THE AUTHOR:
Lucas Viana, LL.M. Candidate in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po
The Sciences Po LL.M. in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (TADS) Degree, unites a global community distinguished by its academic depth and practical insight in international arbitration. In partnership with Daily Jus, the TADS Network—comprising both students and alumni—shares original commentary, legal insights, and global perspectives that reflect the program’s commitment to shaping the future of international arbitration.
From September 11 to 12, 2025, the city of Paris hosted the 8th Brazilian Arbitration Forum at Sciences Po École de Droit. The event brought together leading arbitration practitioners from different jurisdictions to discuss pressing issues shaping the practice in Brazil, Portugal, France, and beyond.
On the first day of the Brazilian Arbitration Forum 2025, practitioners addressed contract rebalancing, the role of interest and auxiliary remedies, the realities of expedited arbitration, and the evolving role of the arbitrator.
The first panel, moderated by José Ricardo Feris with Carla Gonçalves Borges, Bianca Soares, and Flávio Spaccaquerche as panelists, focused on the economic rebalancing of contracts from both legal and technical perspectives. The speakers emphasized how hardship provisions have become central in modern contract drafting, especially in long-term concession and infrastructure agreements. Comparative insights revealed that Brazilian law acknowledges hardship but mainly relies on courts and arbitral tribunals for interpretation. In contrast, Portugal and France offer codified mechanisms, while English law defers solutions to the drafting stage. The panel also discussed how rebalancing is no longer viewed as exceptional but rather as a structural necessity, requiring a balance between legitimate unforeseen risks and ordinary political or economic fluctuations. Arbitration was highlighted as an increasingly suitable forum for these disputes due to its flexibility and technical expertise, though tensions with judicial interpretations remain.
The second panel, led by Renato Grion with Laura França Pereira, Gabriel Seijo, and Carla Miranda Godo, focused on interest and auxiliary remedies in international arbitration. The discussion highlighted how Brazil’s history of hyperinflation explains the prominence of interest, indexation, and monetary correction in dispute resolution. Under Brazilian law, these elements are automatically included in damages, with statutory interest linked to the SELIC rate and recent reforms removing usury limits for financial and commercial contracts. Yet controversies remain regarding the applicable rates, the use of simple versus compound interest, and the choice of monetary indices. Arbitrators were cautioned that unclear awards often lead to enforcement problems, sometimes with accrued interest surpassing the principal claim. Precision in defining rates, indices, and calculation periods was underscored as essential for enforceability both within Brazil and internationally.
The theme of efficiency and accessibility was addressed in the third panel, moderated by Ricardo Aprigliano, with insights from Juliana Botini, Priscilla Knoll Aymone, and Daniel F. Jacob Nogueira, which examined expedited arbitration in Brazil. Expedited procedures were presented as a means to restore the original spirit of speed and cost efficiency in arbitration, particularly for simpler and lower-value disputes. The speakers noted that in Brazil, arbitration often mirrors litigation, leading to unnecessary delays, but since 2021, several institutions have adopted expedited rules, with the ICC introducing an opt-out model that is gaining traction worldwide. Challenges persist, especially “due process paranoia,” the overuse of experts, and the tendency of counsel to replicate court tactics, all of which undermine efficiency. Yet opportunities abound, as expedited cases can serve as valuable entry points for younger arbitrators and broaden access to arbitration for small and medium-sized enterprises. Looking forward, the panel suggested that complexity, not just value, should guide the suitability of expedited procedures, and that lessons from these streamlined processes may eventually shape mainstream arbitration practice.
