop the applicable law. Third, the lack of agreement among states about what certain obligations mean suggests that arbitral tribunals are not going beyond their authority; rather, the fault, if fault there is, lies in the language of the agreements themselves.

Summary The growth in the amount of international arbitrations, the value of the disputes and expenses invested into the arbitral proceedings have escalated the pressure to succeed in dispute. The arbitrators face to guerrilla tactics or threats of annulment of arbitral awards based on the violation of a right to a due process. Soft law regulating the arbitral procedure endowers the effectives of the arbitration, however, in the recent years the critical voices can be heart which warn against overregulation and its judicialization. On the following pages the impact of the soft rules prescribing the arbitral proceeding on the effectiveness of the international commercial arbitration is examined. Firstly the author deals with the right to a fair trial and the discretionary power of arbitrators in the framework of the notion of soft law and then the binding character of this soft law is determined. The aim of this article is to answer the question whether the regulation of the arbitral proceedings by soft law is still welcomed or if it represents a threat for the discretionary powers of the arbitrator and arbitration as such.

Practitioners and parties have criticized international arbitration in recent years for losing its competitive edge of resolving disputes swiftly. What was once an advantage has now become a source of concern and the impetus for a concerted effort to find a remedy. One remedy that has recently attracted attention is the summary disposition of claims. This article explores the power of arbitrators to hear and rule on dispositive motions, the scope of this power and recommended best practices in its exercise, and the necessary shift in attitudes within the arbitration community to accept and embrace dispositive motions.

The United States (‘US’) Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen v AnimalFeeds (2010) shook up the American arbitration landscape. First, when justifying the annulment of the arbitral award, the Court’s ambiguous interpretation of section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) (under which courts may vacate an arbitral award where the arbitral panel exceeded its powers) raised doubts as to whether it departed from precedent by reviewing errors of law under this ground. Second, by narrowly approaching the power of arbitrators to order class proceedings, the Court indicated a new movement in the case law on class arbitration, fed by scepticism and hostility against this procedure. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter (2013) clarified that an arbitrator’s erroneous interpretation of the parties' contract did not amount to an ‘excess of power’ under the FAA. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Oxford Health raised new questions, and certainly did not restore the pro-class arbitration approach previously adopted in Green Tree v Bazzle (2003). This article explores the concept of ‘excess of arbitral power’ so as to understand its purpose, content, and limits in light of recent decisions of the Supreme Court on class arbitration. Based on a thorough analysis of the case law and on a comparative law approach to the extent of arbitrators’ powers, it spells out where the limits of arbitrators’ power to order class arbitration are likely to stand in the US. US Federal Arbitration Act, Title 9 Arbitration (1925) Green Tree Financial Corp, Conseco Finance Corp v Bazzle and ors, US Supreme Court (2003) Stolt-Nielsen SA and ors v AnimalFeeds International Corporation, US Supreme Court (2010) AT&T Mobility v Concepcion, US Supreme Court (2011) American Express Co and ors v Italian Colors Restaurant and ors, US Supreme Court (2013) Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter, US Supreme Court (2013)

This essay is prompted by a recent Chinese criminal provision governing the impartiality of arbitration. The goal of the essay is to critically examine the new crime and put forward some proposals for reform, which could be employed to resolve the tension that exists between arbitrator impartiality and deference to arbitration. Although the new provision appears to be a rule to eliminate the abuse of arbitral power, it may raise more questions than it resolves. This essay explores the problems and undertakes a comparative analysis of the U.S provision as well as an analysis of some cultural and traditional elements influencing the new crime in China. From the author’s point of view, the concerns could be better met by fine-tuning the rule rather than abandoning it in order to keep a balance between the previous two conflicting values. A mechanism of Judicial Interpretation is proposed borrowing some U.S. experience. It could well suit China’s needs because the benefits of arbitration can be retained without sacrificing the impartiality of arbitration.

The present work deals with the jurisdictional power of the arbitrators. After the emergence of the prima facie test in the enforcement of the arbitration agreement, we are now assisting the creation of a new arbitral power, i.e., the power to render an enforceable decision attesting the invalidity or inapplicability of the arbitration agreement (the so-called negative jurisdictional ruling). These trends imply a shift in the theory of international arbitration: from a private system originating from the will of the parties, to a distinct legal order operating side by side with national legal systems.

One of the reasons for the failure of arbitration in Pakistan is the inefficacious law on interim measures. A party can get these measures from court only after the commencement of requisite proceedings and after following a very lengthy procedure in an environment where the courts have tendency to go into the merits of dispute at this preliminary stage. The new proposed law on arbitration should not only remove these lacunae in the present law but should also modernize the arbitration law in Pakistan by giving the arbitrator power to issue an ex parte interim measures also enforceable against the non-parties. Since, the conferral of such powers to a private person, who is not appointed as a judge by state, is not new in Pakistan, it is suggested to incorporate in the new proposed law the amendments in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law regarding the interim measures as were made in 2006 because that is also compatible to the Pakistani legal culture.

