THE AUTHOR:
Raquel Macedo Moreira, Independent Practitioner, Research Associate & Lecturer
After a multitude of fantastic side events on the day prior, international arbitration practitioners gathered on the morning of 10 June 2025 in front of the provocative statue outside the Milan Stock Exchange to kick off CAM Milan (Milan Chamber of Arbitration) and AIA’s 4th Italian Arbitration Day.
Professor Maria Beatrice Deli and Stefano Azzali welcomed around 200 international arbitration practitioners, noting that the high attendance of foreigners (more than 20%) was a positive sign of the latest developments of arbitration in Italy.
Morning Discussions
The first keynote, delivered by David W. RIVKIN, reminded us that arbitration can and should be tailored to the parties and that arbitrators and practitioners should utilise this flexibility more effectively. David advocated for the “Town Elder Approach”, referencing a time when, to resolve disputes, the Town Elder would first listen to the parties and understand their agreements, disagreements, and interests. There was no Procedural Order No. 1, no standard procedure, no “see you in a year and a half at the hearing”. David suggested that starting with a blank paper is the best way to begin a conversation, which should naturally include not only counsel but also the parties. The extensive toolkit offered by international arbitration should be employed, not standardised. While, of course, it is essential to obtain the parties’ consent, the law supports this proactive and interactive approach by arbitrators. To truly be friends of arbitration, practitioners need to utilise these powers to make the process effective and efficient for the parties.
Panel I on the use and abuse of state court remedies was moderated by Angelo ANGLANI, who opened discussions by quoting Natalia Ginzburg on how “human things are all imperfect, and this is their beauty”.
The venue became a top-tier classroom as Hussein HAERI guided us through the development of anti-suit injunctions, anti-arbitration injunctions, and even anti-anti-suit injunctions brought before English courts. He emphasised the authority of English courts to grant anti-suit relief when the arbitration agreement is governed by English law, even if the seat of arbitration is elsewhere. A discretionary power previously limited within the European Union (“EU”) by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Erg Petroli v. West Tankers ruling, but restored after Brexit. Hussein also highlighted a significant change with the reform of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (now AA25). Specifically, the replacement of Enka v. Chubb with a rule stating that unless the parties explicitly choose a different law for the arbitration agreement, it will be governed by the law of the seat.
Lara HAMMOUD then addressed arbitrators’ misconduct and civil and criminal lawsuits, drawing parallels between immunity and harassment, making an interesting point on how the finality of the arbitral award sometimes leaves as “only recourse” attacking the process or the arbitrators and weaponising tools that should have otherwise been used only in extreme cases. Looking at the spectrum of arbitrator misconduct, Lara cited examples from the US, Spanish, Singaporean, Indian, Chinese, and Hong Kong courts. The message was clear: the age of absolute immunity is over, but accountability is not a threat; it is essential to legitimacy.
Examining the standards of review for awards, Isabelle MICHOU took us to France while addressing whether arbitration is gradually moving towards a creeping judicial review of the merits. Isabelle moved from the letter of the law to leading cases that were heavily criticised for allegedly exemplifying the courts exceeding their review powers. In doing so, she considered the question of how courts balance the limits of their authority with the need to ensure that awards conform to public policy. On this point, Lara added that UAE courts are progressing towards becoming arbitration-friendly, as evidenced by statistics revealing that between 2017 and 2021, 92% of requests for annulment were denied. Confirming a positive relationship between courts and arbitration, Hussein noted that, over the past five years, the statistics on challenges have remained low and stable, with only rare cases of success. It was a reminder that statistics are vital when considering these issues, as we tend to focus on cases where things go wrong; however, the data show that it is very difficult to set aside an award.
After the panel, a reverse debate led by Niccolò LANDI took place. The rule of the game was to gather comments from the audience, rather than hosting a traditional Q&A session.
- To the question of whether anyone had witnessed creeping judicial review, participants shared mixed experiences—even within the same region—citing examples such as Qatar and Dubai, and noting distinctions between onshore/national courts and offshore international jurisdictions like the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) or Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC).
- Regarding experiences related to the misuse of court remedies in connection with arbitration, participants shared instances where criminal proceedings were initiated against one of the parties to intimidate them or obtain evidence, and the potentially harmful influence such proceedings may have on the arbitrator’s confidence in proceeding with the arbitration.
- Regarding the question of balancing the integrity of arbitration against the risk of having an arbitration indefinitely suspended by anti-suit relief, participants shared that attitudes that seem supportive of arbitration may backfire. Examples included cases in which parties had to retract their requests for anti-suit injunctions. Comments also revealed differing opinions regarding the effectiveness and dangers of the English approach in enabling such actions.
- Participants also shared experiences of being personally investigated by the parties, difficulties in initiating discussions about liability clauses, and the potential for the arbitrator’s liability to be extended through the process of scrutiny.
The morning concluded with a presentation by International Federation of Commercial Arbitration Institutions (IFCAI)’s President, Ismail SELIM, on the legitimacy of institutional arbitration and the power of institutional rules. Institutions are effectively regulatory bodies, with a key role also in sharing anonymised decisions. Ismail also referred to the wording of the CAM – Milan Arbitration Rules 2023 as inspiring, as it states that they will apply “however labelled,” which serves as an essential instrument to prevent the misuse of objections based on different names used.
