{"id":285227,"date":"2025-03-07T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-07T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=285227"},"modified":"2025-03-06T23:11:52","modified_gmt":"2025-03-06T22:11:52","slug":"2024-arbitration-year-in-review-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2025\/03\/07\/2024-arbitration-year-in-review-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"2024 Arbitration Year In Review &#8211; United States"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article was featured in <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/legal-intelligence\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Jus Mundi<\/a>&#8216;s <strong>2024 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, in collaboration with VYAPs, a yearly collection of articles from jurisdictions all around the globe updating you on arbitration-related developments from the previous year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/reports\/2025\/03\/2024-arbitration-year-in-review\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHORS:<\/strong><br><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/clemence-prevot#publications\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Cl\u00e9mence Pr\u00e9vot<\/strong><\/a>, Director of Publications at <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/about\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Jus Mundi<\/strong><\/a><br><strong>Giulia Bartoletti<\/strong>, Legal Publications Officer at <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/about\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Jus Mundi<\/strong><\/a><br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2024, arbitration in the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/us\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">United States<\/a> underwent significant transformations, shaped by AI regulations, landmark investment disputes, and evolving judicial oversight. This article explores these developments, examining how they redefine arbitration\u2019s role in a rapidly changing legal landscape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Shaping the Future of Arbitration: AI\u2019s Growing Role and Emerging Regulations<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The SVAMC Guidelines: A Framework for AI in Arbitration<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On <a href=\"https:\/\/svamc.org\/svamc-publishes-guidelines-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-arbitration\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">April 30, 2024<\/a>, the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-silicon-valley-arbitration-mediation-center\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center<\/a> (\u201c<strong>SVAMC<\/strong>\u201d) introduced its <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-svamc-silicon-valley-arbitration-mediation-center-guidelines-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-arbitration-2024-svamc-guidelines-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration-2024-tuesday-30th-april-2024\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration (2024)<\/a>. These guidelines aim to enhance transparency, uphold impartiality, and reinforce the need for human oversight, addressing AI\u2019s growing influence in legal research and drafting, case management, and evidence analysis. &nbsp;The Guidelines also aim to standardize ethical AI practices across commercial, investment, and sports arbitration, aligning with the global push for AI regulation in legal proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A key element of the Guidelines is their three-part structure, outlining responsibilities for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>All participants<\/strong> in the arbitration proceedings, who must ensure that the use of AI in their arbitration proceedings complies with ethical standard;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Parties and legal representatives<\/strong>, who are required to disclose, on a case-by-case basis, AI tools used in case preparation;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Arbitrators<\/strong>, who are explicitly prohibited from delegating decision-making authority to AI.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By taking a proactive and adaptable approach, the SVAMC Guidelines serve as a bridge between technological advancements and arbitration\u2019s core principles, reinforcing party autonomy while mitigating risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As regulation of AI continues to evolve, the Guidelines provide a versatile framework that supports both domestic regulatory development and international arbitration trends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Domestically, the SVAMC Guidelines provide a framework which can complement emerging state-level AI regulations. California\u2019s 2024 AI accountability laws are one such example, which mandate disclosure of AI tools used in legal proceedings. The <a href=\"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/arbitration\/article\/40\/3\/277\/7716003\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">debate<\/a> persists as the arbitral community seeks to strike the right balance between AI transparency and the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nortonrosefulbright.com\/-\/media\/files\/nrf\/nrfweb\/publications\/60832-glo-iar-issue-22.pdf?revision=&amp;revision=4611686018427387904\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Internationally<\/a>, the Guidelines opt for a more flexible, principle-based approach, that contrasts with more rigid, restrictive frameworks, such as the EU AI Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While SVAMC\u2019s guidance is not legally binding, it is, however, expected to <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/fr\/document\/publication\/en-the-future-of-ai-in-arbitration-a-view-through-the-eyes-of-the-svamc-ai-guidelines\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">influence arbitral institutions<\/a> such as AAA and ICC, reinforcing the U.S.