Look ahead to get ahead
Spotting trends and making predictions can be difficult for businesses at the best of times. The shocks to the economic, regulatory and geopolitical norms that we have already seen in 2026 demonstrate that it is now harder than ever to work out what is coming down the track. However, those who are able to look ahead usually manage to get ahead, by exploring opportunities and mitigating risk more effectively.
In this overview, we outline the key trends and developments that that are likely to shape international arbitration in 2026. We assess the implications for business, including how best to take advantage of the opportunities they bring and minimise any risks.
Over the course of this year, we will publish detailed insights into each theme from our global arbitration team, starting later this month with developments in disputes clauses.
If you are interested in a discussion about any of these topics, please get in touch with one of our authors.
Please subscribe to our blog for further analysis of the latest developments in arbitration.
What’s happening in arbitration law and practice?
Future-proofing dispute resolution clauses
In 2025 we saw a stark shift in approach to disputes clause negotiations, with more straightforward clauses and less optionality coming back into fashion, largely in response to case law from the Court of Justice of the EU which called into question the validity of market standard asymmetric clauses. We also saw an increased willingness to accept innovative drafting compromises, for example by mixing and matching governing laws and seats. We expect to see these trends continue to play out over the coming months as last year’s changes in market practice become the new normal and as parties’ willingness to innovate continues to increase. Our first detailed article in this series will examine these trends, their drivers and how to address them in negotiations.
“Getting your dispute resolution clause right is one of the most effective ways of managing transaction risk and avoiding a fight. And the drafting doesn’t have to be complex – in fact, recent developments reinforce that simplicity can sometimes be the best policy.” Katrina Limond, Counsel, London
Expedited proceedings: the future of arbitration?
The increasing popularity of expedited arbitration procedures reflects a focus among users on reducing the cost and duration of an arbitration while retaining its core advantages, such as the confidentiality of proceedings and enforceability of awards internationally. There is a clear trend among major arbitral institutions towards: (i) expanding the circumstances where expedited procedures apply; and (ii) introducing ambitious “streamlined” and “fast-track” procedures with ever shorter deadlines for the issue of awards.
Such procedures can be useful, but they need to be carefully applied to ensure a fair process and an enforceable award. We will consider the benefits and risks of using expedited and “streamlined”/“fast-track” procedures based on our experience and recent case law. We will provide practical tips on what parties and their legal representatives can do to use these procedures more effectively.
“As expedited mechanisms continue to evolve, offering ever more ambitious deadlines for tribunals, the risk of awards being challenged on due process grounds will only increase. To mitigate this, arbitral institutions, tribunals, and parties all need to engage actively with, and carefully monitor, expedited proceedings to maximise the likelihood of a fair proceeding and an enforceable award.” Edward Taylor, Partner, Hong Kong
AI in IA – please use intelligently
There has been rapid growth in practical use cases for, and reliance on, AI in international arbitration, with users exploring ways to deploy AI on both existing and new disputes. In our experience, using AI before and during disputes can introduce material efficiencies in factual (and sometimes) legal research, document review and analytics, and in the preparation of first draft documents or summaries. Upsides can include shorter timelines, lower costs, capacity building and fewer avoidable errors, which can lead to more predictable budgets and potentially quicker business outcomes. However, AI needs to be used with care. It can introduce risks, including around hallucinations, undetected errors and bias, confidentiality, data security and compliance with emerging regulations and guidelines.
Using lessons learnt from our own experience, we can work with organisations to help them maximise opportunities and minimise the risks of using AI from start to finish of an arbitration. This includes identifying the most suitable tools and taking account of recently introduced institutional guidelines.
“AI can create substantial efficiencies to organisations in international arbitration matters but needs to be appropriately and expertly deployed. A&O Shearman’s position as a market-leader in AI adoption and use among law firms means we are ideally placed to assess opportunities and risks through the disputes lifecycle and advise on the ever-increasing rules and regulations that impact on its use.” Al Livesey, Counsel, London
EU law and arbitration: where next?
From the Achmea decision almost a decade ago to 2025’s sports arbitration developments, with CAS awards facing intensified EU-law scrutiny in EU Member State courts, the cracks between EU law and arbitration continue to grow. While EU law and arbitration will continue to co-exist, there have been some recent examples of national courts in EU Member States exercising their prerogative of having the last word on fundamental public policy issues when faced with challenges to, or enforcement of, arbitral awards. The effects of these decisions on commercial and sports arbitration can be pronounced, with businesses requiring practical advice on how they and their internal counsel can adapt to these developments.
