{"id":290147,"date":"2026-05-26T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290147"},"modified":"2026-06-01T13:33:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T11:33:44","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/26\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-ukraine\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – Ukraine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Volodymyr Nakonechnyi<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>, Managing Associate at Arzinger Law Firm<\/strong><\/a>
Anastasiia Kotliarchuk<\/strong>, Senior Associate at Arzinger Law Firm<\/strong><\/a>
Mariia Vakarieva<\/strong>, Paralegal at Arzinger Law Firm<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

For almost four years,\u00a0Ukraine<\/a>\u00a0has been perceived and discussed through the lenses of war, martial law, and future reconstruction. One may even argue that the country has undergone a profound transformation in nearly every public sphere. Yet, when it comes to international arbitration, the expected shift simply did not happen. The context surrounding arbitration indeed has changed, but the system remains stable and functioning. The courts continue to enforce awards, institutions have operated without major interruption since April 2022, and no drastic legislative shifts have disrupted the existing framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did emerge, however, is an entirely new category of disputes driven by the wartime sanctions legislation \u2013 the number of such disputes against Ukraine continues to grow (Section II.A.<\/em>). In parallel, Ukrainian investors continue pursuing compensation from Russia for loss of their assets, both through enforcement efforts in the long-running Crimean cases and through a new series of claims initiated after the 2022 full-scale invasion (Section II.C.<\/em>). Commercial disputes in the defence sector become increasingly common due to the expansion of Ukraine’s military industry (Section III)<\/em>. Legislative and institutional reforms keep contributing to the favourable arbitration landscape in Ukraine (Section IV<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Investment Arbitration\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Sanctions-Related Cases against Ukraine<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Ukraine’s sanctions regime, introduced in response to Russia’s armed aggression, allows seizure and nationalization of assets through court proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Investors, deprived of their property without compensation \u2013 most often due to their Russian ties \u2013 resort to investor-state claims, seeking any possible recovery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n