\u2019s position as a leader in AI-driven arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>AI Regulation in Arbitration: Diverging Approaches in the U.S. and EU<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The rapid rise of AI-powered legal tools has driven the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/us\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">United States<\/a> and the European Union (<strong>EU<\/strong>) down starkly different regulatory approaches, reflecting their respective priorities regarding risk mitigation and technological innovation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The U.S.: A Fragmented and Deregulatory Approach<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In an unexpected turn<em>, <\/em>California failed to pass the <a href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1047\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act (SB 1047)<\/a> in 2024. California&#8217;s Governor, Gavin Newsom, vetoed the bill on September 29, 2024, preventing what would have been the first substantial AI-specific legislation in the U.S. The proposed bill would have enforced third-party audits along with a \u201ckill switch\u201d system and enhanced privacy expectations for developers, sparking <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/public\/chaire-numerique\/en\/2024\/10\/28\/californias-sb1047-vs-eu-ai-act-a-comparative-analysis-of-ai-regulation\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">debate between AI safety advocates and industry leaders<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This shift signals a more fragmented regulatory environment. The veto of the bill maintained the status quo, allowing AI to be used in arbitration and legal proceedings without mandatory disclosure or oversight. The absence of federal AI regulations means <a href=\"https:\/\/www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com\/state-moves-ai-regulation\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">state-by-state approaches could create inconsistencies<\/a>, particularly for cross-border disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The regulatory shift deepened in 2025 when President Donald Trump, upon returning to office, swiftly revoked the AI executive order issued by his predecessor, President Biden. Biden\u2019s AI policy aimed to ensure secure and responsible AI development by enforcing cybersecurity, transparency, and ethical standards, with government oversight over AI deployment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/fact-sheets\/2025\/01\/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-takes-action-to-enhance-americas-ai-leadership\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Executive Order 14179, \u201cRemoving Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence\u201d<\/a>, Trump\u2019s administration reversed course entirely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Eliminating government-mandated ethical and transparency requirements;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dismantling oversight mechanisms for AI systems, leaving regulation largely to the private sector;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prioritizing U.S. dominance in the global AI race, with a focus on innovation over-regulation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This policy shift has major implications for arbitration. While it could accelerate AI adoption in legal proceedings, the absence of regulatory safeguards raises concerns over bias, confidentiality, and fairness in AI-assisted arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The EU: A Risk-Based AI Governance Model &amp; its Impact on U.S.-Seated Arbitrations<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In contrast, the EU has taken a diametrically opposite approach<strong>, <\/strong>embracing rigorous oversight to mitigate AI-related risks while encouraging responsible innovation. The <a href=\"https:\/\/artificialintelligenceact.eu\/ai-act-explorer\/\">EU AI Act<\/a>, which took effect on August 1, 2024, introduced comprehensive AI regulations, including strict risk-based categorization of AI applications, applicable to legal and arbitration settings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although its direct impact on U.S.-seated arbitrations remains unclear, experts predict that multinational parties and tribunals applying EU law may demand AI compliance, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/legal\/legalindustry\/comparing-eu-us-ai-legislation-dj-vu-2020-2024-10-21\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">influencing best practices<\/a> in international arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Some arbitral institutions, including the ICC, may align more closely with EU standards, given their significant EU caseload.