“While arbitration remains an important dispute resolution mechanism in the EU, some recent decisions of EU national courts have highlighted the fault lines between EU law and arbitration when core public policy issues of EU law are engaged. Businesses must adapt their approach accordingly.” Lucia Raimanova, Partner, Bratislava
Modernisation of arbitration laws and rules around the world
In an increasingly competitive and crowded space, arbitral seats and institutions are striving to keep their competitive edge. There were significant rule changes made by major seats and institutions last year, with further far-reaching reforms expected in 2026. Court supervision, interim measures, enforceability and third-party funding are the main areas likely to be the subject of review in 2026, as seats and institutions vie to be the most attractive choice.
“The past year saw significant changes to the arbitral legislation of key jurisdictions and economies and proposed amendments to the rules of major arbitral institutions. From the wide-ranging changes proposed to France’s arbitration law, to recent innovative amendments to arbitral rules in Asia, the changes emphasise the benefits of picking the “right” seat and set of institutional rules.” Jae Hee Suh, Counsel, Singapore
How are wider business trends impacting the arbitration landscape?
Some wider trends in the business environment will have a direct impact on international arbitration. Here we set out some examples, which our specialists will develop in greater depth over the course of the year.
Sanctions take centre stage in arbitration
In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the use of international sanctions by states and regional entities. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted unprecedented and far-reaching sanctions against Russia. Russia has retaliated with its own extensive ‘counter sanctions’. These developments have disrupted contractual relationships, generated significant legal complexity, and triggered a wave of investor-state disputes brought by both foreign and Russian investors, contributing to a sharp rise in sanctions-related arbitrations. Sanctions against other states continue to be implemented: for example, in 2025 several states reintroduced sanctions against Iran. Such measures are no longer a peripheral compliance issue – nearly 25% of ICC cases in the first quarter of 2024 involved sanctions. We expect sanctions cases to remain an important feature of the arbitration landscape in 2026. As global sanctions regimes and international arbitration increasingly overlap, organisations need to be aware of the key issues arising in practice including the obstacles to initiating and conducting arbitral proceedings, the substantive disputes that arise from the impact of sanctions measures, and the effect that sanctions have on the enforceability of arbitral awards.
“Sanctions are no longer the backdrop to international arbitration – they’re the main event. They now shape how parties bring claims, perform contracts, and enforce awards. Organisations need to navigate the tricky issues they raise.” Jennifer Younan, Partner, Paris
Investment protection in a volatile world
The geopolitical and macroeconomic turbulence of the last couple of years have had a significant impact on the playing field for international trade. This will have corresponding implications for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a specialist way for investors to resolve disputes with states that offers additional protections alongside contractual remedies. In 2026, increasingly interventionist state policies are likely to lead businesses to play even closer attention to their investment protections. We expect the presence of emerging economies in investment treaty arbitration to continue to grow and an increase in the application of ESG principles in international investment law. In these circumstances, and particularly where contractual or local remedies may be inadequate or absent, structuring investments to gain ISDS protection is an increasingly attractive option for businesses. However, the recent backlash against the ISDS system in some corners and the evolving challenges to enforcement mean that carefully calibrating a strategy from the outset is essential to making the most of this option.
“At times of political and economic uncertainty, foreign investments are particularly exposed to the risks of regulatory change and unpredictable state measures. When these risks materialise, investor-state dispute settlement can be an effective – and sometimes the sole – method for investors to protect their investments. To benefit from the protections and remedies available under this regime, investors need to consider their options at the outset of the investment process and, where possible, structure their investments accordingly.” Marie Stoyanov, Partner, Paris
Going nuclear – managing contentious issues on complex deals
The nuclear sector is being transformed by the re-acceleration of new build and life extension programs, complex multi tiered supply chains, and evolving regulatory and licensing frameworks. We are seeing disputes emerge from heightened interface and schedule risks on safety classified systems and a sharper focus on regulatory change, export controls, and sanctions. These disputes often take place in the context of alternative contracting models and bespoke liability regimes and decades-long project lifespans. What is more, technological opportunities, such as digital project controls, modularisation and advanced fuels, are creating new operational and commercial dynamics. These forces are shaping risk allocation and dispute strategy in nuclear projects, requiring participants to future proof their contracts and arbitration clauses.
“The ramp-up in nuclear projects, which often require more bespoke models and technologically advanced input, is accompanied by an increasingly complex operating, licensing and regulatory environment. Against this background, arbitration isn’t just a forum choice – it’s an effective risk management and mitigation tool.” Kirsten O’Connell, Partner, Dubai
Arbitration for financial institutions – why, where and when?
