3 June 2026 • 10 minute read
Arbitration Matters Bulletin: June 2026
Key updates, clear impact.jpg?impolicy=m&im=Resize,width=3840)
Conflict disruption drives disputes risk
Amid the Middle East conflict, businesses operating in, trading with, or routing people, goods and capital through the region continue to face disruption to regional airspace, shipping around the Strait of Hormuz, pressure on war-risk insurance, cybersecurity attacks and dislocation in energy and logistics flows. In energy markets, the impact is particularly significant: QatarEnergy declared force majeure on liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments, and natural gas prices have reportedly risen by almost 50 percent following attacks on Qatari facilities.
For clients, that means potential disputes over force majeure, hardship, notice compliance, mitigation, insurance response and downstream pass-through claims. Immediate priorities may include protecting people, preserving rights early, documenting impacts in real time and reviewing the contracts and dispute-resolution clauses most likely to come under stress.
Andrew Mackenzie, Partner, Abu Dhabi and Dubai, comments:
“The arbitration angle is now a central focus. When conflict disrupts supply chains, closes shipping routes or limits the availability of war-risk cover, disputes quickly move from operational issues to contested questions of contractual risk allocation. Tribunals are likely to scrutinise whether performance was truly prevented, whether notices were served properly, what mitigation was attempted and whether governing law offers force majeure, hardship or only a narrower route to relief. The LNG disruption around Ras Laffan and the Strait of Hormuz is an example of how one event can trigger disputes across supply, transport and downstream contracts, alongside procedural activity in arbitration. Clients may not assume that a ceasefire or partial reopening would, in itself, reduce disputes risk, as any persistence of movement constraints and insurance unavailability or backlogs could potentially drive increased disputes activity. Practical priorities may include early action, disciplined evidence collection and careful review of contractual wording before positions harden.”
Ernest Yang, Partner, Hong Kong, comments:
“With the significant volume of trade and investment between the Middle East and Asia Pacific, managing issues and disputes arising from the conflict is at the forefront of our clients' minds. Having previously advised on similar issues in the context of the Russia–Ukraine war, we are getting regular requests to advise on conflict-related issues ranging from the risks to vessels trading in the region to the impact of energy prices on long-term contracts.”
James Carter, Partner, London, comments:
“As is often the case in times of geopolitical disruption, clients' immediate priorities tend to focus on risk management and mitigation. Our advice may then turn to disputes where risks cannot be comprehensively managed or mitigated, or where losses arise. Arbitrations relating to marine and supply chain issues (including in relation to force majeure and frustration) may follow. Perhaps less immediately, pricing-related arbitrations may arise as the pricing mechanisms in contracts for the supply of oil, LNG and other refined products are pressured to respond to any dramatic price changes, potentially rendering contracts uneconomic. Project-linked arbitrations may also arise where delay and disruption occur as a result of equipment and materials supply delays or personnel shortages. Given the prevalence of English law in these contracts, a number of these disputes may play out in London and may continue beyond any resolution of the conflict in the Middle East.”
For more information on this topic, see:
ICC Arbitration Rules: 2026 revisions at a glance
The ICC International Court of Arbitration has updated its widely-used Arbitration Rules. The 2026 ICC Rules apply to ICC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2026, unless the parties have agreed to use an earlier edition. The new Rules represent a substantive update and include a number of headline changes. Terms of Reference will no longer be mandatory, although there remains a strong emphasis on early and ongoing case management. Arbitrators are expressly encouraged, in case of any doubt, to disclose any facts or circumstances that call into question their independence in the eyes of the parties and/or any circumstances that could give rise to reasonable doubts as to their impartiality. Tribunals now have express powers to make early determination of claim and defences in certain circumstances, which will encourage more use of this mechanism that already existed in practice. In addition, new opt-in Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions provide a further route for the resolution of disputes that require extremely speedy solutions. These changes, among others, are intended to enhance the ICC's offering for parties and counsel.
Michael Ostrove, Partner, New York, and Vice President of the ICC Court, comments:
“The 2026 revisions to the ICC Arbitration Rules are designed to improve efficiency, clarity and usability. We expect our clients who choose to arbitrate their disputes under the ICC Rules to be pleased with the changes overall. As a Vice President of the ICC Court, I was pleased to participate in the rigorous revision process. The revised rules keep the focus on users' needs and the ongoing evolution of international arbitration practice. The changes should further strengthen the ICC’s leading position in the field. We will be hosting a series of client briefings and seminars to answer our clients' questions about the revised rules. If you would like to hear from us, please get in touch with me or your regular DLA Piper contact.”
Leading arbitration institutions report caseload growth in 2025
2025 caseload statistics from several leading international arbitration institutions have revealed year-on-year increases in new case filings. The ICC registered 894 new cases, up from 831 in 2024. SIAC recorded 886 new cases – its second-highest annual total – of which 737 were administered cases, a rise from 585 in 2024, with 89 percent being international cases. HKIAC reported 582 new cases filed, including 388 arbitrations, up from 352 arbitrations in 2024, with international cases accounting for 92.9 percent of new administered filings. The Swiss Arbitration Centre registered a record 125 new cases, a 25 percent year-on-year increase, with 77 percent being international. The SCC registered 213 new cases, of which 50 percent were international disputes.