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">With the U.S. deregulating AI and the EU imposing stricter controls, arbitration practitioners, especially those handling cross-border disputes, must navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment, balancing innovation with compliance expectations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Investment Arbitration in the U.S.: NAFTA\u2019s Final Chapter and ICSID Enforcement Battles<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>NAFTA Legacy Cases: The Closing Chapter on Investor-State Disputes<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-agreement-between-the-united-states-of-america-the-united-mexican-states-and-canada-usmca-2018-friday-30th-november-2018\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (2018)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>USMCA<\/strong>\u201d) replaced the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta-thursday-17th-december-1992?su=https%3A%2F%2Fjusmundi.com%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DNorth%2520America%2520Free%2520Trade%2520Agreement%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5b0%5d=en&amp;contents%5b1%5d=es&amp;contents%5b2%5d=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">North American Free Trade Agreement<\/a> (\u201c<strong>NAFTA<\/strong>\u201d) in 2020, NAFTA Chapter 11 legacy claims continued to shape U.S. investment arbitration in 2024. Under NAFTA\u2019s sunset clause, investors could file claims against governments for pre-termination disputes <a href=\"https:\/\/www.afslaw.com\/perspectives\/international-arbitration-dispute-resolution-blog\/nafta-chapter-11-investments-time\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">until July 1, 2023<\/a>, which resulted in high-profile investor-State cases still unfolding in 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Among the most consequential disputes was <em>TC Energy and TransCanada Pipelines v. USA<\/em>, where &nbsp;a $15 billion claim challenging the Biden administration\u2019s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was dismissed on <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/other\/en-tc-energy-corporation-and-transcanada-pipelines-limited-v-united-states-of-america-press-release-of-tc-energy-on-the-outcome-of-arbitration-tuesday-16th-july-2024\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">July 12, 2024<\/a>. The arbitral tribunal rejected the <a href=\"https:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/non-us-case\/transcanada-v-usa\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">claims<\/a>, ruling that the pipeline permit did not constitute an investment guarantee and that the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bnnbloomberg.ca\/business\/company-news\/2024\/07\/16\/tc-energys-us15b-keystone-xl-claim-thrown-out-by-trade-tribunal\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">U.S. government acted within its sovereign regulatory rights<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This ruling reinforced a narrowing interpretation of NAFTA investor protections, particularly regarding regulatory actions in environmental and energy policy. Legal experts observed the decision as evidence of an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationalobserver.com\/2024\/07\/16\/news\/tc-energys-15-billion-keystone-xl-lawsuit-gets-thrown-out\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">increasing preference for State autonomy<\/a> in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/issues\/environment\/srenvironment\/reports-annex\/Annex2-to-A-78-168.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">climate change disputes<\/a>. While TC Energy may still seek annulment, the ruling aligns with USMCA\u2019s more restrictive Investor-State Dispute Settlement (\u201c<strong>ISDS<\/strong>\u201d) framework, which <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dlapiper.com\/es-pr\/insights\/publications\/2020\/10\/replacing-nafta-what-the-usmca-means-for-the-future\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">significantly limits<\/a> future investor claims to expropriation and discrimination cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This changing context gives rise to questions regarding the continued effectiveness of arbitration as a tool for investor protection.<a id=\"_msocom_1\"><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>ICSID Award Enforcement: U.S. Courts Weigh Sovereign Immunity &amp; Investor Rights<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2024, U.S. courts further clarified the parameters for enforcement of <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icsid-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes<\/a> (\u201c<strong>ICSID<\/strong>\u201d) awards. They effectively balanced considerations of sovereign immunity with the need for meaningful judicial discovery and arbitration enforcement under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (\u201c<strong>FSIA<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While U.S. courts restricted procedural tools like discovery, they upheld the enforceability of ICSID awards, reinforcing the United States\u2019 role as a key jurisdiction for award enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-webuild-s-p-a-formerly-salini-impregilo-s-p-a-v-republic-of-panama-decision-of-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-second-circuit-friday-19th-july-2024#decision_66727?su=\/en\/search?query=webuildV.