THE AUTHOR<\/strong>: On May 19 and 20, 2025, the CIESP\/FIESP Chamber of Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration<\/a> held its 30th-anniversary commemorative congress. The event gathered highly relevant figures from both Brazilian and international arbitration, proposing a journey through the origins, consolidation, and future paths of arbitration and appropriate dispute resolution methods. The opening and closing of the Congress symbolized this trajectory: we began by recalling the past 30 years of arbitration in Brazil and concluded with a forward-looking perspective toward the next three decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The program was opened by a panel led by the newly created New Voices group, an initiative of the Chamber aimed at young professionals in the field. The opening panel, dedicated to the burden of proof in arbitral proceedings, brought together Aline Dias<\/a><\/strong>, Naiane Lopes<\/a><\/strong>, and Marcela Kohlbach de Faria<\/a><\/strong>, under the moderation of Renan Perlati<\/a><\/strong> and Lu\u00eds Felipe Baquedano<\/a><\/strong>. The discussion highlighted the complexity of distributing the burden of proof<\/a> in arbitration, pointing to characteristics inherent to the procedure, such as the flexibility of rules and the need for greater transparency and collaboration between the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aline Dias emphasized the usefulness of international references, such as the Hong Kong rules, and noted that while negative inference is theoretically and potentially effective, it is not yet consistently applied in the national setting (see, Guilherme Amaral, The Burden of Proof and Negative Inferences in Arbitration, Portal JOTA, Sept. 19, 2017<\/a>). Naiane Lopes underscored that arbitration, by generally involving more balanced parties than judicial proceedings, is not always the most suitable forum for reversing the burden of proof \u2014 particularly given the need for cooperation from the opposing party (see Naiane Lopes, Evidentiary Value of Party Conduct: Criteria for Drawing Adverse Inferences in Arbitration under Brazilian Law, 2022, Doctoral Thesis \u2013 University of S\u00e3o Paulo). Marcela Kohlbach reminded that applying the burden of proof in arbitration requires sensitivity and clarity from the arbitrator, especially in the absence of detailed rules regarding the production of documents and other evidentiary elements by the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The official opening ceremony featured the participation of public authorities and historical figures in Brazilian arbitration. Speeches were delivered by Rafael Cervone<\/strong> (President of CIESP), retired Minister and former President of the Federal Supreme Court, Ellen Gracie Northfleet<\/a><\/strong> (Vice President of the Chamber), Angela Vidal Gandra Martins<\/strong> (Municipal Secretary for International Relations of S\u00e3o Paulo), and F\u00e1bio Pietro<\/strong> (Secretary of Justice of the State of S\u00e3o Paulo). A particularly emotional moment was the video message<\/a> from retired Minister and former President of the Federal Supreme Court, Sydney Sanches<\/strong>, President of the Chamber, who highlighted the advances of institutional arbitration in Brazil over the past decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next, a panel composed of Minister Ellen Gracie Northfleet, Selma Maria Ferreira Lemes<\/a><\/strong>, Jos\u00e9 Carlos Magalh\u00e3es<\/a><\/strong>, and Fernanda Levy<\/a><\/strong> presented a retrospective of the milestones in Brazilian arbitration. Selma Lemes shared a timeline of nearly 30 years of the Arbitration Act (Law No. 9.307\/96), that she co-authored, outlining the main legislative, jurisprudential, and institutional developments that have enabled the consolidation of arbitration in Brazil as a legitimate, effective, and respected method of dispute resolution (See, Cl\u00e1udio Finkelstein, Arbitration in Brazil: Historical Evolution. CONSINTER Law Review, [S. l.], vol. 10, 201<\/a>9).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second day began with the panel \u201cThe Evolution of Arbitration Over the Last 30 Years,\u201d moderated by Giovanni Ettore Nanni<\/a><\/strong>, with presentations by Andr\u00e9a Galhardo Palma<\/strong>, Pedro Batista Martins<\/a><\/strong>, and Renata Steiner<\/a><\/strong>. Andr\u00e9a Palma highlighted the role of the Judiciary in ensuring the effectiveness of arbitration, emphasizing that judicial intervention must remain exceptional, in accordance with the limits established by the Arbitration Act. She pointed to advances such as CNJ Resolution 421\/2021, which regulated cooperation between the Judiciary and arbitration, and noted the growing awareness among judges regarding the boundaries of their involvement in urgent matters. Nevertheless, she warned of ongoing challenges, such as the high number of unfounded annulment actions. A frequently cited basis for such actions, she noted, has been challenges related to arbitrators’ duty of disclosure<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pedro Batista Martins focused precisely on this topic \u2014 the arbitrators\u2019 duty of disclosure \u2014 emphasizing that the arbitrator, as someone embedded in the legal community, cannot be treated as an island, that is, as an isolated figure detached from