ABSTRACT Research Aims: This paper aims to examine arbitration as a bridge between Islamic finance and international arbitration standards, identifying key areas of convergence and divergence and proposing harmonised solutions that uphold Sharia compliance while ensuring international enforceability. Design/methodology/approach: It evaluates Islamic arbitration frameworks, such as the Accounting and Auditing Organisation for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) Sharia Standard on Arbitration and the Asian International Arbitration Centre’s (AIAC, formerly KLRCA) i-Arbitration Rules, against established international benchmarks, including the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law and the New York Convention. Research Findings: The analysis highlights key areas of convergence and divergence, revealing the complexities of integrating Sharia-compliant dispute resolution within the global legal context. Theoretical Contribution/Originality: The paper proposes practical strategies to harmonise Islamic arbitration practices with international norms, including clarifying and standardising Sharia principles, fostering wider acceptance of Islamic finance arbitration, and ensuring procedural compliance with Sharia and international arbitration frameworks. By doing so, the article argues that arbitration can provide an effective, credible, and globally compatible mechanism to resolve Islamic financial disputes. Research limitations and implications: This study is limited by its focus on comparative legal frameworks, primarily drawing from doctrinal analysis and literature. Review rather than empirical data. Nonetheless, the findings provide practical insights for policymakers, financial institutions, and legal practitioners in designing harmonized arbitration frameworks that align Sharia principles with international commercial standards.

The International Investment Arbitration (IIA) method, known as the ISDS mechanism, is majorly divided into two devices: ICSID and non-ICSID arbitrations. The ICSID arbitration mechanism has been the most recognized dispute settlement mechanism formed by the ICSID convention. Non-ICSID arbitrations mainly comprise ways available other than ICSID arbitration, e.g., UNCITRAL, International Chamber of Commerce, London Court of International Arbitration, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, etc. The organic nature of the International Investment regime has led to the progressive practice of dispute settlement mechanisms all over the world since the rise of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT) in the nineties. However, the scholarships and empirical studies show that the arbitration panels are not devoid of systemic or institutional biases. This conception is resulting in an era of resistance among the State parties to any BIT. This paper attempts to find out and justify the critique of institutional biases with the help of some secondary data and cases. In addition, the paper shall also include the approaches of South Asian countries as host states in foreign direct investment under specific BIT protection. FENI UNIVERSITY JOURNAL, 2024, 3(1), ISSN [2518-3869], PP. (223-234)

This article analyzes the application of game theory, particularly the Nash equilibrium, to the strategic design of arbitration clauses in international contracts amid global crises and geopolitical tensions. Through a qualitative, analytical, comparative, and documentary study—grounded in specialized literature, regulatory frameworks from the Andean Community, the European Union, and the United States, and landmark cases such as Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador and Kimberly Clark y Colpapel S.A.—a legal-strategic model is proposed to optimize dispute prevention and management. The study identifies five critical variables—arbitral seat, applicable law, procedural language, confidentiality, and enforceability—and shows that cooperative configurations enhance predictability, efficiency, and legal certainty, while opportunistic strategies increase costs and risks. It concludes that integrating law, economics, and game theory strengthens cooperation and resilience in international arbitration, providing practical recommendations for lawyers, legislators, and arbitral institutions.

Submission of documentary evidence occupies a substantial part of international arbitration proceedings and efficiency of this procedure predetermines a success of arbitration. This matter gets quite complicated and challenging when an arbitration involves parties from different legal cultures. As a consequence, arbitral proceedings could take a long time and cause discontent among its users. Therefore, the analysis of ways and methods of raising the efficiency of the document submission is important for the effective international dispute resolution. The work examines arbitration rules of several arbitral institutions, law and practice of UK and the USA as the common law jurisdictions, which have different scope of document discovery. Then civil law jurisdictions like Germany, Uzbekistan are considered which do not practice common law type of document discovery, with a very limited scope. The paper also considers some hypothetical situations connected with the document production and evaluate its efficiency in international arbitration proceedings. It also observes common/civil law approaches that have shaped practices in the field. The views on how efficiency of this procedure can be raised are also analyzed, the IBA and Prague Rules are considered. It is argued that a certain degree of convergence in the documentary evidence practices is taking place in international arbitration, concluding with the forward-looking remarks.