%20WSP&amp;page=1&amp;lang=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Webuild v. Panama <\/em>(Second Circuit, July 19, 2024)<\/a>: Restricting U.S. Discovery in Investor-State Arbitration<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court upheld a lower court decision barring discovery under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1782 for use in ICSID arbitration. Webuild had sought discovery from WSP USA to support its arbitration claim against Panama, initially securing approval from the district court. However, following the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/fr\/document\/decision\/en-luxshare-ltd-v-zf-automotive-us-inc-opinion-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-monday-13th-june-2022#decision_24417\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Supreme Court\u2019s <em>Luxshare v. ZF Automotive<\/em> ruling, J une 13, 2022<\/a>, which narrowed \u00a7 1782 applicability to tribunals exercising governmental or intergovernmental authority, the district court vacated its prior ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Second Circuit affirmed this decision, ruling that ICSID tribunals do not qualify as governmental or intergovernmental bodies, thereby <a href=\"https:\/\/d20qsj1r5k97qe.cloudfront.net\/news-attachments\/Client-Alert-Section-1782-for-ICSID.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">excluding them from \u00a7 1782 discovery access<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision aligns with the broader trend of <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-2nd-circuit\/116392757.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">restricting U.S. discovery tools<\/a> in international arbitration, particularly in investor-State cases, forcing claimants to rely on arbitration-specific procedural rules rather than U.S. court mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-nextera-energy-global-holdings-b-v-and-nextera-energy-spain-holdings-b-v-v-kingdom-of-spain-opinion-for-the-court-filed-by-circuit-judge-pillard-of-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-friday-16th-august-2024\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>NextEra v. Spain<\/em> (D.C. Circuit, August 16, 2024)<\/a>: FSIA Arbitration Exception and Intra-EU Enforcement<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court affirmed jurisdiction under the FSIA\u2019s arbitration exception to enforce a \u20ac290 million <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Energy Charter Treaty (1994)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>ECT<\/strong>\u201d) award against <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/es\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Spain<\/a>. Spain invoked sovereign immunity, arguing that EU law prohibits the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dlapiper.com\/en-us\/insights\/publications\/arbitration-matters\/2023\/english-commercial-court-declines-to-set-aside-registration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">enforcement of intra-EU arbitration awards<\/a>, a defense rooted in the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-achmea-b-v-formerly-eureko-b-v-v-the-slovak-republic-i-arret-de-la-cour-de-justice-de-lunion-europeenne-tuesday-6th-march-2018\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Achmea<\/em><\/a> doctrine. However, the court rejected Spain\u2019s argument, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.debevoise.com\/insights\/publications\/2024\/10\/dc-circuit-gives-with-one-hand-and-takes-with-the\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">reaffirming<\/a> that the FSIA arbitration exception applies when a foreign State has consented to arbitration under an international treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the court remanded the case for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wilmerhale.com\/en\/insights\/client-alerts\/20240911-dc-circuit-resolves-district-court-split-on-the-enforcement-of-intra-eu-investment-treaty-awards-in-the-united-states\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">further consideration<\/a> regarding whether the pending ICSID annulment proceedings justified a stay of enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision follows a broader U.S. trend favoring enforcement of intra-EU investor-State awards, even as European courts adopt a more restrictive approach forcing investors to navigate increasing procedural obstacles in European jurisdictions<strong>.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-opinion-of-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-circuit\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Zhongshan Fucheng v. Nigeria<\/em> (D.C. Circuit, August 9, 2024)<\/a>: Sovereign Immunity Showdown in $70M ICSID Award Battle<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/other\/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-thursday-7th-november-2024#other_document_43137\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">November 7, 2024<\/a>, Nigeria appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to limit the scope of the FSIA\u2019s arbitration exception in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dlapiper.com\/es-pr\/insights\/publications\/2022\/06\/the-tale-of-zhongshan-fucheng-v-nigeria\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">enforcing a $70 million ICSID award<\/a>. Nigeria argues that it should be more narrowly interpreted, potentially restricting investors\u2019 ability to enforce ICSID awards against sovereign States in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case, pending before the Supreme Court in early 2025, raises critical questions regarding the boundaries of sovereign immunity and investor rights under the FSIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A Supreme Court ruling in Nigeria\u2019s favor could curtail investor recourse against sovereigns, while