The article analyses the first public award rendered on the basis of an arbitration agreement contained in merger control commitments to the European Commission. It addresses first the nature and general features of the arbitration of merger control commitments, concluding that it is an ordinary commercial arbitration, whose main peculiarity is that it is without privity, being available to all the beneficiaries of the commitments (the customers and competitors of the merged entity). It is not a form of “regulatory” arbitration, nor an instrument for the “monitoring” of merger control commitments and the Commission has no power to intervene in the procedure or to influence the decision. The article then discusses the RTI v. Sky Italia award's analysis on jurisdiction and on the merits. The Arbitral Tribunal's decision on the jurisdictional objection is particularly interesting because it clearly distinguishes the roles of the European Commission and of the arbitrators. While the former is competent for the public enforcement of the commitments, the function of the arbitrators is to settle the disputes between the merging entity and the beneficiaries of the commitments, which would otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of national courts. The award adopts a broad and constructive approach to the identification of the disputes that can be brought under this type of arbitration agreement. On the merits the award identifies the scope of the arbitrator's power to enforce the commitments, in particular in relation to the Commission's concerns in the decision clearing the merger, deciding that the arbitrators cannot modify the commitments. The article concludes that this first arbitration under merger control commitments confirms the effectiveness of the introduction of arbitration clauses in such commitments.

ARBITRATORS AS THE CENTER OF A HETERARCHICAL SYSTEM International arbitration is a particularly good example of confronting complexity in modern international law and dispute settlement. One-off arbitral tribunals, constituted under different arbitral rules and without a uniform supervisory mechanism, resolve individual cases based on different national and international standards and thus create a tremendous risk of inconsistent decisions. This leaves many observers with the perception that international arbitration resembles a chaos of unconnected episodes of dispute settlement rather than a structured system. This perception reflects the absence of hierarchical ordering structures usually associated with systems of dispute settlement in the domestic context where a supreme court ensures convergence and unity. International arbitration, by contrast, operates in predominantly heterarchical structures. In them, the system's unity cannot be forged through hierarchy but requires auto-convergence of independent actors. For once, elements of convergence exist in the wide adherence of states to important international conventions and due to the harmonizing effect of model laws. Yet every arbitral tribunal remains king in its own empire. Still, one can observe considerable convergence, and hence order, in the practice of arbitral decisionmaking. Convergence is reflected less in legal sources but crystallizes in the sociological structures and linguistic practices of international arbitration. Just as one requires highly elaborate methods of fractal geometry to uncover ordering structures in Jackson Pollock's seemingly chaotic drip paintings, (1) one can uncover order in international arbitration by analyzing the discourse in and about international arbitration rather than concentrating on formal sources. To understand arbitration as a system thus means understanding the importance and power of arbitrators. They are the center that can forge international arbitration into a system or dissolve it in infinite fragmentation. Similar to courts in the domestic context, arbitrators as a group are the key institution for the emergence, persistence, transformation, and hence existence, of international arbitration as a system. (2) After all, uniform substantive and procedural rules only translate into a system if arbitrators apply them accordingly; likewise, arbitrators can even forge divergent legal rules into a convergent and structured whole. Arbitrators therefore determine the gestalt of international arbitration. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE The idea that arbitrators determine whether international arbitration constitutes a proper system is closely linked to understanding the function of arbitration not only as a mechanism to settle individual disputes, but as an instrument of global governance. (3) After all, the concept of a system implies that there is an overarching structure connecting individual instances of dispute settlement. This overarching structure develops chiefly on the basis of arbitral precedent. (4) Building on the increasingly widespread publication of arbitral awards, in investment treaty but also in commercial arbitrations, both the decisionmaking of international arbitrators and the argumentation of parties appearing before them are highly precedent-driven. Although it is non-binding, arbitral precedent becomes the primary sources for guiding the resolution of international disputes. It is the use of, and reference to, arbitral precedent that lets arbitrators transform international arbitration into an independent system. Not all arbitrators, however, accept that they operate in a system of governance. They stress that arbitration is a party-controlled and party-owned process in which arbitrators function as agents of the parties. (5) Such a position, however, is not particularly convincing, considering how crucial arbitral precedent has become in forging normative expectations of actual and future parties about how international disputes should be resolved and how parties to international transactions should conduct themselves in the shadow of rulings of arbitral tribunals on matters of substantive and procedural law. …

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. resolved an important conflict amongst the Circuits as to whether parties could contractually expand the scope of judicial review of awards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). While the Court held that such attempts were impermissible because the FAA's bases to vacate or modify awards, however narrow, were exclusive, its opinion nonetheless raised more questions than it answered. One such issue was what was to become of manifest disregard, a judicially created ground to refuse confirmation intended to cover those unusual situations where arbitrators reached wholly bizarre results based on seemingly purposeful departures from basic rules of law. Manifest disregard is not referenced as such by the FAA, but, perhaps said the Court, it was nothing more than a reference to the sort of abuse of arbitral power which was specified in the FAA as a basis to refuse confirmation. This was to provoke a split commentary as to whether manifest disregard was still with us. The second such issue was raised by the Court's reference to the latitude parties might have to circumvent the FAA's review restrictions by arranging for review pursuant to state statute or even common law. Would review really be broader under these rubrics, and how would parties to an FAA case escape its post-award provisions, particularly given principles of preemption. Could a case be an FAA case for some purposes, but not for purposes of confirmation. This article deals with the issues just identified, and also traces early attempts by lower federal and state courts to intuit the Supreme Court's intentions in raising, but not answering them.

Abstract Two significant opinions on mediation confidentiality from opposite coasts emerged this summer. Alternatives' editor Russ Bleemer, and Timothy Klimpl, of New York, analyze the result in the closely watched California Supreme Court Simmons v. Ghaderi case, which provides strong support for the state's mediation protection statutes. Confidentiality is on shakier ground in the hands of New York's top court, with details provided about the Court's affirmance of a subpoena for a mediator's testimony and records. Jillian Lee Hunt, of New York, looks at another California Supreme Court case on the limits of arbitrator power, and there is a report on a United Kingdom survey revealing an insufficient use of employment mediation.