International arbitration: reform, enforcement and technology reshape global risk landscape

In this third edition of our annual guide, our international arbitration team examines developments across 18 key jurisdictions, offering a clear view of how legislative reform, institutional innovation and court practice are shaping arbitration worldwide. The analysis draws on the experience of practitioners working at the forefront of complex, cross-border disputes, reflecting standards recognised by Pinsent Masons' Global Arbitration Review Top 30 ranking.

Alongside our jurisdictional insights, we analyse emerging subject matter trends that are redefining the disputes environment. From the rapid expansion of data centre infrastructure and the uptick in M&A-related claims, to significant ISDS enforcement developments, the growing impact of AI in arbitral processes, the continued global rise of third-party funding, and the surge in disputes driven by the renewable energy transition, we explore how these themes are influencing both risk and strategy for commercial parties and investors.

We hope this edition provides valuable insight and supports you as you navigate the shifting global arbitration landscape in the year ahead.

Geographic trends in international arbitration

UAE

Arbitration in the UAE has been strengthened significantly by legislative reforms, clearer court guidance and modernisation across key arbitral institutions.

Recent rulings clarified the DIFC courts’ jurisdiction, confirmed that awards need only be signed on the final page, highlighted the enforceability risks associated with unilateral arbitration clauses, and affirmed tribunals’ powers to issue interim and anti‑suit measures. Meanwhile, DIAC and arbitrateAD have launched new digital platforms and initiatives to enhance accessibility and procedural efficiency. Collectively, these developments reinforce the UAE’s position as an increasingly reliable and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is seeing a steady rise in arbitration use, supported by wide‑ranging reforms aimed at aligning its framework with international standards and enhancing investor confidence.

Planned updates to the 2012 Arbitration Law – such as clearer rules on governing law, expanded enforceability of interim awards, relaxed arbitrator qualification requirements, and streamlined enforcement – signal a significant modernisation push under Saudi Vision 2030. The SCCA continues to showcase growth, reporting major increases in caseload, international participation, and tribunal diversity. Consistently pro-arbitration court decisions further reinforce this trajectory, positioning the Kingdom as an increasingly attractive arbitration hub for major domestic and cross‑border projects.

Qatar

Qatar strengthened its position as a regional arbitration hub in 2025 through major regulatory initiatives, modernised court procedures and pro-arbitration judicial guidance.

New draft laws propose a mandatory professional register for arbitrators and a stringent licensing regime for foreign arbitration centres, reinforcing quality and transparency. Updates to the QFC Court rules and a key judgment in the D v E case clarified how Qatar’s dual onshore–QFC framework operates and confirmed a commercially sensible, arbitration-supportive approach to interpreting dispute resolution clauses. Together, these developments signal Qatar’s growing competitiveness as an international arbitration seat.

Egypt

Egypt maintains a pro‑arbitration framework; permitting arbitration of economic disputes, provided they are capable of amicable settlement, while excluding matters of public policy, criminal law and certain public order protections. Government entities regularly participate in both commercial and investor–state arbitration, and arbitral awards are enforceable once annulment periods lapse, subject to compliance with public policy requirements.

Recent developments further strengthen Egypt’s arbitration landscape, including proposed legislative amendments to the national arbitration law, the implementation of the 2024 CRCICA Rules introducing efficiency‑enhancing procedural tools, and initiatives such as Egypt Arbitration Days held for the first time in October 2025, all reinforcing Egypt’s ambition to position itself as a leading regional hub for arbitration.

West and Francophone Africa

Investment disputes in West and Francophone Africa are rising, driven by financing challenges, regulatory shifts, expropriations and new fiscal measures affecting major mining and infrastructure projects. ICSID cases have increased sharply, with Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso involved in prominent mining-related claims.

At the same time, growing UAE and Chinese investment is reshaping arbitration seat preferences, boosting venues like Dubai, Beijing, Shenzhen and Lagos. Regional bodies such as OHADA and active local centres in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal and Togo are strengthening coordination and institutional capacity across the arbitration landscape.

Southern Africa

South Africa saw an active year for arbitration, driven by major energy sector disputes, regional cooperation initiatives and several influential court decisions. Calls to modernise the country’s dual domestic–international arbitration regime continued, while AFSA expanded its international footprint, including through BRICS and SADC partnerships.

Renewable energy projects generated a growing volume of complex arbitrations, and courts repeatedly affirmed the binding nature of arbitration agreements, clarified procedural timelines, and reinforced the limited grounds for challenging awards. With judicial encouragement to use arbitration amid lengthy court backlogs, South Africa’s arbitration landscape is steadily expanding and gaining prominence.

