THE AUTHOR:
Aniruddha Banerji, LL.M. Candidate in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po
The Sciences Po LL.M. in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (TADS) Degree, unites a global community distinguished by its academic depth and practical insight in international arbitration. In partnership with Daily Jus, the TADS Network—comprising both students and alumni—shares original commentary, legal insights, and global perspectives that reflect the program’s commitment to shaping the future of international arbitration.
On 13 September 2025, new and familiar faces converged for the TADS Alumni Homecoming. The event, now in its 3rd edition, was conceptualised in 2022 under the stewardship of Kyle Schneider, Assistant Dean at the Sciences Po Law School, and Liana Cercel, special professional development advisor, independent counsel, and alumni of the very first TADS LL.M. batch of 2018.
The idea was to bring together the ever-growing TADS LL.M. alumnae body for a morning of spirited discussions, candid reflection, and to welcome this year’s TADS 9th class into the TADS family. Staying true to its objectives, this year saw three panels discussing various issues, and was conducted remarkably by Lucas Macedo and Arias Lim Jie.
This year, we celebrated the TADS Class of 2020’s 5th anniversary.
Cracks in the Intra-EU Wall
The first panel undertook a spirited discussion on the Achmea v. Slovakia (“Achmea”) and Komstroy v. Moldova (“Komstroy”) judgements passed by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in 2018 and 2021, respectively, and the global ramifications caused by the attempted enforcement of Intra-EU awards.
The moderator, Ernest Morales Tonda, began the discussion by providing a succinct context for the issue and setting the roadmap for the discussion among the panel members. Ernest spoke of the ECJ decisions in holding that arbitration clauses contained in intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) (in the case of Achmea) and the Energy Charter Treaty (1994) (“ECT”) (in the case of Komstroy) are incompatible with EU law, as the sole competence to adjudicate intra-EU disputes belonged to the ECJ.
The discussion then began with Pilar Colombes Íess, a Spanish attorney, who spoke about Spain’s reliance on the Achmea and Komstroy principles to defend against awards ordering the nation to pay sums totaling €1.5 billion. These awards arose from arbitrations invoked by multiple investors against Spain between 2011 and 2013 in response to Spain’s hike in renewable energy premiums. Spain refused to pay the awards and approached the European Commission, citing the Achmea and Komstroy cases. The European Commission directed Spain not to pay the amounts awarded, deeming them illegal, and extended such a directive to any enforcement actions against Spain. True to these directives and the Achmea and Komstroy principles, actions seeking enforcement against Spain in other EU jurisdictions, including Sweden and the Netherlands, were denied.
Following these insights, Afia Kwakwa then spoke about the attempts made by parties to seek enforcement against Spain in American courts. The battlefield this time was the DC District Court, where proceedings were initiated by investors from the Netherlands and Luxembourg against Spain under the ECT (NextEra v. The Kingdom of Spain and 9REN v. The Kingdom of Spain). The investors argued that the exceptions granted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) were applicable, as Spain agreed to arbitrate disputes under the ECT, the disputes now being decided are subject to enforcement in the USA under relevant multilateral treaties. On the other hand, Spain argued that there can be no question of a valid arbitration agreement in light of the Achmea and the Komstroy principles. The DC District Court upheld its jurisdiction to rule on enforcement actions brought by the investors. Spain appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with the DC District Court’s jurisdiction. The issue has been brought before the US Supreme Court, but as things stand, an EU member state remains subject to enforcement actions in the USA.
Nimanniyu Sharma then continued the discussion on how courts outside the EU have approached the Achmea and Komstroy principles. Nimanniyu first referred to the decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in EDF v. Spain. Spain once again argued that the arbitration agreement of the ECT is incompatible with EU law and that only the ECJ could interpret its provisions. This argument was, however, rejected by the Swiss Federal Tribunal, holding that the ECJ’s decisions were only binding within the EU and that courts outside the EU have an independent duty to interpret treaties in good faith. Nimanniyu also highlighted the decision of the Australia High Court declining Spain’s argument regarding the Komstroy principles, since it was of the view that Spain had waived its sovereign immunity by becoming a party to the ICSID Convention (1965). The next battlefield, in Nimanniyu’s view, is Asia, with lines being drawn in Singapore.
Bringing the discussion to a close, Irina Ivanova offered an incisive critique of the EU’s insistence on exclusive competence. Irina highlighted that while the European Commission and the ECJ sought to frame EU law as part of customary international law, such a position was untenable under Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) Statute. In her view, EU law is a regional legal order and cannot dictate outcomes in arbitral proceedings or national courts outside its borders. Tribunals, she argued, have no obligation to defer to ECJ reasoning or decisions, particularly where it conflicts with established principles of international law. For Irina, the real issue is the incompatibility between EU principles and the jurisdictional framework of international arbitration, a tension that continues to spill over into enforcement proceedings worldwide.
Beyond the Buzz: AI’s Real Role in Practice
The discussions took a lighter turn for the second panel with discussions on the increasing role of AI in legal practice, specifically in the context of international arbitration. The discussion was kicked off by Lucas Macedo, the moderator for the panel, who reflected on his own experience as to how a third-party funder has adopted AI in their operations.