This research examines the rapid adoption of predictive analytics in international ADR. It argues that although the technology produces efficiency gains - reducing costs and timelines while enhancing consistency of decision making - the very efficiency gains carry with them collective and individual legal and ethical risks. This analysis supports the argument that the PA's dependence on complicated, proprietary ML models results in an inescapable legitimacy crisis. The emergence of this crisis can be traced back to fundamental process disputes, particularly the "Black Box" defect, which introduces an insurmountable opacity to algorithms and acute flaws in data governance surrounding confidentiality, reverse engineering risk, and non-compliance with regimes like the GDPR. All of these violations contravene the principles of due process, ultimately jeopardizing the global enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention. The key contention raised in the proceedings is the tension between the confidentiality of technical information and the non-derogability of a party's right to contest crucial inputs affecting the decision. Due to the lack of regulations, proprietary systems can operate without oversight. These systems will import systemic bias from historical data into future legal outcomes. This structural deficit creates a compelling ethical reason for requiring immediate regulation. The current failure of institutional control over a third-party vendor's technology necessitates a shift from simple ethical advice to enforceable and transnational standards, ensuring the long-term legitimacy of the international ADR system. This research proposes a comprehensive three-pillar regulatory framework to shift the ecosystem from opaque behaviour to auditable transparency. The framework requires (1) the tribunal to disclose the model specification used and its methodology mandatorily; (2) conducting a data provenance, quality and bias audit of the Data Protection model, that is not conducted by the software vendor, of all commercial PA models; and (3) mandating algorithmic contestability, where any parties has the right to contest the outcome of an algorithmic output through a forensic analysis carried out by an expert. Future research needs to look at empirical analyses assessing the relationship between PA use and award challenge rates. Additionally, future research should develop open-source, auditable PA models that non-commercial institutions can utilize. Ultimately, effective governance of algorithmic arbitration relies on international institutions, such as UNCITRAL, to incorporate transparency and accountability into the arbitral procedure in a meaningful manner.

This article examines two essential mechanisms in the arbitration process: the determination of the closure of proceedings and the reopening of hearings. The closure of proceedings is a formal stage that signifies the completion of the evidentiary process and serves as the basis for the arbitral tribunal to begin deliberations and draft the final award. Meanwhile, the reopening of hearings is an extraordinary mechanism that may only be invoked under limited circumstances, such as the discovery of new evidence (novum), fraud, or significant procedural errors. This study employs a normative juridical method through an analysis of Law No. 30 of 1999, BANI Rules, and international arbitration instruments such as the ICC Rules. The findings indicate that these mechanisms must be carried out carefully in order to maintain a proper balance between efficiency, legal certainty, and substantive justice. The article underscores the importance of official documentation, procedural limitations, and the authority of arbitrators in managing both the closure of proceedings and reopening, ensuring that arbitration remains an effective dispute resolution forum.

Judicial roles in international arbitration: divergent paths toward convergence in Indonesia and China

The involvement of foreign companies in infrastructure development in Indonesia has increased rapidly over the last two decades, driven by growing needs for capital, technology, and advanced project management standards. However, the complexity of cross-jurisdictional issues and divergent interests among states, state-owned enterprises, investors, and contractors heightens the potential for intense legal disputes. This research examines the characteristics of disputes, their root causes, national and international regulatory frameworks, dispute resolution mechanisms, case patterns, and recommendations for strengthening project governance. Studies show that dispute roots extend beyond technical-contractual matters to include political factors, regulatory disharmony, information asymmetries, and weak contract administration. The research concludes that preventing disputes through appropriate risk allocation, regulatory transparency, and enhanced government capacity represents fundamental steps to mitigate the economic and political costs of high-value infrastructure disputes. The findings imply that, to enhance Indonesia’s attractiveness to foreign investors, policymakers should prioritize regulatory harmonization, institutionalize early dispute prevention mechanisms such as the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB), and streamline enforcement of international arbitration awards.