England and Wales

England and Wales continued to strengthen its position as a leading global arbitration hub over the past year, supported by legislative reform, arbitration‑supportive court decisions and sustained confidence in London as a preferred seat. The Arbitration Act 2025 came into force in August, introducing targeted modernising reforms to the 1996 regime. These include a default rule on the governing law of arbitration agreements, statutory recognition of emergency arbitrators, express summary disposal powers for tribunals, enhanced disclosure obligations for arbitrators, and clearer procedures governing court intervention in jurisdictional challenges.

The courts delivered a series of significant decisions reinforcing England’s pro‑enforcement and arbitration‑friendly approach, particularly in relation to state immunity and supervisory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court confirmed that states may be prevented from re‑litigating immunity defences already determined by foreign courts, and that ratification of the ICSID Convention constitutes a clear and unequivocal waiver of state immunity for enforcement purposes. By contrast, the courts also reaffirmed that waivers of immunity must be express and that the New York Convention alone does not amount to consent to adjudicative jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal further confirmed the English courts’ exclusive supervisory role over London‑seated arbitrations, granting anti‑suit relief to restrain foreign proceedings seeking to undermine arbitral awards.

Institutional data and major events, including London International Disputes Week 2025, continued to underline London’s global appeal, with English law remaining the most commonly chosen governing law and London the most preferred arbitral seat worldwide.

France

France is moving toward a major overhaul of its arbitration law, with a unified arbitration code expected in stages through 2026, reinforcing its status as a top global arbitration seat.

Recent judicial and legislative developments further strengthen France’s arbitration-friendly framework, expanding the Paris Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction and confirming supportive case law. Together, these reforms and court decisions continue to enhance Paris’ attractiveness for international arbitration.

Germany

Germany is moving toward a long‑awaited modernisation of its arbitration law, aimed at aligning the framework with international standards and making arbitration more attractive for businesses.

Recent DIS and ICC case data shows strong and diverse arbitration activity across sectors such as energy, infrastructure, manufacturing and technology, alongside new specialist regimes for sports and Nazi-looted art disputes. Courts and tribunals have also played a key role in sanctions related cases, while proposed reforms introduce digitalisation, publication of awards and greater use of English, further strengthening Germany’s position as a competitive, modern arbitration venue.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands strengthened its role as a leading enforcement hub for international arbitration in 2025–26, supported by new NAI rules improving transparency, efficiency and arbitrator challenge procedures.

Dutch courts issued influential decisions on major geopolitical disputes, including the Yukos award, Crimea‑related claims and sanctions-affected cases, reaffirming strict timelines for challenges and clarifying the scope of treaty protections. Courts upheld EU law precedence in intra-EU BIT arbitration, while maintaining a pro-arbitration stance, even allowing arbitral tribunals to remedy defective awards.

Singapore

Singapore has strengthened its position as a leading global arbitration hub, driven by the SIAC 2025 Rules, new insolvency-related protocols and growing international engagement.

SIAC’s caseload remains robust and increasingly international, accompanied by major institutional expansions such as the opening of an ICSID office and the PCA’s enlarged presence. Throughout 2025, Singapore’s courts continued their strongly pro-arbitration stance, minimally intervening while still safeguarding due process in exceptional cases. Collectively, these developments underscore Singapore’s commitment to innovation, procedural certainty and global leadership in both commercial and investment arbitration.

Hong Kong SAR

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has reaffirmed its position as a leading Asia‑Pacific arbitration seat, supported by HKIAC’s continuing procedural innovations.

Courts issued pro-arbitration rulings in 2025, demonstrating strong support for enforcement and high thresholds for challenges while clarifying limits where disputes fall outside arbitration agreements. These developments collectively strengthen Hong Kong’s accessibility, efficiency and judicial backing as a premier arbitration venue.

India

India’s arbitration landscape saw major progress through regulatory reforms, institutional advancements and clarifying court rulings. New free trade agreements with the UK and EU, liberalisation of foreign legal practice under BCI rules and updated MCIA arbitration rules signal a system increasingly aligned with international standards.

Courts issued influential decisions on unsigned arbitration agreements, enforcement of foreign-seated awards, tribunal powers and limits on non-signatory involvement, reinforcing a pro‑enforcement and arbitration-supportive approach. A busy calendar of conferences and thought leadership initiatives further highlighted India’s growing ambition and confidence as a global arbitration hub.

Japan

Japan’s arbitration landscape remained stable in 2025, following major 2024 reforms that aligned its Arbitration Act with international standards and improved enforcement mechanisms.

JCAA statistics show steady international uptake, high enforcement rates, and increasing use of expedited procedures, while Japan’s expanding clean energy investment plans are expected to generate more disputes. Although Japan remains cautious in investor-state arbitration, third-party funding is gaining traction, and a growing number of conferences and international collaborations reinforced Japan’s role as an active and outward‑looking arbitration hub.