It is a commonly held stereotype in some parts of the world that banks prefer the predictability and potential speed of the courts. However, reforms have made arbitration more flexible and streamlined. Statutory interventions and procedural innovations in institutional rules – such as summary disposal and emergency arbitration – present new opportunities for financial institutions to diversify their dispute resolution options. Against a background of innovation in financial products, a web of international sanctions, and increasingly litigious counterparties: are the virtues of arbitration, such as cross border enforceability, confidentiality and procedural flexibility becoming more pronounced – or do the courts continued to be favoured by financial institutions? Our experience suggests that financial institutions are more willing than ever before to take a highly bespoke approach to disputes clause negotiations and tailor their clauses to fit the specific risk profile and requirements of a transaction.
“Traditionally, banking and arbitration have not always been seen as natural partners. However, the fast pace of financial innovation and the increasingly fractured enforcement landscape make it essential for financial institutions to incorporate arbitration into their dispute resolution toolkits.” Arash Koozehkanani, Partner, Dubai
Private capital and arbitration – an ideal combination?
The private capital space is no more immune from disputes than any other transactional field. Many of those disputes are well-suited to resolution by arbitration, and we are seeing an uptick in the use of arbitration as a mechanism to resolve disputes with joint venture partners and between buyers and sellers. Common contentious issues that we see include disputes relating to signing and closing, corporate governance, joint venture management issues such as minority oppression claims, portfolio company underperformance, information rights and exit mechanisms. We expect this trend to continue in 2026. We are also seeing private capital providers using investor-state arbitration as leverage to protect their investments, and increasingly as a means to pursue claims against host country governments. Both commercial and investor-state arbitration are gaining traction in response to geopolitical turmoil and economic turbulence and in a quest for private dispute resolution. We will discuss how to manage and mitigate the contentious issues that arise and how to use arbitration to best advantage.
“As arbitration gains momentum in the private capital sector, providers need to adopt best practices and avoid common pitfalls to help mitigate transaction risk and ensure a smooth and effective dispute resolution process.” James Freeman, Partner, London
IP and IA – resolving disputes in life sciences and technology
There is plenty to recommend international arbitration as the forum of choice for a wide array of intellectual property disputes, which often arise in the technology and life sciences sectors. Strict confidentiality and the wide, straightforward enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention are two of the most obvious. But, in some quarters, an idea persists that intellectual property disputes cannot be arbitrated, which is (in most cases) unfounded. Increasingly, we are seeing IP disputes being referred to arbitration, and we expect this to continue as more parties come to appreciate the benefits. For example, in 2025 the Unified Patent Court’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre consulted on its draft arbitration rules, which are expected to come into force later this year after the centre officially opens in June. Businesses need to consider the types of IP disputes that are well-suited to resolution by arbitration, and which arbitral institutions and rules are most appropriate.
“Disputes about intellectual property are often well suited to arbitration, but a myth persists that they cannot be arbitrated. Often they can, and arbitration typically provides a confidential forum to resolve disputes, reducing the risk of parallel proceedings and offering the benefit of widely enforceable awards.” Christopher Ryan, Partner, Washington DC
Digging into disputes – the changing landscape of mining arbitration
The mining sector is experiencing a period of turbulence, driven by resource nationalism and geopolitical tensions. Governments are reasserting control over critical minerals – seen as strategic assets essential to national security, the energy transition and economic sovereignty – by introducing reforms to mining codes, increasing state equity requirements, and imposing export restrictions, often with retroactive effect. Meanwhile, deteriorating security environments and increasing environmental regulations are exposing investors to new risks, while sanctions and export controls create complexity for cross-border operations. Investors are creatively looking at their protections, with novel funding structures – such as streaming and royalty agreements – being tested as qualifying investments under investment treaties. Meanwhile, evolving disclosure and reporting requirements are creating new flashpoints, with shareholders increasingly willing to bring claims following alleged failures to disclose project risks. In our article, we examine these key drivers of mining disputes in 2026 and offer practical reflections on managing such risks.
“Mining companies are operating in an increasingly unpredictable environment. Resource nationalism, security risks, and the strategic importance of critical minerals are reshaping the regulatory landscape and driving complex, high-stakes disputes. Investors need to be proactive - structuring investments to maximise treaty protections and anticipating risks before they crystallise into claims.” David Jenaway, Partner, Perth
