THE AUTHOR:<\/strong> On Monday, 23rd of March 2026, the HAAART Foundation hosted a conference regarding the future of arbitration and launched its HAAART Foundation International Court of Arbitration (\u201cHICA<\/strong>\u201d) in Paris. The panel, composed of two round tables, was moderated successively by Ms Mariana Nogales Paez Buzance<\/strong> (Director of HICA)and Ms Ramona Grewan<\/strong> (Supervisory Board Director of the HAAART Foundation), and featured Ms Camelia Bogdan<\/strong> (Arbitrator, P.R.I.M.E Finance<\/a> expert), Ms Rana Kharouf <\/strong>(Professor at Sciences Po University, judge at the Parisian court of Asylum), Mr Jose Andres Lama<\/strong> (Arbitrator, member of the International Construction Chamber), Ms Veronica Sandler<\/a><\/strong> (Founder of Woman Way Arbitration), Ms Rita El Murr <\/strong>(PhD law Candidat at Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on Sorbonne University), Mr Abang Iwawan <\/strong>(Managing partner of Abang & Co, Chair of the Malaysian Bar Council Arbitration Committee), and Mr Rostislav Kats<\/strong> (Lawyer, Product Manager at Kluwer Arbitration).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The session opened with introductory remarks by Mr Kaylan Krishna Bandaru<\/strong> (Chairman of the HAAART Foundation) and Mr Timothy Wong<\/strong> (Governing Board Director and Head of the Research Team of the HAAART Foundation), who introduced the HAAART Foundation which was founded on 18 July 2025 in the Netherlands. They explained that growing concerns over the effectiveness of international law, in the context of ongoing conflicts and environmental challenges, led to the establishment of HAAART Foundation with the aim of promoting global peace and justice. This ultimately also led to the creation of HICA, an international arbitration court equipped with its own rules and designed to resolve territorial and sovereign disputes between States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then shifted to the ability of international arbitration to address emerging challenges, particularly in the fields of environmental law, human rights, artificial intelligence, and water-related disputes. The floor was given to Mr Andres Lama<\/strong>, who examined dispute resolution in energy construction projects in South America. He explained that, in the context of the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, dispute resolution mechanisms must evolve to take into account not only technical considerations, but also the political realities faced by States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turning to Latin America, he identified three recurring challenges affecting infrastructure development: political instability, significant imbalances in resources, and a persistent risk of conflict. By way of illustration, he referred to a decision of the Mexican Supreme Court, which found the 2021 Electricity Industry Law unconstitutional for violating the principles of free and fair competition (Acci\u00f3n de Inconstitucionalidad sobre la Ley de la Industria El\u00e9ctrica 64\/2021<\/em>). This example highlights the disconnect that may arise between public policy objectives and industrial development, often rooted in shortcomings within the regulatory framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The floor was then given to Ms Kharouf, who extended this discussion to water-related disputes. Drawing on her experience as a judge, she emphasised the growing number of refugee cases linked to environmental pressures, noting that access to water is increasingly becoming a source of conflict. While the protection of essential humanitarian needs is imperative, she underlined that water remains closely tied to State sovereignty, limiting the effectiveness of international agreements, which often function as guiding principles rather than binding frameworks. She referred to disputes such as those surrounding the Nile River and noted that arbitration remains a useful tool, as illustrated by the Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (2013)<\/a><\/em>, alongside recent developments such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration<\/a> Optional Rules on Environmental Disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moving to the obstacles arbitration faces in the context of climate change, Ms Sandler highlighted that according to international investment law, the bilateral treaties must shield the investor\u2019s interest. However, this framework is increasingly accompanied by environmental obligations, requiring States to adopt regulatory measures that may affect their relationship with investors. In this evolving context, she referred to Urbaser S.A. v. The Argentine Republic (2012)<\/a><\/em> as a significant example of adaptation, as the tribunal was one of the first to grant the right to clean water while still allowing contractual claims against the State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Building on this perspective, Ms Bogdan stressed that \u201claw is only as strong as its enforceability,\u201d shifting the discussion toward the challenges posed by crypto-assets and decentralized finance organizations. These emerging technologies are reshaping economic behaviour while exposing the limits of fragmented regulatory frameworks and the shield of sovereign immunity. The real challenge in enforcement, she argued, lies less in the rise of digital assets themselves than in the regulatory asymmetries between major financial jurisdictions. For instance, Switzerland has integrated the segregation of digital assets into its Code of Obligations, positioning itself as a favourable forum for arbitration, whereas the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the United States treats such assets as commodities, and the United Kingdom has recognized them as property in AA v. Persons Unknown.<\/em> Against this backdrop of regulatory fragmentation, the pressing question is no longer whether international arbitration can adapt to technological and geopolitical shifts, but how rapidly it can do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then turned to whether international arbitration was ready to address artificial intelligence (\u201cAI<\/strong>\u201d) and ongoing geopolitical conflicts. Ms El Murr highlighted the limitations of Article 33 of the United Nations Charter <\/a><\/em>and Chapter VII of the <\/em>United Nations Charter<\/em>,<\/a> which promote the peaceful settlement of disputes. She noted that these mechanisms often fail to bring conflicts to an end, as peacebuilding processes are lengthy and involve sensitive issues such as State responsibility. In this context, she advocated for the use of ad hoc<\/em> arbitration to resolve boundary disputes between States at war emphasizing its flexibility, confidentiality, and binding nature. She then focused particularly on the case of Lebanese & Israeli boundaries, highlighting the difficulties of dispute settlement in the absence of diplomatic relations. The core obstacle is not a legal incapacity but political tensions, as arbitration requires mutual consent, its absence makes mediation the most viable option, allowing indirect communication through a third party, as illustrated by the 2022 maritime boundary agreement arranged by the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Iwawan then shifted the discussion to the issue of legitimacy. He emphasised that arbitration is not only about determining the applicable law, but also about deciding whose perspective is allowed to shape the dispute. He illustrated this point through the dispute between the Sultan of Sulu and the Government of Malaysia<\/a><\/em>, where the issue extended beyond legal interpretation to encompass questions of sovereignty and historical identity reframed as commercial claims. While the tribunal approached the agreement through the lens of intertemporal law, he recalled that legal systems have, at times, upheld arrangements that would now be considered fundamentally unjust. Similarly, in Heinrich von Pezold v. Zimbabwe<\/a>,<\/em> indigenous communities sought to participate in the proceedings, yet the tribunal declined their involvement and proceeded without hearing from those whose history lay at the core of the dispute. This, he argued, demonstrated that a system which excludes relevant voices may produce legally sound outcomes while still lacking legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, Mr Kats highlighted the rapid integration of artificial intelligence into legal practice, noting that nearly 92 % already relied on AI for tasks such as legal research, drafting, and the development of arguments. Yet, only a minority appeared equipped to navigate the emerging regulatory framework, with just 34% reporting preparedness. Although a large majority acknowledged the potential impact of regulation, most remained uncertain as to how to address it in practice. He noted that the main obstacles to the use of AI lay in technical limitations and data privacy concerns, areas in which only a limited proportion of practitioners felt adequately prepared. In this context, the discussion ultimately raised a critical question: whether AI can be trusted within arbitral proceedings. He concluded that stronger institutional oversight would be necessary, not only to monitor its limitations, but also to ensure that these tools are properly trained and used in a manner consistent with the realities of legal practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Farida Hassan<\/strong>, Master’s Candidate, University of Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n