Afternoon Discussions
The afternoon commenced with a keynote by Gabrielle KAUFMANN-KOHLER, whose slides were as striking as her insights. She urged us to consider whether arbitration has become too complex to the extent that increasing procedural intricacies undermine efficiency and alienate users. Her observations, rooted in her (vast) experience, included cases with higher stakes, rising client pressure, and increasingly aggressive advocacy— all contributing to what she called “litigious inflation”. She attributed this not only to the nature of disputes—involving technical matters, reputational harm, and politically sensitive cases—but also to the stakeholders involved. Busy arbitrators that lack the time to curb procedural excesses, counsel favouring caution in the pursuit of thoroughness, and an expanding industry of law firms, funders, and experts. All in the spectre of due process paranoia. For solutions, Kaufmann-Kohler emphasised that it can be about arbitrators reclaiming their core role: resolving disputes rather than addressing every legal or factual detail. She advocated for a toolbox that includes page limits, more streamlined schedules, fewer issues, and the adoption of online hearings. It was a message of courage: efficiency is not a betrayal of fairness.
In Panel II, Cecilia CARRARA moderated a fireside conversation with panellists Carlos Alberto CARMONA, Dyalá JIMÉNEZ, and Melissa MAGLIANA on the use and abuse of procedural tools and rights. As requested in the introduction of the discussion, and to ensure honest exchanges, none of the views discussed are individually attributed to the speakers but are reported generally. The debate began with the framing of arbitrators’ profiling as both necessary and beneficial: the ability to select decision-makers is one of arbitration’s greatest strengths. However, transparency brings new obligations. Parties now have an active duty to investigate potential conflicts, not merely rely on the arbitrator’s disclosures. Reference was made to Guideline 4 of the revised IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration 2024: unless objections are raised promptly, a party may be deemed to have waived them. Comments addressed the advantages of the IBA’s preference for a clearer and more objective standard, as well as the potential dangers of asymmetries in parties’ access to information, especially regarding chair selection. The discussion then shifted to the topic of institutional responsibility and the implications of an institution knowing of a possible conflict that an arbitrator fails to disclose. From the audience, Stefano AZZALI noted that CAM, while not automatically disqualifying the arbitrator, does raise the issue and places a “moral duty” on arbitrators to disclose. Resignation was another contentious point. The audience was reminded that resignation is a right, but not without consequences: liability for resignation without good cause remains a relevant issue and must be assessed by courts. Late conflicts, even genuine ones, also pose difficult questions to the efficiency of arbitration. On the physiology and pathology of decision-making, it was provocatively stated that decision-making begins with the first “hello.” Unconscious bias, tone of voice, and clarity of counsel all matter. Conversely, it was also suggested that the award-writing phase is the mark of the actual start of decision-making. The role of the chair was highlighted as crucial in setting the tone and pace of deliberations. Regarding procedural amendments, there was consensus that calendars are necessary but difficult to enforce. Nonetheless, postponements should not be granted automatically. Finally, on the topic of changing counsel, legitimate reasons for change were listed, including budget constraints, dissatisfaction, or internal reshuffling. However, we were warned against strategic replacements aimed at destabilising or delaying proceedings. The authority of the arbitrators to refuse such requests ultimately depends on the wording of the PO1 and the timing of the change, a topic now addressed by the IBA guidelines as well.
During the second reverse debate of the day, Roberto CALABRESI set the tone: procedural tools are not inherently good or bad — it’s how they’re used that counts. The audience was then invited to share their perspective on when use crosses the line into abuse.
- To the question of reappointing an arbitrator who decided against you, some lawyers said no, others practitioners proudly shared that parties had renominated them as arbitrators even after losing a case. A panellist chimed in to say that lawyers never lose. Parties do. The lawyers live to fight another day.
- The enforcement of multi-tier clauses was also raised. In response to whether objections to skipping steps like negotiation or mediation should halt proceedings or be considered a delay tactic, opinions were mixed. FIDIC clauses were cited as examples of successful and enforceable frameworks, though.
- The audience engaged in a discussion on whether arbitrators should share preliminary views. Many in the room believed they should, as parties expect a service not a black box.
In its closing remarks, Andrea CARLEVARIS, President of AIA, wrapped up the day by returning to the key theme: the line between use and abuse is subtle, but crucial. From institutional roles to arbitrator resignations, from party strategy to tribunal proactivity, the discussion revealed the grey zones practitioners must navigate every day. He concluded with a reminder: arbitrators enjoy no automatic title, no hourly rate for their awards, and (increasingly) no absolute immunity. These might be privileges worth preserving — but only if they come with accountability.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Raquel Macedo Moreira is a dual-qualified lawyer in Brazil and Italy. Her professional journey includes several years of practice in top-tier law firms, alongside academic work. Currently, Raquel runs her own practice as a lawyer and arbitrator. She is also a research associate at The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London, and an adjunct lecturer at Université Libre de Bruxelles.
*The views 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.