an adverse decision would reinforce U.S. courts as a key forum for arbitration enforcement. The case marks Nigeria\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/world\/2025\/02\/zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-v-nigeria-nigerias-last-dance-before-the-us-supreme-court\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">boldest sovereign immunity defense<\/a> yet and could reshape global arbitration enforcement standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Commercial Arbitration: Judicial Oversight and Key FAA Decisions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Judicial interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act in 2024 established essential limits between arbitration enforcement and court oversight. The U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s unanimous ruling in <em>Smith v. Spizzirri<\/em> clarified that FAA Section 3 requires courts to hold cases in abeyance rather than terminate them when arbitration becomes mandatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The landscape of commercial arbitration continued to evolve with major disputes such as <em>Walgreens v. Express Scripts<\/em> and <em>Crescent v. Iran<\/em> challenging courts to determine the enforceability of awards in complex, high-value matters. These cases tested judges&#8217; willingness to accept arbitration awards in billion-dollar disputes. The U.S. legal system currently navigates a fine line between maintaining arbitration&#8217;s self-governance and necessary judicial involvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>FAA in Focus: <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-wendy-smith-michelle-martinez-and-kenneth-turner-v-keith-spizzirri-miriam-spizzirri-intelliquick-delivery-inc-and-others-order-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-thursday-16th-may-2024\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Smith v. Spizzirri<\/em> (U.S. Supreme Court, May 16, 2024)<\/a> and the Stay Requirement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-wendy-smith-michelle-martinez-and-kenneth-turner-v-keith-spizzirri-miriam-spizzirri-intelliquick-delivery-inc-and-others-order-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-thursday-16th-may-2024\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">May 16, 2024<\/a>, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a longstanding <a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/world\/2024\/07\/smith-v-spizzirri-the-supreme-court-confirms-that-stay-means-stay-when-arbitration-is-compelled\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">circuit split<\/a> by ruling in this case that district courts must stay proceedings rather than dismiss them when compelling arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fordharrison.com\/us-supreme-court-unanimously-holds-a-court-has-no-discretion-to-dismiss-a-lawsuit-once-it-compels-a-case-to-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Courts therefore remain involved<\/a> for potential post-award review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, emphasized that staying the proceedings aligns with the FAA\u2019s purpose of facilitating arbitration while preserving judicial oversight. The ruling addressed concerns over <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supremecourt\/text\/22-1218\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">statute-of-limitations risks<\/a>, ensuring that parties retain judicial recourse if an arbitration award requires confirmation or vacatur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision strengthens the FAA\u2019s framework, affirming that arbitration is not a judicial escape route but a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bressler.com\/news-supreme-court-clarifies-mandatory-stay-requirement-under-the-federal-arbitration-act\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">supervised process<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-pwnhealth-llc-d-b-a-everly-health-solutions-v-walgreen-co-final-award-monday-18th-march-2024#decision_61507\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>PWNHealth d\/b\/a Everly Health Solutions v. Walgreen<\/em> (Arbitral Tribunal, March 1, 2024)<\/a>: Challenging Arbitrator Bias<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of the largest domestic commercial <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-pwnhealth-llc-d-b-a-everly-health-solutions-v-walgreen-co-final-award-monday-18th-march-2024#decision_61507\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">arbitration awards of 2024, <\/a>the case centered on a nearly $1 billion arbitration ruling under the Lanham Act, ruling that Walgreens improperly used PWN\u2019s branding. Walgreens <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/other\/en-pwnhealth-llc-d-b-a-everly-health-solutions-v-walgreen-co-petition-to-vacate-or-modify-arbitral-award-tuesday-26th-march-2024#other_document_39097?su=\/en\/search?query=Walgreens%20v.