Conference programme

International arbitration, as an alternative means of settling disputes, can only function and thrive as long as its end users trust the system and its players. One of the main pillars upon which this trust is built is the independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, who are often said to be acting as “private judges”. In recent years, the arbitral community has engaged in a prolific self-regulating exercise to overcome criticisms and reinforce its own legitimacy. In 2024, the IBA revised the Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, while the UNCITRAL issued its Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Dispute Resolution. This panel will examine the new principles for arbitrators’ conflicts of interest and disclosure and share its perspectives on how this will impact the future of international arbitration.

This Oxford-style panel will delve into two issues, with a panellist defending the motion and the other rebutting it.
The first motion will be: “this house believes that recent English case law and the reform of the Arbitration Act will boost London’s role as leading seat for international arbitrations”. The Bill for the Review of the Arbitration Act 1996 is currently being discussed in the UK Parliament and proposes inter alia to modify the rules on the governing law of an arbitration agreement, the powers that courts can exercise in support of arbitration in respect of third parties, and the scope of review of arbitral awards. Moreover, recently, the UK Supreme Court delivered significant judgments on the law governing the arbitration clause and the power of English judges to issue anti-suit injunctions in the context of foreign-seat arbitration (Enka v. Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 and UniCredit Bank v. RusChemAlliance [2024] UKSC 30). During the motion the panellists will discuss these recent developments and their actual and potential impact on arbitral proceedings seated in England.
The second motion will be: “this house believes that the current treatment of shareholders’ claims for reflective loss in ISDS is appropriate”. Investor-State tribunals have frequently allowed claims by foreign shareholders to recover the loss in the value of the shares of a company affected by measures implemented by the host State in which they held an interest. This has come under intense scrutiny in recent years. During the motion, the panellists will debate the current treatment of these claims by ISDS tribunals.