Partner of Kovalev, Tugushi & Partners Stanislav Karandasov will present a report at the XII St. Petersburg International Legal Forum on June 28, 2024 in the following session: "Re- (de-) politicization of international arbitration: evolution of principles and procedural institutions".
The depoliticization of international arbitration, the resistance of arbitrators to the influence of public policy of individual states, even if they are states of the seat of arbitration, adherence to the will of the parties, strict confidentiality and adversarial nature were until recently considered its main competitive advantages. But this advantage has gradually turned into a weakness.
There are increasing opinions that in order to retain its influence, arbitration should become similar to a court and realize its responsibility not only to the parties, but also to the rule of law. The discussion of all these issues in the international arena does not look like a full-fledged dialog, but rather a "probing" of positions.
The international community of arbitrators is not in a hurry to swear to a new arbitration order as States see it.
Governments in UNCITRAL Group III continue to discuss the contours of investment arbitration reform, but final decisions are still far away.
What lies ahead for international arbitration?
Is it capable of accommodating political factors?
Will it ensure procedural flexibility and attractiveness to global business?
The depoliticization of international arbitration, the resistance of arbitrators to the influence of public policy of individual states, even if they are states of the seat of arbitration, adherence to the will of the parties, strict confidentiality and adversarial nature were until recently considered its main competitive advantages. But this advantage has gradually turned into a weakness.
There are increasing opinions that in order to retain its influence, arbitration should become similar to a court and realize its responsibility not only to the parties, but also to the rule of law. The discussion of all these issues in the international arena does not look like a full-fledged dialog, but rather a "probing" of positions.
The international community of arbitrators is not in a hurry to swear to a new arbitration order as States see it.
Governments in UNCITRAL Group III continue to discuss the contours of investment arbitration reform, but final decisions are still far away.
What lies ahead for international arbitration?
Is it capable of accommodating political factors?
Will it ensure procedural flexibility and attractiveness to global business?