THE AUTHOR:
Andrea Norelid, Associate at Mannheimer Swartling
On 7 and 8 May 2026, a newly thawed Stockholm showed itself at its finest, hosting the sixth edition of Nordic Arbitration Day, organised by Young Arbitrators Sweden (“YAS”). The conference began with a welcoming reception at Stockholm Under Stjärnorna (Eng. Stockholm Under the Stars), providing participants with a relaxed opportunity to meet fellow practitioners before the main programme the following morning.
The conference was held at At Six in central Stockholm, welcoming over two hundred participants from across the Nordics and beyond. Following welcoming remarks from Sara Johnsson, Chairperson of the YAS Board, keynote speaker Claes Zettermarck set the tone for the day. Among many highlights, his address urged practitioners to embrace new and unfamiliar opportunities with clear eyes. To pursue opportunities where they can genuinely add value, to decline only where they cannot, and to have the courage to accept appointments, even when it might be a little outside one’s comfort zone.
This article reports on the key takeaways from the day, including insights from panel discussions on case management and procedural efficiency, the intersection of sanctions and arbitration, contemporary practices in expert witness testimony, and the re-appointment of arbitrators.
Case Management, Evidence, and the Need to Rethink Procedural Balance
To discuss how arbitral tribunals can manage proceedings more effectively were Rasmus Josefsson (Werks), Johan Tufte-Kristensen (University of Copenhagen), Antonina Paasikivi (Waselius), and Mathilde Rye Ramberg (Thommessen), moderated by Linnea Klingberg-Jensen (Kromann Reumert). The panel covered the use of AI tools for document management, the importance of a well-drafted Procedural Order 1 to set clear rules from the outset, and the value of an active tribunal. The role of the tribunal secretary attracted particular debate.
One panellist argued that parties engaging twelve counsel per side should be expected to fund an administrative secretary; another proposed that institutions should make such an appointment mandatory once certain pre-requisites are met – such as the complexity of the dispute, the volume of evidence, and the amount in dispute – with the secretary’s fee paid directly by the parties rather than deducted from the Chairperson’s fee.
Sanctions in Arbitration: Practical Lessons, Common Pitfalls, and the Elusive Law
To address the intersection of sanctions and arbitration were Lisa Berger (Gorrissen Federspiel), Joel Kujala (Roschier), Fredrik Lindmark (Pinna Goldberg), and Caroline Gulliksson Dock (Gernandt & Danielsson), moderated by Haakon Orgland Bingen(Peter & Kim).
The panel confirmed that arbitration remains possible even where sanctions are in play: case law establishes that the mere existence of a sanction does not prohibit arbitration. That said, EU law is paramount, and arbitrators act as guarantors of its correct application. Courts may refuse to enforce an award that violates EU sanctions, as enforcing an award that entitles a sanctioned party to receive money or goods may itself constitute a breach of the national implementation of EU regulations. However, states remain obliged to recognise an award, but enforcement cannot follow until the sanction is lifted – the panel noted that “there is a difference between recognising the award and enforcing it.”
The panel also observed that selecting arbitrators with a minimal risk of challenge draws from a narrower pool than usual, highlighting the distinction between “best arbitrator” and “most neutral arbitrator.” A question from the floor on the calculation of interest where a sanctioned party cannot receive payment drew unanimous agreement that it would be difficult to argue that no right to interest arises, even in the absence of case law on the matter.
Reimagining Expert Witness Testimony: Contemporary Practices in Arbitration
To discuss virtual hearings and the concurrent expert evidence procedure known as hot tubbing were Regitze Aalykke Hansen (Poul Schmith Kammeradvokaten), Silje Helene Bakkevig Dagsland (Haavind), and Anders Öhlin (Vinge), moderated by Robin Ollus (Castrén & Snellman).
On virtual hearings, the panel took a nuanced view: they are appropriate in the right circumstances but should not be adopted purely on grounds of convenience or cost, as they can prove less efficient in practice – particularly when assessing the credibility of a witness appearing remotely.
On hot tubbing, the panel noted its growing use, with the most common model being a hybrid where counsel and the tribunal ask the questions they consider necessary. Effective hot tubbing requires thorough preparation, an active counsel ready to ask follow-up questions and to object where appropriate, and – for more complex disputes – a carefully pre-agreed agenda.
On experts, the panel discussed further the rarely used but valuable option under some institutional rules for the tribunal to appoint its own expert, potentially replacing the two party-appointed experts altogether and avoiding the cost of running three experts simultaneously.
Stockholm Syndrome in International Arbitration: Why Do We Keep Appointing the Same Arbitrators?
To examine the re-appointment of arbitrators were Louise Wichmann Madsen (Hafnia Law Firm), Nelli Ritala (Frontia), Asade Pourmand (BAHR), and Jake Lowther (SCC Arbitration Institute), moderated by Maria Sundqvist (Wallin & Partners). The panel identified several advantages of re-appointment: experienced arbitrators bring expertise, predictability, and integrity, reducing the risk of surprises in the award, the reasoning, or the procedural conduct of the proceedings. The panel cautioned, however r, against interpreting “experience” too narrowly. Counsel who have not yet sat as arbitrators may not be inexperienced – they bring a different but genuine form of expertise, and a first-time appointee may be particularly diligent. The panel also stressed the importance of a commercial mindset and of appointing arbitrators who understand a business world that continues to evolve.
Conclusion
Nordic Arbitration Day 2026 addressed some of the most pressing questions facing practitioners across the region and beyond. Across the four panels, several common threads emerged: the need for tribunals and counsel alike to embrace procedural innovation — whether through AI-assisted document management, virtual hearings, or hot tubbing — while remaining attentive to the safeguards that underpin the legitimacy of the arbitral process; the importance of navigating the complex intersection of sanctions and arbitration with precision and an awareness of the limits of enforcement; and the value of broadening the pool of arbitrators by looking beyond established names to practitioners who bring fresh perspectives and a genuine commercial mindset. Claes Zettermarck’s keynote message — to pursue new opportunities with clear eyes, and to have the courage to decline where one cannot genuinely add value — resonated throughout the day’s discussions and served as a fitting reminder that the strength of Nordic arbitration lies not only in its efficiency but in the integrity of its practitioners.
The next Nordic Arbitration Day will be held in Copenhagen in 2027. As Daniel Haue Jakobsson, representing Young Arbitrators Copenhagen (“YAC”), the organisers of NAD 2027, noted, inspired by Carlsberg’s famous tagline, participants have every reason to look forward to “Probably The Best NAD In The World.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andrea Norelid is an Associate at Mannheimer Swartling in Stockholm and a member of Young Arbitrators Sweden (“YAS”).
*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.
