THE AUTHOR:
Thara Elizabeth Thomas, Intern at the International Criminal Court
Amid shifting geopolitics marked by the United States–China decoupling and the expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative (“BRI”), Singapore Very Young Arbitration Practitioners (“SG VYAP”) hosted a hybrid panel titled “The Asia–Latin America Arbitration Corridor: Opportunities and Challenges for Junior Lawyers”.
The event, which was held on 28 August 2025 at King & Spalding’s Singapore office, featured Tony Dymond (Debevoise & Plimpton), Nicole Duclos (Covington & Burling), Eva Chan (Skadden), Shanty Priya (King & Spalding), and Sofia de Sampaio Jalles (Armesto Dispute Resolution). The discussion was moderated by SG VYAP Founder and Chair, Sunita P. Advani (Arbitral Assistant to Mr Michael Lee of Twenty Essex).
Shifting Alliances, Rising Arbitrations
Nicole Duclos highlighted that 21 Latin American (“LatAm”) countries are now part of the BRI, with Chinese companies investing in Ecuador’s oil, Chile’s lithium, Peru’s copper, Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, and the Port of Chancay. These large-scale joint ventures, often through engineering, procurement, and construction (“EPC”) contracts, naturally generate disputes.
She also noted the shift in trade balance: China has overtaken the United States as Brazil’s largest trade partner. Policies of “green resource nationalism” in Mexico and Chile, which centre around reclaiming control over lithium and promoting domestic processing, have fuelled further friction. So far, these measures have led mainly to commercial disputes involving joint venture terms and concessions rather than investor–state claims.
Tony Dymond emphasised the scale effect, cautioning that investor–state cases are “only a matter of time”. With cross-border trade between China and LatAm now exceeding half a trillion dollars annually, disputes are inevitable.
Hotspots for Disputes
According to Sofia de Sampaio Jalles, most disputes stem from Asian investments in LatAm infrastructure. Ports, dams, and roads are frequent flashpoints, with Chinese companies playing a predominant role. She cited several examples, namely Peru’s threatening revocation of Cosco Shipping Ports’ rights at the Port of Chancay, Ecuador’s arbitration against Sinohydro, and a dispute in Trinidad and Tobago involving a Chinese contractor.
The mining sector is another hotspot. The Korea Mine Rehabilitation & Mineral Resources Corporation filed an arbitration against Panama after the shutdown of a copper mine. The Ganfeng Lithium dispute with Mexico arose when the government nationalized the lithium industry and cancelled nine concessions for Ganfeng’s lithium project, despite Ganfeng’s acquisition of Bacanora Lithium (See, Bacanora and others v. Mexico).
Other cases include Junefield Gold v. Ecuador (2023) and Brazil’s Eldorado arbitration, which highlighted tensions from Asian acquisitions of LatAm firms. Beyond these traditional sectors, disputes are now emerging in telecommunications, agribusiness, and renewable energy.
When Worlds Collide: Legal and Cultural Misunderstandings
Eva Chan stressed that disputes between Asian and LatAm parties are not only legal but also cultural. Latin America follows mainly civil law traditions, while Asia blends civil and common law systems. Misalignments arise when expectations collide.
LatAm companies, often family-owned, tend to be direct and expressive, which may seem chaotic to Asian companies. Asian state-owned enterprises, with their bureaucratic layers, can seem indecisive to LatAm companies. Each side risks misinterpreting the other.
Nicole Duclos added that LatAm businesses place a “premium on certainty as opposed to efficiency and maximizing value”. Memoranda of Understanding are often treated as binding, creating early tensions in joint venture negotiations. LatAm parties also resist broad document production, which is standard in common law systems.
Tony Dymond highlighted that dispute flows are not one-directional: LatAm companies also engage Asian shipyards in Singapore, Korea, and China, from which disputes also arise.
Choosing Arbitrators, Managing Expectations
Sofia de Sampaio Jalles noted that LatAm parties typically prefer civil law arbitrators and expect active involvement in proceedings. On the other hand, Asian parties are more pragmatic, generally favouring less interventionist styles.
Shanty Priya explained that these preferences mirror deeper traditions: civil law’s inquisitorial model versus common law’s adversarial one. LatAm clients value flexibility and collegiality, while Asian clients emphasize authority and strict timelines.
The Fine Print: Law and Forum Clauses
Eva Chan described choice of law and forum clauses as “eleventh-hour clauses,” often copied from templates. This can lead to odd results, such as contracts in broken English between Chinese and Japanese companies applying New York law.
State-linked contracts are often “take it or leave it,” offering little room for negotiation, with governments imposing standard forms. Power dynamics are shifting as Chinese investment grows; Asian parties are pushing for regional governing laws and arbitral seats. London, New York, Singapore, and Hong Kong remain dominant as arbitral seats with leading arbitral institutions, though the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) is becoming increasingly visible. Some state entities adopt pragmatic approaches, such as Petrobras historically selecting New York law as the governing law of its contracts to attract bidders.
Enforcing Awards: Easier Said Than Done
Shanty Priya highlighted the inconsistent treatment of emergency arbitrator awards. Singapore and Brazil enforce them, India and Argentina are restrictive, and China has yet to do so, though a recent case involving the enforcement of interim measures by a tribunal in the Chinese courts suggests possible change. Hong Kong’s special arrangement with mainland China sets it apart.
The panellists also discussed sovereign immunity in LatAm, where objections on arbitrability frequently arise. Even when awards are enforced, proceedings are often prolonged – for instance, disputes involving corruption are often re-litigated under public policy. Constitutional remedies like amparo in Mexico and similar actions in Brazil create further delays.
Who’s Running the Show? Arbitral Institutions in Focus
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) remain central to investment arbitration, while the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) dominates commercial disputes, valued for its perceived neutrality. As a result, LatAm parties rely heavily on the ICC to arbitrate their commercial disputes.
Regional institutions are also expanding – for instance, the Santiago Arbitration and Mediation Centre (“CAM Santiago”) in Chile has partnered with a Spanish arbitral institution, CAM-CCBC in Brazil is broadening its reach, and CIETAC in China is also raising its profile. In Asia, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) are also competing strongly, with the HKIAC’s ability to secure interim enforcement in China giving it an edge.
Regionalism and Its Limited Impact
The panellists agreed that regional trade agreements have had a limited effect on arbitration. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”) codified tiered dispute resolution processes already in practice, such as the “Arbitration–Mediation–Arbitration” protocol launched by the SIAC and the Singapore International Mediation Centre in 2014. In LatAm, Mercosur’s mechanisms remain rarely used, with arbitration clauses still negotiated independently.
Breaking In: Tips for Aspiring Arbitration Lawyers
Tony Dymond underscored three essentials for lawyers who aspire to handle arbitration matters involving Asian and LatAm parties: language skills, sector knowledge, and networking. Nicole Duclos urged young lawyers to sit with clients and local counsel to understand each jurisdiction.
Sofia de Sampaio Jalles encouraged participation in networks like the various VYAP chapters in the Global VYAP Network, ICC YAAF, and Young ICCA, as well as publishing comparative work to build visibility. Eva described mentorship as the “great equalizer”, while Shanty Priya advised peers to stay curious, follow trends, and volunteer their time.
The discussion made clear that while the Asia–LatAm arbitration corridor is complex, it also presents unparalleled opportunities for lawyers ready to bridge legal traditions, grow networks, and commit to the long term.
Editor: Bernice Tan, Senior Associate at Drew & Napier and SG VYAP Editorial & Publishing Director