The final panel, moderated by Diego P. Fernández Arroyo and featuring contributions from Sofia Vale, Bingen Amezaga, and Giovanni Nanni, reflected on the arbitrator profession and the challenges and opportunities it faces. The speakers traced how arbitration has evolved from a sideline role for professors or lawyers into a recognized and increasingly full-time profession. Today, arbitrators are younger, more specialized, and often hold advanced academic and professional qualifications. Institutions and young arbitrator groups have created new pathways into the field, from tribunal secretary roles to moot competitions, though speakers emphasized that credibility and trust still take years to build. Traditional profiles remain influential, but diversity, both in terms of gender and generational access, is gradually reshaping the field. Institutions have made notable progress in gender balance, though counsel appointments still lag behind. The panel also explored the growing role of mediation as a complement to arbitration, with some jurisdictions integrating mediation steps into arbitration procedures. While caution was advised against arbitrators mediating disputes they might later adjudicate, mediation was viewed as a tool that enhances the legitimacy and acceptance of arbitral outcomes.
The second day of the 8th Brazilian Arbitration Forum discussed “The public policy puzzle in international arbitration” in a panel held at the ICC headquarters in Paris, with opening remarks by Juan Pablo Argentato. The session was moderated by Diego Alexandre-García Fernández, and contributions from the renowned practitioners Paulo Mota Pinto, Joana Galvão Teles, Matthieu de Boisséson, and Ana Gerdau de Borja Mercereau.
The panelists discussed the protective role that public policy plays in legal orders and how its concept varies across different jurisdictions. Conversely, there is a current convergence towards the formation of a truly international public policy, with clear examples such as matters of corruption, human trafficking, and racial discrimination. In this sense, when assessing the applicable public policy, arbitrators should apply mandatory rules in order to safeguard the validity of the arbitration agreement, unless these mandatory rules conflict with international principles of a humanitarian nature.
In recent decisions regarding matters of corruption, the courts of France, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom took different approaches while assessing an arbitral award containing allegations of corruption. While the French court analyzed evidence to identify corruption and refused enforcement, the UK court refused enforcement on the basis of abuse of process. The Swiss court ruled that the issue of corruption had already been addressed by the arbitral tribunal. Despite the different approaches, given the current efforts of the arbitral and legal community, we can hope for a uniform approach to dealing with corruption allegations during arbitration proceedings and the recognition and enforcement stages.
The panel also discussed the review of awards in the annulment and enforcement phases and how they vary among jurisdictions, with France being an example of a minimum review standard, countries that mirror the New York Convention (1958) in the middle, and the UK allowing for a broader review.
When it comes to applying public policy in these stages, the proper balance lies in a restrained and thoughtful approach. Courts must weigh private autonomy against conflicting fundamental rights that commonly constitute public policy in the international legal order. For example, Portuguese courts acknowledged that this implies the application of international public policy instead of national standards, given that public policy should not be used as a second chance to challenge the award.
The panelists pointed out that the main steps arbitral tribunals should consider to secure an enforceable award are:
- Guaranteeing the equal treatment of the parties and a real opportunity to present their case;
- Questioning the parties at specific points on how to manage the case; and
- Not fleeing from objections made by the parties, but demanding that they be adequately substantiated.
In conclusion, Day 1 of the 2025 Brazilian Arbitration Forum highlighted the dynamism of arbitration in Brazil and its growing influence on global practice. Across all sessions, common themes emerged: the importance of clear drafting and rebalancing mechanisms in contracts, the centrality of interest and indexation in disputes, the promise and challenges of expedited procedures, and the professionalization and diversification of the arbitrator role. The discussions also reflected a shift toward more accessible, efficient, and inclusive arbitration, with mediation increasingly seen as a valuable partner to the process. Collectively, the forum underscored that arbitration in Brazil is not only consolidating its position domestically but is also shaping trends that resonate far beyond its borders. With closing remarks by Bruno Sousa Rodrigues, Day 2 of the forum invited the audience to reflect on the broad concept of public policy, as well as its narrow application and the impact on modern-day arbitration. He noted that the panel represents a call to the arbitration community to be mindful of public policy and the implications that competing national, international, and transnational legal orders have in international arbitration, while also considering the role of public international law in this matter.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lucas Viana is a Brazilian-qualified lawyer with over 6 years of experience in arbitration and dispute resolution. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po, Paris.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
