The eighth edition of the Paris Arbitration Week (“PAW”) started this Monday with Addleshaw Goddard hosting a roundtable event on “The Evolution of Arbitration in the Central Eastern Europe and Central Asia Regions: A Roadmap for the Future”. The discussion included experts from various background: Sébastien Jean (Associate Director of the Geoeconomics and Geofinance Initiative, French Institute for International Relationships (Ifri)), Alice Fremuth-Wolf (Market Head of Austria and the CEE region, Nivalion AG), Hjordis Birna Hjartardottir (Counsel, ICC), Peter Rižnik (Independent Arbitrator) a ..read more

On 1 November 2023, the English High Court (“EWHC”) delivered its decision in Hulley Enterprises Limited v. Russian Federation. The EWHC dismissed the jurisdictional challenge raised by the Russian Federation (“RF”), which contested the enforcement of arbitral awards in favour of the former majority shareholders of OAO Yukos Oil Company (“Yukos”). Despite the RF asserting state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA”), EWHC, relying on the exception provided by a valid arbitration agreement, rejected this claim. The dismissal stemmed from the RF’s inability to reargue the validity of ..read more

The Fourth Edition of the Washington Arbitration Week (WAW) took place from 27 November to 1 December 2023. This post highlights the panel titled ‘The Ukraine Crisis and Post-War Scenarios’. Jose Antonio Rivas, SJD (co-founder of WAW/Xtrategy), introduced the panel by remarking that despite the fact that the Russian invasion had already lasted for almost two years, it remains a priority of the WAW to continue reflecting on the conflict. While many legal discussions focus on the international humanitarian aspects of the war, such as Russia’s violation of international treaties (namely the UN Ge ..read more

Security for costs can be an effective tool to protect the respondent from an arbitration in which a potential costs claim against the claimant is irrecoverable. While the specific requirements for a security for costs order are determined by the applicable institutional rules or arbitration laws, the respondent applying for security for costs will generally have to prove the existence of a risk of irrecoverable costs. The risk of irrecoverable costs exists typically when the claimant lacks funds to pay an adverse costs award or has started to hide assets from the respondent. Since the United ..read more

The requirement that a tribunal be impartial is a fundamental procedural principle. It is not surprising, then, that under Art. 18 of the Russian Arbitration Act, arbitration proceedings are conducted, first and foremost, based on the principle of impartiality and independence of arbitrators. Although the Russian International Arbitration Act, based on UNCITRAL Model Law 1985, does not mention such a principle, it still sets out that arbitrators shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The initial version of Russian ..read more

The landscape for Russia-related disputes in London has changed significantly in the last year. The panel of Egishe Dzhazoyan (King & Spalding), Katia Finkel (Baker & McKenzie), Valery Knyazev (Kroll) and Tatiana Minaeva (RPC) moderated by Baiju Vasani (Twenty Essex) discussed shifting trends, challenges arising from international sanctions, enforcement issues, and potential opportunities for dispute resolution during the first day of LIDW 2023.   Shifting Trends in Russia-related Disputes Tatiana Minaeva highlighted the findings from LCIA Casework Reports of recent years (2019 a ..read more

Much has been written on countermeasures enacted by States against Russia (e.g., here, here, here), but to the extent that States’ measures in response to Russia’s breaches of international law have violated the protections owed to Russian private investors, can States still claim that these measures are lawful countermeasures? And, if and when these Russian investors claim their investment protections have been violated before an arbitral tribunal, can the sanctioning States raise that claim before the tribunal successfully? Moreover, can Russia resort to countermeasures against States that h ..read more

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. (UN Charter, Art. 2.3) The peaceful settlement of international disputes is a fundamental principle of international law. While it can be debated precisely when or where this common principle emerged, it has served as a guiding light since the establishment of the United Nations after the close of World War II. Indeed, ‘transnationalists‘ look to the United Nations and other international institutions to provide a framework for the d ..read more

One often maps the path of history as the sordid account of one bloody war after another.  But if one were to mark history by the great moments of peace, then the modern era began at 2:00 p.m. on May 18, 1899.  From across the globe, representatives of the world’s most powerful nations gathered for a purpose without precedent.  A purpose filled with an earnest hope, but undoubtedly and intimately grounded in the stark realism of humanity’s flawed condition.  The delegates who gathered that day aimed to sign a peace treaty before there was war, to draft an agreement to reduc ..read more

As previously reported, in mid-2020, changes were enacted to the Russian Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code (“APC”) to establish the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian Arbitrazh courts over cases where a Russian party is subject to sanctions or where the dispute has arisen out of sanctions. This triggered concerns that sanctioned Russian parties would be able to easily avoid arbitration clauses they had entered into. As discussed in an earlier blog post, the way in which the relevant provisions of the APC were drafted gave rise to two possible interpretations: (1) whether any sanctioned Russ ..read more