Across these institutions, common themes are observed: a widening global user base spanning dozens of jurisdictions and governing laws and growing uptake of expedited and emergency procedures. While these figures point to strong growth in international arbitration activity worldwide, direct comparisons between institutions should be treated with caution. Each institution reports its data differently – including what counts as a “new case” and how “international” is defined – and headline numbers can be impacted by large clusters of related cases, differing treatment of consolidations and joinders, and whether emergency or expedited referrals are included in the overall count.
Joshua Wan, Of Counsel, Singapore, comments:
“The 2025 statistics tell a compelling story: businesses around the world continue to turn to institutional arbitration to resolve their cross-border disputes. The broad-based growth across leading institutions may reflect the enduring appeal of international arbitration as a flexible, neutral, and enforceable mechanism for resolving disputes across the globe. The data may also reveal shared trends: commercial disputes – primarily in the areas of trade, corporate, construction, and financial services – appear to continue to drive caseloads, and expedited procedures appear increasingly popular. Of course, institutional arbitrations form only part of the global picture. While more difficult to quantify, there are signs that 2025 was a strong year for ad hoc arbitrations too – for example, in 2025 the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) reported its highest estimated number of references since 2014.”
New arbitration rules for Ghana and Africa
The Centre for International Mediators and Arbitrators (CIMA) launched the Accra International Arbitration and Mediation Rules (the Accra Rules) in January 2026. They are designed to align with international best practice and Ghana's Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798). Their express aim is to provide a fair and efficient means of resolution of disputes and the avoidance of unnecessary delays or expense.
Features of note include: tribunal-party communications are passed through the CIMA Registrar (CIMA's CEO) unless the tribunal directs otherwise (rule 4(1) and 4(2)); expedited tribunal formation upon application (similar to the LCIA Arbitration Rules)(rule 10); a default timetable for exchanging written statements of case (rule 15); Accra as the default arbitral seat in the absence of party agreement, subject to the tribunal determining otherwise (rule 18(2) and 18(3)); the tribunal may submit pre-hearing questions to the parties (rule 22(3)); awards are to be made within three months of a hearing's close (extensions allowed in certain circumstances)(rule 29(1) and 29(4)); encouragement of mediation (rule 32); and a confidentiality provision (rule 34).
Doe Tsikata, Partner (DLA Piper Africa), Accra, comments:
“CIMA, headquartered in Ghana and the UK, provides online ADR training and certification. This marks CIMA's inaugural role in administering arbitrations. Where arbitration is the agreed method of dispute resolution, Ghanaian parties to domestic arbitration, tend to choose the Ghana Arbitration Centre and its rules. The institutional rules of the LCIA or ICC among others, have also been chosen by parties, while ICSID and UNCITRAL rules are generally applied in investor-state dispute settlement. New entrants to this global market typically face challenges in gaining trust and recommendation. Therefore, CIMA may need to collaborate closely with clients and the arbitration community in Ghana and beyond to build confidence. Nonetheless, the Accra Rules represent a significant addition to Ghanaian and African arbitration.”
.jpg?impolicy=m&im=Resize,width=3840)
Finnish arbitration reforms on the horizon
In Finland, a working group at the Ministry of Justice has drafted a proposal for a new Finnish Arbitration Act to replace the current 1992 legislation governing arbitration. The aim of the reform is to promote the competitiveness of arbitration in Finland (domestic and international) and to harmonise the legislation with the UNCITRAL Model Law.
The reform seeks to modernise Finnish arbitration by removing the written form requirement for arbitration agreements, abolishing the separate action for nullity, and requiring all challenges to be brought through set aside proceedings within a shortened 60-day time limit. It also seeks to strengthen the arbitral tribunal’s powers by expressly recognising its authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, order interim measures, hold remote hearings, issue electronic awards with party consent, and interpret awards on request. In addition, the proposal introduces rules on applicable law, multi-party and multi-contract proceedings, legal costs, and court review of arbitrator impartiality already during the arbitration process.
Overall, the reform is presented as a modernisation effort designed to make Finnish arbitration more efficient and predictable, and to make Finland a more internationally credible place of arbitration.
Pia Bräysy, Partner, and Joel Nurmi, Senior Associate, Helsinki, comment:
“Finland is expected to adopt a new Arbitration Act that would largely align with the UNCITRAL Model Law and contemporary international practice. The current legislation, which is more than 30 years old, contains departures from the Model Law and has been identified as failing to attract international users to choose Finland as the seat of arbitration. The proposed legislative reform may affect contracting parties’ willingness to designate Finland as the seat of arbitration.”