This article explores modern trends in the legal regulation of electronic arbitration (E-Arbitration). With the growing influence of digital technologies, it has become clear that arbitration institutions must adapt to keep pace with these advancements. Through a comparative approach, the study examines the regulatory practices of major international arbitration centers, including HKIAC, CIETAC, SCIA, TAI, and ISTAC, within the context of e-arbitration. The results emphasize the critical need for distinct and tailored rules to govern electronic arbitration processes. Ultimately, this article contributes to the structured evolution of e-arbitration by offering recommendations to enhance national legal frameworks and presenting a proposed procedural regulation draft.

Recent years have seen extensive debate on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The European Commission’s proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) seeks to recast ISDS by establishing a permanent two-tier adjudicatory system with an appellate instance, and by enhancing procedural transparency. The initiative aims to address the legitimacy crisis that has confronted conventional ISDS. However, resistance has emerged within the existing international legal order. Frictions have appeared in arbitral practice and treaty architecture. The MIC’s jurisdictional scheme exposes structural tensions between the delegation of sovereign authority and global governance frameworks. This paper employs a methodology that combines normative analysis with targeted case studies. The central claim is that the EU’s supranational model of judicial governance sits uneasily with sovereignty-centred premises of international investment law. Drawing on the CJEU’s judgments in Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV and République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, the analysis maps the fault lines between the MIC initiative and existing arbitration mechanisms. The salient issues concern jurisdictional allocation, conflicts of applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The paper also shows that the MIC’s attempt to remedy arbitral inconsistency through institutional centralisation engages sensitive sovereignty concerns. Based on recent practice, the paper argues that the MIC is not a mere procedural reform. It constitutes a significant institutional transformation intended to shift international investment arbitration from decentralisation to centralisation. The EU’s institutional vision carries potential for legal and institutional innovation. Its successful implementation, however, depends on complex processes of international coordination and legal integration. To mitigate these tensions, this paper advances the principle of ‘differentiated and adaptive sovereignty’. The principle provides a flexible framework that preserves core sovereign prerogatives while accommodating reform, and that supports a more inclusive and adaptable international investment arbitration regime.

International contracts are essential legal instruments in facilitating global business transactions, yet they often create interpretive ambiguities that may lead to costly disputes between parties from different jurisdictions. This study examines the relevance of Recitals and Definitions as contractual components designed to prevent ambiguity in international agreements. Using a normative-juridical methodology that incorporates literature review, comparative analysis, and case analysis of international arbitral decisions, the research investigates how these elements contribute to legal certainty and consistent interpretation. Recitals provide background, objectives, and the underlying intention of the contracting parties, serving as a crucial interpretative tool when disputes arise. Meanwhile, Definitions establish precise meanings of technical terms, thereby reducing multiple interpretations of contractual language. The findings reveal that both Recitals and Definitions significantly reinforce the principles of good faith, fair dealing, and pacta sunt servanda during contract implementation. Furthermore, despite interpretive differences between common law and civil law systems, their practical application remains highly relevant in drafting effective international contracts. Decisions from international arbitration bodies, such as the ICC and ICSID, demonstrate that Recitals and Definitions are frequently employed to determine the true intention of the parties in cases of interpretive conflict. Therefore, these components are not merely formal or supplementary content but foundational mechanisms for mitigating legal uncertainty and preventing disputes. The study recommends that legal practitioners improve the precision and consistency of contractual drafting, particularly in Recitals and Definitions, to enhance the enforceability and stability of international commercial relationships.

ABSTRACT International commercial arbitration (ICA) processes are routinely assessed as being arbitration friendly, pro-arbitration, and/or pro-enforcement (or otherwise). These evaluations are ubiquitous, yet little attention has been given to a very important matter: the extent to which the arbitration friendly, pro-arbitration, and pro-enforcement criteria are meaningful ICA evaluative tools. In this article, I critique all three. Showing them to be inadequate evaluative tools, I propose an alternative framework—comprised of efficiency, economic viability, and effectiveness criteria—that would allow us to more meaningfully understand and debate developments in the ICA field. In the course of its analysis, this article draws upon practical examples concerning ICA’s confidentiality, reforms to lex arbitri, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and ICA’s transparency in order to demonstrate the inadequacy of our field’s existing evaluative regimes and the meaningful way in which my criteria stand to change the quality of our disciplinary conversations.

