THE AUTHOR:
Pritam Dumbré, Editor at the Houston Place of Arbitration
Exactly a year after its first edition in 2025, “Arbitration in a Turbulent Legal Landscape” returned for a second segment during London International Disputes Week (“LIDW 2026”) on 4 June 2026. The discussion was organised by the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”), the Young International Arbitration Group (“YIAG”) and Three Crowns LLP, hosted at the latter’s London Office.
Kevin Nash (Director General, LCIA) and Myfanwy Wood (Partner, Ashurst LLP, and Co-Chair, YIAG) returned for the second year running and were joined by Kate Wilford (Anglo American) and Roula Harfouche (Valuation and Damages Expert). The session was co-moderated by Wood and Richard Trinick (Partner, Three Crowns).
Since the Pandemic: Volatility as the New Normal
In introducing the discussion, Trinick reflected on the developments that had prompted the panel’s return. Over the past few years, the global landscape has undoubtedly shifted, shaped by the rise of armed conflicts, growing resource nationalism, and the splintering, if not outright erosion, of the international rules-based order. Since its first edition during LIDW 2025, the discussion has sought to examine how these developments increasingly manifest themselves in international arbitration. The ramifications are already evident, with states adopting national measures directed at foreign arbitral proceedings, as disputes arising from sanctions and anti-suit injunctions continue to grow in number.
Drawing on her experience in the energy sector, Wood observed that many of the concerns discussed a year ago remain unresolved. The conflict in the Red Sea, energy transition pressures, fluctuating tariffs, and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have reinforced the view that normalcy never truly returned following the pandemic. Volatility continues to loom over commerce. Its consequence has been a rise in advisory work, with lawyers increasingly required to anticipate disruption through force majeure clauses, delay provisions, pricing mechanisms, and contractual exit routes. Wood noted that force majeure clauses are frequently invoked by parties seeking to withdraw from agreements that no longer serve their commercial interests, particularly in supply-chain disputes. She also observed a rise in satellite arbitrations connected with insolvency proceedings.
Resource nationalism likewise remains a recurring concern. Wood pointed to developments across parts of Africa, where policies governing minerals and natural resources continue to tighten as sovereigns assert greater control over strategic assets.
From an institutional vantage point, Nash found the role of arbitral institutions and dispute resolution practitioners more significant than ever. Looking back to when the pandemic brought commercial activity to a grinding halt, he noted that dispute resolution continued to keep the commercial cycle in motion. As far as disputes are concerned, arbitral institutions happen to be at the very end of that cycle. Regardless, one commercial consequence of increasing disputes is the extent to which arbitration, as an industry, contributes to the global economy.
Nash further observed that traditional assumptions concerning bargaining power are shifting as states once viewed primarily as capital importers emerge as capital exporters. The implications extend beyond economics and bear directly upon dispute resolution choices. Sanctions provide an obvious example, creating a patchwork of restrictions affecting assets, financing, and commercial activity. Arbitration practitioners must therefore adapt their case management practices to accommodate parties operating within sanctioned jurisdictions, a challenge that has become familiar in practice.
Interestingly, he noted that many parties affected by pandemic-related disruption had not rushed immediately to arbitration, instead exploring avenues for resolving contractual lapses before resorting to formal proceedings.
Old Risks, New Challenges
Wood invited Wilford’s views on whether emerging stakeholder pressures were more likely to generate contractual or non-contractual disputes over the next five years. She observed that the sustainability regulatory space is undergoing significant change. Historically, many disputes in this area manifested as tortious, non-contractual claims arising from the impact of business activity upon local biodiversity. That landscape is evolving, with the subject now governed by regulatory frameworks promoting accountability through disclosure obligations, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) and International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (“ISSA”) standards. Such disclosures may provide NGOs and funders alike with another basis upon which to advance their claims.
Within the contractual sphere, Wilford found the same developments to influence contract drafting. Companies now incorporate untested provisions aimed at mitigating supply-chain disruption and other forms of volatility. Looking ahead, breaches of sustainability warranties may join the growing list of obligations crystallising into contractual provisions.
The discussion then turned to the practical realities of conducting disputes. Trinick found additional concerns punctuating almost every stage of arbitration. Drawing on a recent matter, he recalled how service upon a Russian counterparty became a significant obstacle as courier services were unwilling to deliver into Russia. Had limitation been in issue, the consequences could have been serious.
Nash added that access difficulties in certain jurisdictions have undoubtedly complicated the commencement of arbitration. To the amusement of the audience, the panel shared examples of counsel retaining photographic evidence of service attempts and delivery receipts simply to reinforce the formality of the process. Turbulence continues to disrupt proceedings in less obvious ways. As more jurisdictions become engulfed in conflict, anti-suit injunctions are met with anti-anti-suit injunctions, adding to cost and delay. Sanctions thus create difficulties at both the commencement and enforcement stage, requiring lawyers to continually adapt their case strategy.
Counting Amid Uncertainty
Against the backdrop of continued volatility, Harfouche discussed how damages are now being quantified. While valuation methodology remains largely unchanged, greater scrutiny is being applied to valuation timelines, the extent to which hindsight may be relied upon, and the assumptions that can properly be made in uncertain circumstances. Harfouche observed that valuation experts continue to perform the same essential task as before, albeit with greater caution as current conditions introduce additional complexities into the exercise.
Ensuring Efficiency: Managing Disputes in a Volatile World
Trinick next asked whether geopolitical volatility affects the decision to arbitrate at all, and its effect on selection of ADR mechanisms. Wood observed that the answer depends largely upon the company concerned and the jurisdiction of its operations. Geopolitical considerations, including international and commercial relations, weigh heavily on that assessment. Rising fuel prices, particularly gas prices, may also render contractual performance commercially unviable and prompt attempts to escape existing obligations. Where disputes evidently arise from circumstances beyond the parties’ control, however, she found parties adopting a more pragmatic approach and an increased willingness to negotiate a solution.
