THE AUTHOR:
Isabella Rodrigues Freitas, LL.M. Candidate in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po
On 9 and 10 September 2026, Paris hosted the 9th edition of the Brazilian Arbitration Forum (“BAF”), bringing together leading practitioners from Brazil, Portugal and other jurisdictions to discuss some of the key challenges currently facing arbitration practice. Organized by Sciences Po Law School and the Sciences Po Arbitration Society, with the support of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Clube dos Arbitralistas Lusófonos (“CAL”), and CAM-CCBC, the Forum was held over two days, the first at Sciences Po Law School and the second at the ICC Paris headquarters. Across six panels, it addressed what general counsel expects from arbitration; disputes involving public administration; the intersection between arbitration and insolvency; the use of artificial intelligence in the scrutiny of arbitral awards; res judicata and lis pendens in international arbitration; and expert evidence across the Lusophone world. Opening the Forum, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (Sciences Po Law School) highlighted Brazil’s position as a leading arbitration jurisdiction, describing the country as an “extraordinary laboratory of arbitration”.
What General Counsel Really Wants?
The first panel, moderated by Bruno Sousa Rodrigues, brought together Bianca Soares, Gabriel Costa, Maurício de Almeida Prado and Patrícia Garcia to examine arbitration from the perspective of in-house counsel. The discussion highlighted the role of legal departments in enabling business objectives while identifying and managing the risks associated with commercial decisions. When disputes arise, arbitration should therefore not be viewed as an end in itself, but as one of the tools available to pursue the company’s underlying objectives.
From this perspective, the panel emphasized that arbitration should be managed as a “business project”, with success defined not simply by winning an award, but by the commercial objective pursued, whether recovering money, avoiding an outflow, preserving a business relationship or bringing it to an end. The discussion also addressed the costs and operational disruption caused by proceedings, particularly during document production. Ultimately, general counsel seeks a fair decision within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost, while also valuing predictability throughout the process.
Arbitration Involving the Public Administration: Where Are We Now?
The second panel, moderated by José Ricardo Feris, brought together Fabiana de Cerqueira Leite, Karina Goldberg and Túlio di Giacomo to discuss the evolution of arbitration involving public administration in Brazil. The discussion traced Brazil’s shift from initial resistance to the express recognition, in the 2015 reform of the Brazilian Arbitration Act, that direct and indirect public administration entities may resort to arbitration.
The panel also examined Brazil’s distinctive approach to investor protection. Although the country remains outside the traditional investor-State arbitration system, contractual arbitration with public entities has become an important mechanism for resolving disputes with investors, including pecuniary claims arising from public contracts. The discussion therefore challenged the assumption that the absence of traditional ISDS necessarily entails a lack of investor protection. It also highlighted the growing role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in contractual disputes involving States and public entities, as well as its expanding presence in Brazil.
Arbitration and Insolvency: When Two Worlds Collide
The third panel, moderated by Renato Grion, brought together Arthur Parente, Joaquim Shearman de Macedo, Sofia de Sampaio Jalles and Thiago Marinho Nunes to explore the interaction between arbitration and insolvency. The discussion highlighted the tension between arbitration, a private and consent-based mechanism grounded in party autonomy, and insolvency, a collective process governed largely by mandatory rules and aimed at protecting creditors.
Against this background, the panel examined the effects of insolvency proceedings on arbitration agreements and ongoing arbitrations, as well as the allocation of jurisdiction between arbitral tribunals and insolvency courts. A comparison of different jurisdictions revealed significantly different approaches and highlighted additional complexities in international cases, particularly where the law governing the insolvency differs from the law of the arbitral seat. The discussion ultimately illustrated the challenge of preserving party autonomy without undermining the collective nature of insolvency proceedings.
The BAF Debate: Artificial Intelligence in the Scrutiny of Arbitral Awards
The first day closed with the BAF Debate, moderated by Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, in which Carlos Alberto Carmona and Fernando Mantilla-Serrano discussed the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the scrutiny of arbitral awards. Rather than questioning whether AI should be used at all, the discussion focused on how it should be used and how far institutions may rely on it when scrutinizing awards.
At the heart of the debate was whether AI could perform the scrutiny of arbitral awards without intermediate human review or whether human control should remain an integral part of the process. The discussion distinguished scrutiny from the tribunal’s decision-making function and considered whether the fact that scrutiny does not replace the arbitrators’ ultimate decision could allow greater reliance on AI. While its use could increase efficiency, consistency and the ability to identify errors, particular concerns arose when scrutiny extended beyond formal matters to substantive issues. The debate ultimately turned on whether AI should merely assist human scrutiny or whether the scrutiny process itself could be entrusted to AI.
Closing the first day, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo thanked the speakers, organizers, students, and attendees, and invited participants to reconvene the following morning at the ICC.
The Same Dispute, Again? Res Judicata and Lis Pendens in International Arbitration
Opening the second day of the Forum at the ICC Paris headquarters, Diego Alexandre-García Fernández (ICC International Court of Arbitration) highlighted the growing importance of Brazil and the wider Lusophone arbitration community within ICC practice. He introduced the day’s discussions on finality and expert evidence as two areas that illustrate how international arbitration must manage increasing procedural complexity while remaining effective.
The fifth panel, moderated by Ana Luiza Castro, brought together Eliseo Castineira, Luiz Aboim and Rute Alves to examine how international arbitration addresses recurring and parallel disputes. The discussion began by distinguishing res judicata, which protects the finality of decisions already rendered, from lis pendens, which seeks to manage parallel proceedings and avoid competing decisions.
The panel then explored the difficulties of applying these concepts in international arbitration. Particular attention was given to the “triple identity test” and its limitations in complex disputes involving, for example, corporate groups or multiple contracts. The discussion also examined the absence of a uniform approach to determining the law or rules governing res judicata, including the use of the law of the seat, the law governing the underlying contract, and hybrid approaches. Against this background, the panel considered whether a more autonomous international standard could bring greater predictability, while also recognizing the obstacles to such an approach.
Expert Evidence Across the Lusophone World: Between Civil Law Tradition and International Practice
The sixth panel, moderated by João Manoel Pereira de Assis, brought together Adriana Braghetta, Catarina Monteiro Pires and Leonardo Ohlrogge to examine different approaches to expert evidence in the Lusophone world. The discussion contrasted tribunal-appointed experts, traditionally common in Brazilian practice, with party-appointed experts, which prevail in international arbitration and in jurisdictions such as Portugal.
The panel also considered how expert evidence can be made more efficient, particularly given its potential impact on the duration of proceedings. The speakers emphasized the importance of addressing technical evidence from the outset of the arbitration and discussed the role of party-appointed experts, including the independence expected from them and the biases that may arise from their appointment by a party.
Closing Remarks
The Forum concluded with closing remarks by Bruno Sousa Rodrigues, who reflected on its role in building both intellectual and personal bridges between the Brazilian and European arbitration communities, allowing ideas to be exchanged and professional relationships to develop beyond the conference itself. He also announced that the Brazilian Arbitration Forum will return for its 10th edition on 6 September 2027.