%20Express%20Scripts\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">contested<\/a> the award, citing a liability cap and the arbitrator\u2019s undisclosed personal connection to the opioid crisis, but the court found no evidence of bias or legal missteps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This case reaffirmed that judicial review of arbitral awards remains limited, with courts generally deferring to arbitration decisions unless clear evidence of bias or misconduct exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/fr\/document\/decision\/en-1-crescent-petroleum-company-international-limited-and-2-crescent-gas-corporation-v-national-iranian-oil-company-memorandum-opinion-of-the-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia-tuesday-30th-april-2024#decision_62899\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Crescent v. NIOC (I)<\/em> (District Court D.C. Circuit, April 30, 2024)<\/a>: Enforcing a $2.4 Billion Gas Arbitration Award<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute arose from a gas supply agreement between Crescent Petroleum and the National Iranian Oil Company (\u201c<strong>NIOC<\/strong>\u201d). Iran argued sovereign immunity, while Crescent sought enforcement of the $2.4 billion arbitration award under the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/fr-convention-pour-la-reconnaissance-et-lexecution-des-sentences-arbitrales-etrangeres-convention-de-new-york-1958-tuesday-10th-june-1958\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>New York Convention<\/strong>\u201d). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with Crescent, reaffirming the U.S.\u2019s commitment to enforcing international arbitration awards despite <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mwe.com\/media\/mcdermott-london-arbitration-team-secures-victory-in-enforcing-us2-4-billion-arbitration-award-against-central-london-commercial-property\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">sovereign objections<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The FAA\u2019s stability was reinforced in 2024, with <em>Smith v. Spizzirri<\/em> ensuring continued judicial oversight of arbitration cases and <em>Walgreens<\/em> and <em>Crescent<\/em> reaffirming the strong pro-enforcement stance of U.S. courts. These rulings further solidify the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/us\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">United States<\/a>\u2019 credibility as a leading jurisdiction for arbitration enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>From the Paris Olympics to the NCAA: The Shifting Landscape of U.S. Sports Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The Jordan Chiles Case: A CAS Ruling Under Fire<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The sports world in the United States gained unprecedented interest in arbitration in 2024 due to major Olympic disputes, combined with National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The most talked-about U.S. sports arbitration case of 2024 was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lemonde.fr\/en\/sports\/article\/2024\/09\/17\/jordan-chiles-lawyers-file-swiss-appeal-in-bid-to-get-olympic-bronze-medal-restored_6726378_9.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Jordan Chiles\u2019 appeal of a CAS ruling<\/a> in <em>RGF &amp; Ana B\u0103rbosu v. FIG &amp; Donatella Sacchi \/ RGF &amp; Sabrina Maneca-Voinea v. FIG &amp; Donatella Sacchi<\/em> that stripped her of an Olympic bronze medal in women\u2019s artistic gymnastics at the Paris Olympics. On August 10, 2024, the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-cas-court-of-arbitration-for-sport\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Court of Arbitration for Sport<\/a> (\u201c<strong>CAS<\/strong>\u201d) upheld a challenge from Romania\u2019s Ana Barbosu, reallocating Chiles\u2019 medal due to an alleged scoring miscalculation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision sparked outrage in the U.S. sports community, with Chiles\u2019 legal team alleging bias by arbitrator <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/hamid-g-gharavi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Hamid Gharavi<\/a> and procedural irregularities in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cpradr.org\/news\/the-olympics-chiles-arbitration-debacle-part-iii-a-sham-award-following-a-sham-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">CAS panel\u2019s reasoning<\/a>. U.S. officials, athletes, and legal experts raised concerns over transparency and fairness in CAS rulings, calling for greater oversight in Olympic dispute resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As of February 2025, Chiles has <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/other\/de-romanian-gymnastics-federation-rgf-ana-barbosu-v-federation-internationale-de-gymnastique-fig-donatella-sacchi-romanian-gymnastics-federation-rgf-sabrina-maneca-voinea-v-federation-internationale-de-gymnastique-fig-donatella-sacchi-beschwerde-gemass-art-190-iprg-und-art-77-bgg-monday-16th-september-2024\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">appealed the ruling before the Swiss Federal Tribunal<\/a>, the only avenue for challenging CAS awards under Swiss law. While the <a href=\"https:\/\/assets.contentstack.io\/v3\/assets\/blt9e58afd92a18a0fc\/blt76e3da4041b3e6ce\/64371f916bfe3410b96a9355\/Ted_Stevens_Act_FINAL-ua.