For more information, see:
California sets sights on attorney and arbitrator use of GenAI
California’s SB 574 is a recent initiative to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in the state, absent broader federal regulation. SB 574 seeks to address differences between existing guidance on professional responsibilities and the needs of attorneys and arbitrators as AI adoption grows. In addition to existing legal professional ethics responsibilities, the bill proposes an enforceable statutory obligation on attorneys and arbitrators to use AI ethically and transparently. For example, the bill prohibits attorneys from using public generative AI systems with certain sensitive information, requires that they ensure that AI does not unlawfully discriminate against individuals or communities based on protected characteristics and mandates that they verify and correct materials generated by AI. The bill also prohibits arbitrators from delegating decision-making processes to generative AI and requires them to disclose when they rely on AI to gather information. Regardless of AI involvement, arbitrators also retain responsibility for all aspects of an award.
Coran Darling, Associate, New York, comments:
“SB 574 is not a ban on AI. Rather, it highlights considerations for attorneys and arbitrators when leveraging tools available to them. Many elements of SB 574 are consistent with longstanding professional obligations and responsibilities during arbitration that have been recharacterised in the context of AI. This includes protection of confidentiality and a duty to accurately and competently carry out their responsibilities. Should the bill proceed, organisations may continue to apply similar expectations of legal professionals during the arbitration process, with the added understanding that those expectations also apply when attorneys and arbitrators use AI. Further, additional requirements set out at a statutory level, such as clear disclosure and transparency obligations, may provide a new procedural safeguard for organisations that may be cited in challenges to awards if attorneys or arbitrators fall short of expectations.”
Admissibility and arbitrability in the English courts
In Toziwepi Ropa v Kharis Solutions, the English Commercial Court construed a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause, holding that a requirement to mediate prior to arbitration was insufficiently certain to create a condition precedent to arbitration.
Ropa constitutes the latest entry in a line of English High Court decisions on this subject over the past decade or so. In 2012 and 2014, decisions in Tang v Grant Thornton and Emirates Trading v Prime Mineral Exports found that compliance with a negotiation clause could be treated as an enforceable condition precedent to the agreement to arbitrate and therefore, to the tribunal assuming jurisdiction. However, subsequent cases (NWA v NVF and Sierra Leone v SL Mining) sought to limit that approach, recognising that questions of non‑compliance with procedural preconditions go to admissibility, not arbitrability. As a result, such objections fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, not the courts.
The court in Ropa did not refer to these subsequent cases, the distinction between arbitrability and admissibility or the severability of the arbitration agreement.
Serena Cooke, Legal Director, London, comments:
“The decision in Ropa does not remove the risk that tactical challenges to jurisdiction might derail arbitrations before they properly begin or upon enforcement. Hopefully an appellate decision will give us a clearer conceptual boundary between arbitrability and admissibility in relation to pre-arbitration steps. Further, the dispute resolution provisions in this case were described by the judge as “badly drafted,” highlighting the importance of clear contractual drafting to avoid the time and expense of disputes over the meaning of the parties' dispute resolution clause.”
Arbitrators’ powers to grant interim measures under Italian law
Pursuant to Article 818 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (in force since 2022), an arbitral tribunal once constituted has exclusive jurisdiction to grant interim measures, provided the parties expressly agree. The statute permits this either in the arbitration agreement itself or by reference to institutional rules that provide for arbitral interim relief. Where such powers are validly conferred, state courts lose jurisdiction to grant interim measures once the arbitral tribunal is constituted. However, in February this year, the Court of Siracusa held that a generic reference to institutional arbitration rules is not sufficient, even if those rules clearly empower arbitrators to grant interim measures (as with Articles 26 and 44 of the Milan Chamber of Arbitration Rules and most other major institutional rules). Absent an unequivocal attribution of interim powers in the arbitration agreement itself, it held that the state courts retain jurisdiction.
This interpretation differs from the approach reflected in the 2022 reform. Article 818 expressly allows the conferral of interim powers “also by reference” to institutional rules. Treating such references as insufficient risks may undermine the reform's effectiveness and reintroduce uncertainty where efficiency and legal certainty were meant to prevail.
Federica Bocci, Counsel, Milan, comments:
“The decision of the Court of Siracusa is not a one-off – the Court of Livorno in 2025 expressed similar views. As a result of these formalistic interpretations, if the parties wish to ensure that arbitral tribunals retain interim relief jurisdiction, arbitration clauses governed by Italian law or providing for an Italian arbitral seat may wish to expressly and unambiguously state that arbitrators (including emergency arbitrators) have the exclusive power to grant interim measures. A few extra lines today may prevent costly jurisdictional disputes tomorrow.”
Arbitration Matters
A well-understood and effective international dispute resolution mechanism is key when challenges arise in a complex and rapidly changing world. Put another way, “arbitration matters.”
In the Arbitration Matters publication series, DLA Piper’s International Arbitration Group provides insight and thought leadership on key issues that impact international arbitration globally.
Learn more about the firm’s international arbitration capabilities.
Subscribe to our Arbitration Matters newsletter.