Turning to the cost of proceedings, Nash underscored the direct relationship between duration and expense. Parties generally seek faster and more affordable procedures, and a range of mechanisms already exist to facilitate that objective. In an effort to reduce delay, tribunals appear less willing to entertain “due process paranoia” and inflated allegations of bias.
Timeliness and enforcement have been further strengthened by provisions codified by the English Arbitration Act 2025 and Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (1994). Coupled with the pro-enforcement stance adopted by many courts, these developments have encouraged parties to invoke emergency arbitration rather than rush immediately to national courts.
Early determination was also identified as an effective means of reducing both cost and delay. The LCIA pursues this objective through Article 14 of the LCIA Rules 2020, granting tribunals broad powers to streamline proceedings and maintain procedural discipline. This naturally raises the question whether the LCIA should codify an expedited procedure. Nash noted, however, that such reform is not without complications, including questions concerning tribunal appointments, composition, and potential limits on recoverable costs. Ultimately, with due regard to the elegance and uniqueness of the LCIA Rules, there remains merit in preserving that character while approaching reform with caution. Nevertheless, the institution remains highly receptive to views expressed through its ongoing LCIA Rules revision consultation.
Wood likewise observed that, as arbitration becomes more mainstream, parties and counsel should make greater use of procedural tools already available to them. Not every dispute requires the longest procedural path. Shorter and more focused procedures may save both time and cost, while certainty of duration can be just as valuable to parties as certainty of expense. However, attitudes towards early settlement and summary determination often vary by legal culture. While summary judgment mechanisms are readily embraced in some jurisdictions, they remain less appealing in others.
Nash further suggested the Arb-Med-Arb model as a low-risk approach to dispute resolution. Most arbitral institutions, including the LCIA, already maintain mature mediation frameworks, while enforcement is increasingly facilitated through the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) (the “Singapore Convention”).
The Role of Counsel: Strategy and Conduct
Harfouche further highlighted an important practical reality: a party with a stronger case may not always welcome a faster process, especially where it seeks to advance substantial claims or counterclaims.
Trinick observed that both parties may believe they have an excellent case, yet excessive assertion on one’s own position can prove counter-productive. Wood raised the possibility of parties exploiting geopolitical turbulence for tactical advantage. The panel broadly agreed that this is no longer hypothetical, with resisting parties able to draw out proceedings where delay serves their interests.
The discussion concluded with behavioural aspects. Wood observed how counsel conduct and case strategy are often shaped by the jurisdictions in which lawyers are trained and practise. Wilford added that strategy depends upon the experience of in-house counsel. Experienced disputes practitioners are often well placed to challenge external advisers, whereas less experienced teams may find themselves guided more heavily by outside counsel. Nash noted a growing number of disputes practitioners moving into in-house roles. Greater harmonisation through common standards of conduct may therefore assist in bridging differing views as to acceptable procedural behaviour.
Enforcement and Expertise
Wilford found enforcement to have become more complicated within a fragmented geopolitical landscape. With shifting global alliances, enforcement in hostile or unfriendly jurisdictions becomes especially challenging. Concerns surrounding adherence to international legal principles and, at least in theory, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (“New York Convention”), remain part of that problem.
Wood then returned to the role of valuation experts. Harfouche suggested that lawyers may not always be best placed to address quantum issues. She therefore advocated greater involvement of valuation specialists, especially where early determination of quantum is under consideration. Such exercises are highly sensitive and often dependent upon extensive disclosure and document production. In some cases, Harfouche suggested that tribunals may benefit from the assistance of an expert adviser, not to determine the outcome, but to clarify the underlying quantum issues.
Wilford, speaking from an in-house perspective, noted the differing approaches adopted by lawyers and valuation experts. While experts remain focused on the numerical exercise, lawyers often concentrate upon legal arguments and procedural strategy. Nevertheless, she observed that greater financial literacy remains a worthwhile investment for businesses and can significantly improve commercial decision-making.
Audience Question: Building Resilience into Institutional Rules
During the audience participation, Nash was asked whether the ongoing LCIA Rules revision had prompted consideration of specific provisions aimed at addressing geopolitical turbulence. Nash expressed confidence in the resilience already built into the existing rules. Sanctions, by their nature, remain difficult to predict and therefore difficult to regulate in advance. He nevertheless suggested that additional guidance through schedules, annexes, or protocols may be an area worthy of future consideration.
Concluding Reflections
In closing, Wood expressed the hope that, amidst the often-negative discourse surrounding current global events, arbitration practitioners can continue to offer constructive solutions. The discussion served as a reminder that arbitration’s greatest strength lies in its adaptability. Through flexible rules and procedures, practitioners remain uniquely placed to tailor dispute resolution processes to the needs of parties and effectively navigate an increasingly volatile world.
If the turbulence appears constant, so too does the need to assess its impact and adapt accordingly. One hopes the panel will return next year with another annual assessment.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pritam Dumbré is an international arbitration and commercial disputes professional, legally trained and based in London. He currently serves as Editor to the Houston Place of Arbitration. Pritam is a Certified Tribunal Secretary with experience in e-case management and has been common-law qualified since 2022. He holds an LL.M. in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution from the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, and a Master’s degree in Politics. He closely follows geopolitical developments and focuses on investor–State disputes, arbitration in the film and creative industries, and art disputes. Pritam has contributed to arbitration commentary and remains actively engaged with the international disputes community. He speaks English, French, Hindi, and Marathi.
*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.