Oriane Cannac referred to a report issued by Thomson Reuters in early 2025 and highlighted some interesting figures showing the growing usage and preference of AI amongst lawyers. She stated that the statistics clearly show a growth in legal practitioners using AI, and that there is a clear desire for AI to be directly integrated into their workflow. Oriane argued that the role of AI is to optimize how lawyers work, and the first step towards doing so is by integrating AI into existing working structures and technologies, in order to boost productivity in certain defined tasks such as preparing chronologies and dramatis personae, extracting targeted information from voluminous case files, and even producing first drafts.
Esen Aydin, representing Jus Mundi, presented a live demo of the newest version of Jus AI. She began by defining agentic AI: a system that can autonomously plan, research, and synthesise answers by orchestrating multiple specialised models. In the context of legal research in international arbitration, this means handling complex prompts, gathering sources, analysing nuances, and producing structured outputs.
She emphasised that Jus AI always discloses its sources and provides transparent reasoning steps, enabling users to easily verify how each answer was produced.
For the demo, she selected the enforcement of intra‑EU awards in both EU and non‑EU jurisdictions. Jus AI deployed agent models that researched and layered the analysis according to the prompt—mapping relevant case law, comparing jurisdictional approaches, and surfacing citations alongside each conclusion. The results were well‑sourced and were met with approval from the members of the first panel.
Moving to the use of AI from a practice and user-oriented perspective, Akhil Chowdary Unnam highlighted that AI is more likely to reshape the legal practice rather than making it obsolete. He reflected on how there were similar apprehensions when computers were introduced; however, past experiences show that the introduction of new technologies has an effect of re-shaping the industry and creating new opportunities to capitalize on. Akhil also stressed the fact that while AI is helpful, its fullest potential can only be unlocked by perfecting the art of prompting.
The final member of the panel, Guillermina Huber agreed with Akhil’s views and said that AI must be guided with the ‘critical eye’ of human guidance for its potential to be fully unlocked. AI can in no way be a substitute to the human element, where the lawyer providing the prompt is minutely aware of not just the law but also the facts and the expectations of the client.
Careers on Trial: Lessons from the Field
The final panel turned the spotlight to professional life in international arbitration from TADS Alumnae, offering the incoming cohort of the TADS LL.M. a candid glimpse into the realities of the profession that awaits them. The panel was moderated by Arias Lim Jie, who invited the panelists to reflect on their paths and share practical advice drawn from their experiences.
The discussions kicked off with Carla Ximena Cervantes Escamilla who reflected on her past experience working in the legal team at Banco de Mexico and her decision to pursue the TADS LL.M. despite not having prior international arbitration experience. She reminisced how the program equipped her with the tools to excel and paved the way for her to join the ICC as a Deputy Counsel in their Latin American team. She described a regular day in her life to include coordinating deadlines across multiple cases, scrutinising awards, and communicating feedback of ICC Court members to the arbitral tribunals.
Next, Monica Murayama, who was recently made a partner at Lefosse, one of Brazil’s largest law firms, recalled her journey from Brazil to Paris, then to Washington, D.C., and finally back to Brazil. She spoke about her practice, which is focused on energy, oil, and gas, and that in her role, she also advises on litigations in Brazil in addition to international arbitrations. Being recently elevated to partner, she also spoke about her responsibilities managing a team and doing business development.
The spotlight then shifted to Adrian Torres, who spoke of his experience as an investment funds lawyer and how a decision to enter the Paris market as an international arbitration lawyer led him to pursue the TADS LL.M. He also shed light on the nature of the matters he handles as part of the team at White & Case.
The last member of the panel, Jia Yu Ling, presently a Senior Associate with Quinn Emanuel spoke about his experiences in Singapore and how that has shaped his present practice in Paris with a focus on oil, gas and infrastructure.
International arbitration, being global by its very nature, then steered the discussion towards the opportunities that working in a foreign jurisdiction offers. Jia Yu spoke of the advantages of Singapore being perceived as a big hub for disputes in Asia, which has led to law firms in Singapore being more open to hiring foreign lawyers who wish to work on Asia-focused disputes. However, that said, he also highlighted that, be it Singapore or Paris, what ultimately matters is the potential business case that one can make to a law firm. When considering Brazil, Monica spoke about how there is limited investment arbitrations and inter-state disputes practice in Brazil, and that a majority of arbitration matters relate to commercial arbitrations. She also highlighted the fact that despite Brazil being one of the leading users of ICC, it is hard to find a ‘purely international’ dispute in Brazil as there is always some ‘Brazilian flavour’. However, on the topic of working in a foreign jurisdiction, Monica emphasised the importance of being familiar with the language and culture of that jurisdiction. Finally, Adrian offered his views on the long-term career benefits of building sectoral and regional expertise; however, younger lawyers should be open to diverse opportunities, which can, over time, crystallize organically into a coherent practice.
The panel concluded with the speakers sharing their insights on how to excel in international arbitration, with key themes including creating opportunities for yourself, being visible to decision-makers, being humble, and maintaining a consistent approach to networking.
This year’s TADS Homecoming event went off without a hitch, offering current students the opportunity to hear from accomplished alumni who once sat in their chairs. The event brought together all TADS generations to share their thoughts, experiences, and insight while thoughtfully curated panels addressed pressing industry issues, and encouraged reflection on professional role and future aspirations.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Aniruddha Banerji is an Indian-qualified lawyer with 6 years of experience in the field of domestic and international dispute resolution. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po, Paris.
*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.