This study aimed considering the growing trends in the air cargo transport sector—to provide a concise summary of international arbitration's development as a workable substitute for resolving disputes arising from air cargo transport contracts. It also highlighted the innovative provisions introduced by international conventions regulating air arbitration, which differ from traditional arbitration rules. Based on this analysis, the study reached several conclusions and recommendations. The key findings indicated that arbitration in air transport disputes is inherently judicial arbitration, as it relies on strict legal rules under the Montreal Convention. Consequently, the relevant international conventions (Montreal and Warsaw) imply that arbitration in this field is limited to judicial arbitration, excluding amicable arbitration (conciliation), reflecting a clear trend toward restricting parties’ autonomy in arbitration agreements within air transport. The primary recommendation was the necessity to amend Jordanian legislation governing air cargo transport contracts and the Jordanian Arbitration Law by introducing specialized provisions for air cargo disputes and their arbitration mechanisms, as these are now essential for protecting affected parties.

Abstract This study reviews developments in Burkina Faso from 2020 to 2025 to understand how its leader, Ibrahim Traoré, has approached resource governance through legal action, public policy and institutional change. The research focuses on the application of international legal principles, such as the UNGA Resolution 1803 ( XVII ) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, alongside responses from international investors and arbitration bodies. The findings show that although Traoré’s policies are a strong push for permanent control over natural resources, their implementation is made difficult by weak institutions, binding investment treaties and limited support from regional partners. Moreover, although public discourse and youth mobilisation around resource justice have increased, risks related to authoritarianism, corruption and exclusion remain. We believe that sustainable resource governance in Africa requires not only political will but also institutional reform, transparent legal frameworks and inclusive policymaking. It concludes that international law must evolve to better reflect the developmental priorities and sovereignty claims of resource-rich but economically marginalised states.

Germany has a reliable system of corporate dispute resolution. There is no division into international commercial arbitration and domestic arbitration in the country: the system is regulated by a single regulatory legal act – Book 10 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). The government of Uzbekistan is making significant efforts to expand the scope of international arbitration. In 2018, the Tashkent International Arbitration Institute (TIAC) ​​was established as Uzbekistan’s first international arbitration institution. The main goal is to facilitate the resolution of disputes between business entities in different countries, in particular those related to investments, intellectual property and blockchain technology, through international arbitration. In this study, we analyze these two jurisdictions by discussing the specific features of each and relevant advances in German experience. We support my analysis by studying the legal literature, legislation, legal commentaries and case law.

The digital transformation of international commercial arbitration is a major development that has significantly enhanced efficiency, accessibility and fairness, while safeguarding the autonomy of the parties involved. Today, major regions around the world have adopted unique approaches to digitalisation. Their experiences show that effective digitalisation requires the simultaneous establishment of rule certainty, technical capability and procedural fairness. China has made substantial progress in the digitalisation of international commercial arbitration through institutional practice and legislative revision, but still faces challenges relating to detailed rules, the digital divide, and data security. Moving forward, China needs to, under the principles of subsidiarity, cooperation, synergy and security, build a prudent and inclusive regulatory system by improving legislation, strengthening security frameworks, enhancing digital literacy, and leveraging the role of arbitration associations. This will support the healthy and stable development of digital international commercial arbitration in China, thereby enhancing its competitiveness and influence in the field of international dispute resolution.

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.

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.

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’.

This paper focuses on how the broad and undefined interpretation of public policy by United Arab Emirates (UAE) courts under Articles 53 and 54 of the UAE Arbitration Law impedes the enforcement of arbitral awards rendered under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Although the UAE has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law and ratified the New York Convention, the absence of a clear framework for interpreting public policy enables inconsistent judicial intervention, undermining legal certainty and party autonomy in international arbitration. The study adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, supported by comparative qualitative and law case analysis, to systematically examine relevant UAE court decisions and statutory provisions. The article’s original contribution lies in its focused assessment of how judicial reasoning in public policy cases directly affects the enforceability of UNCITRALbased awards. It concludes by recommending legislative clarification and judicial guidelines to narrow the scope of discretion, thereby enhancing the UAE’s reliability as an arbitrationfriendly jurisdiction.