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act<\/a> reinforces CAS\u2019s authority over U.S. Olympic disputes, the controversy highlights broader tensions regarding arbitrator neutrality and the role of external oversight in sports arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>NCAA Arbitration Disputes on the Rise<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Beyond the Olympics, sports arbitration in the U.S. saw an uptick in <a href=\"https:\/\/globalcompetitionreview.com\/review\/the-antitrust-review-of-the-americas\/2025\/article\/year-of-antitrust-challenges-within-us-organised-sports\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">NCAA and professional league disputes<\/a>, with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) playing a central role. Following the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s landmark NCAA antitrust rulings, arbitration emerged as a key mechanism for resolving player compensation and eligibility disputes in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">U.S. arbitration experienced significant evolution in 2024, marked by several pivotal developments. The SVAMC Guidelines established new standards for ethical AI integration in dispute resolution, while landmark investment arbitration cases like <em>TC Energy v. USA<\/em> and <em>NextEra<\/em> tested established legal boundaries. Commercial arbitration gained enhanced clarity through Federal Arbitration Act interpretations in <em>Smith v. Spizzirri<\/em>, and the sports arbitration field navigated complex jurisdictional questions in the high-profile <em>Chiles<\/em> Olympic dispute. Together, these milestones demonstrate arbitration&#8217;s remarkable adaptability in addressing technological innovation, regulatory shifts, and increasingly complex cross-border disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Looking ahead, AI\u2019s expanding role, shifting investment protections, and evolving court interpretations will continue to shape arbitration practice in the U.S. and globally. As regulatory uncertainty persists and technological advancements accelerate, arbitration practitioners must adapt to a rapidly evolving legal environment, ensuring that arbitration remains a trusted, efficient, and effective dispute resolution mechanism in an era of change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHORS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/clemence-prevot#publications\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Cl\u00e9mence Pr\u00e9vot<\/strong><\/a> is the Director of Publications at <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/about\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Jus Mundi<\/strong><\/a>, where she oversees the development of legal content, strategic publishing initiatives and partnerships. As the Editor-in-Chief of <a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Daily Jus<\/a> and Managing Editor of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/publication\/en-editorial-mistelis-fan?su=\/en\/search?query=%22jmar%22&amp;page=1&amp;sort=desc&amp;lang=en&amp;document-types%5b0%5d=publication\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Jus Mundi Arbitration Review<\/a>, she brings a unique perspective on the intersection of arbitration, AI, and legal innovation to Jus Mundi&#8217;s publications. A former international arbitration lawyer and mediator qualified in New York and Paris, she has worked across law firms, arbitral institutions, third-party funders, and legal tech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Giulia Bartoletti<\/strong> is the Legal Publications Officer at <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/about\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Jus Mundi<\/strong><\/a>, where she spearheads thought leadership initiatives, including Jus Mundi\u2019s <a href=\"file:\/\/\/Users\/clemenceprevot\/Downloads\/Daily%20Jus\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Daily Jus<\/a> blog and key <a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/category\/reports\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Reports<\/a>. A graduate of Paris I Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne, she leverages her experience from international law firms, specializing in cross-border disputes, to enhance Jus Mundi\u2019s legal content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2024 from around the world now<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/reports\/2025\/03\/2024-arbitration-year-in-review\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Arbitration Year in Review 2024: AI regulations, NAFTA legacy cases, ICSID enforcement, FAA rulings &#038; key developments shaping U.S. arbitration\u2019s future.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":285228,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"163","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"2024 Arbitration Year In Review - United States","fb_description":"Arbitration Year in Review 2024: AI regulations, NAFTA legacy cases, ICSID enforcement, FAA rulings & key developments shaping U.S. arbitration\u2019s future.","fb_image":"285229","twitter_title":"2024 Arbitration Year In Review - United States","twitter_description":"Arbitration Year in Review 2024: AI regulations, NAFTA legacy cases, ICSID enforcement, FAA rulings & key developments shaping U.S. arbitration\u2019s future.","twitter_image":"285229"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[162,205,207,197,195,208,188,202,163,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-285227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-americas","category-arbitration","category-commercial-arbitration","category-energy","category-industry","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-sports","category-u-s-a","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=285227"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285227\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":285251,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285227\/revisions\/285251"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/285228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=285227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=285227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=285227"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=285227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}