the legal profession. He argued that impartiality must be assessed in light of the realities of Brazilian legal practice and warned of a possible regression in this regard (see COMMENTS on the Guidelines of the Brazilian Arbitration Committee (CBAr<\/strong>) Regarding the Arbitrator\u2019s Duty of Disclosure<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Renata Steiner addressed the arbitration clause and the nuances of consent. Drawing on case law, she discussed the objective scope of the clause, the limits of its reach, and the specific challenges involving public administration (see Renata Steiner, Arbitration and the Autonomy of the Arbitration Clause, Arbitration and Mediation Review, vol 31, pp 131\u2013151, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following this, Vera Monteiro de Barros<\/a><\/strong>, Adolfo Braga Neto<\/a><\/strong>, and Fernando Marcondes<\/a><\/strong>, moderated by Fernanda Levy, presented an overview of alternative methods and their complementary roles in arbitration. Adolfo Braga recalled the structural principles of mediation, reinforcing its increasing application in business contexts and even in insolvency proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fernando Marcondes contextualized the spread of Dispute Boards, particularly in infrastructure projects, highlighting their inspiration from FIDIC models and recognition of their utility by institutions such as the World Bank (see Fernando Marcondes, The Evolution of Construction Arbitration in Brazil, Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem, vol 21, no 82, pp 7\u201334, 2024 \/ Dispute Prevention and Settlement Through Expert Determination, \u00a0Institute Dossier XV, Jus Mundi, 2017<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vera Monteiro, in turn, presented updated data from the “Arbitration in Numbers” (see Lemes, Selma Ferreira. Arbitration in Numbers, Research Assistance by: Vera Barros; Bruno Hellmeister) research, demonstrating the relevance of the CIESP\/FIESP Chamber in the national landscape. She highlighted female leadership in arbitral tribunals and pointed to the challenges and opportunities arising from the use of artificial intelligence, especially regarding ethics, transparency, and the risk of algorithmic bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel on technical evidence in arbitration, moderated by Martim Della Valle<\/a><\/strong>, consisted of five interactive presentations. Andr\u00e9 de Luizi Correia<\/a><\/strong> began by addressing the different types of technical evidence, followed by reflections from Adriana Braghetta<\/a><\/strong>. V\u00e2nia Wongtschowski<\/a><\/strong> explored the importance of preparing evidence and communication between arbitrators and experts, commented on by Ane Elisa Perez<\/a><\/strong>. Luiz Fernando Alongi<\/a><\/strong> discussed the formulation of questions and technical scenarios, followed by a rebuttal from V\u00e2nia. Ane Elisa addressed the dynamics of the hearing and the testing of expert findings. Finally, Adriana Braghetta discussed the assessment of technical evidence, its limits, and the burden of proof, with closing remarks by Andr\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The congress concluded on a high note with the panel \u201cPerspectives and the Evolution of Arbitration Over the Next 30 Years,\u201d led by Adriana Pucci<\/a><\/strong> and featuring speeches by Carlos Alberto Carmona<\/a><\/strong>, Hermes Marcelo Huck<\/a><\/strong>, and Natalia Lamas<\/a><\/strong>. It was a moment for forward-looking reflection, with critical thinking and responsibility. Natalia Lamas defended the importance of strengthening trust in the arbitral process, noting that existing principles already provide a sufficient foundation for coherent and effective solutions, without the need for new legislation or excessive regulation. She believes that the greatest challenge is to reinforce the collective belief in private justice and to educate parties about the workings and boundaries of arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Carlos Alberto Carmona, in turn, challenged the audience by stating that it is not enough to trust the process \u2014 it must be challenged. He reminded everyone that although arbitration is doing well, the Judiciary still requires attention. Hermes Marcelo Huck<\/a>,<\/strong> in an emotional address, called on young arbitration professionals to overcome the “storms” currently afflicting the practice \u2014 such as lack of civility, inappropriate selection of arbitrators, and the rise of challenges. His final call was for everyone to love arbitration and take responsibility for its future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concluding with speeches that inspired not only reflection but action, the congress reaffirmed the commitment of the CIESP\/FIESP Chamber to excellence, innovation, and leadership in building a solid, ethical, and progressive arbitral environment. By starting with a retrospective and ending with a vision for the next 30 years, the event successfully fulfilled its purpose: to celebrate the path traveled, recognize the challenges, and strengthen the foundations for what is yet to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mariana Martos Yamashita,<\/strong> Case Manager at the CIESP\/FIESP Chamber of Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n