South Korea

South Korea’s new KCAB International Arbitration Rules, effective 1 January 2026, modernise the system with greater efficiency, flexibility and transparency, including expanded digital processes, broader expedited procedures and stronger disclosure requirements. The creation of the International Arbitration Court further enhances institutional independence and structured case management.

Recent Korean Supreme Court jurisprudence reinforces a pro-arbitration stance, while the country’s growing renewable energy sector may lead to an uptick in complex energy‑related arbitrations.

Mainland China

Mainland China is undergoing major arbitration reform with a revised Arbitration Law effective March 2026, modernising the framework to align with international standards and allowing ad hoc arbitration in designated areas. The law strengthens arbitrator qualifications, ethics and transparency while shortening time limits to set aside awards and increasing penalties for bad faith claims.

China’s growing arbitration footprint is reflected in rising caseloads at CIETAC, the high ranking of Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai as arbitration centres in the latest Queen Mary Survey, and new AI guidelines and mediation-arbitration (med-arb) innovations. Chinese courts continue to show a pro‑arbitration stance, further boosting confidence in China’s emergence as a global arbitration hub.

Australia

Australia has seen a marked rise in high value, cross-border arbitrations, with ACICA reporting more than A$3.3 billion in active cases and a strong international user base. Courts have reinforced Australia’s pro-enforcement stance through measures such as worldwide freezing orders, while also issuing nuanced rulings on sovereign immunity that may affect enforcement of certain investment treaty awards.

Overall, these developments underscore Australia’s growing role as a robust and reliable arbitration enforcement jurisdiction.

The Philippines

Arbitration in the Philippines continued to evolve in 2025, with the construction arbitration institution CIAC marking its 40th anniversary and courts reinforcing a strongly pro-arbitration stance.

Supreme Court rulings confirmed the narrow grounds for challenging CIAC awards, clarified CIAC’s executory powers, and addressed key issues such as optional arbitration clauses and the persuasive value of foreign arbitral awards. Alongside this judicial support, expanded institutional activity – including ADR Week, new partnerships and increased engagement from ICC, SIAC and HKIAC – demonstrated the jurisdiction’s growing integration into the regional and international arbitration landscape.

Specific arbitration trends

M&A disputes

The increase in arbitration arising out of M&A transactions reflects the growing complexity, scale and risk profile of modern deals. As deal volumes and values rise, particularly in technology, media and energy, disputes are more frequently triggered by post‑completion issues such as alleged breaches of warranties, valuation disagreements, earn‑out mechanisms and regulatory exposure linked to AI use, ESG compliance, sanctions and supply‑chain disruption.

These issues often emerge during due diligence or post‑merger integration, when discrepancies between disclosed and actual business performance become apparent. Pressures are intensified by an unsettled geopolitical climate, characterised by shifting trade policies, sanctions regimes and export controls, which has heightened regulatory scrutiny and operational risk for cross‑border transactions. In this context, arbitration is increasingly selected as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism because it offers confidentiality, neutrality and enforceability across borders, as well as procedural tools such as expedited and emergency relief that are well suited to resolving high‑stakes, time‑sensitive M&A disputes.

Rise in data centre disputes in Asia Pacific

Data centre investment in the Asia-Pacific region is accelerating rapidly, driven by AI adoption and soaring digital infrastructure needs, but this growth is creating a parallel rise in arbitration-focused disputes. Capacity shortfalls, delays, performance failures, supply chain constraints and complex joint venture structures are generating conflicts ranging from shareholder deadlocks to service level violations and outage-related claims. Regulatory uncertainty, specialised component shortages, cybersecurity risks and multijurisdictional subsea cable projects add further pressure points.

With confidentiality, technical expertise and ease of cross-border enforcement, arbitration is increasingly the preferred mechanism for resolving these highly technical, cross-border data centre disputes.

ISDS developments

Investors relying on investment treaties must increasingly account for enforcement risk, as national courts diverge sharply on whether arbitral awards against states can be executed.

While treaties such as the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention are designed to facilitate enforcement, EU member state courts routinely refuse to enforce intra-EU awards following the CJEU’s Achmea and Komstroy decisions, creating significant barriers for investors. By contrast, courts in jurisdictions such as the UK, US, Australia and Singapore have largely maintained a pro-enforcement stance, holding that ICSID obligations override EU law-based objections.

Recent cases also show states testing jurisdictional defences and investors exploring alternative strategies, but with limits, such as UK rulings that ICSID and ECT awards cannot be assigned. Overall, understanding these jurisdiction-specific trends is critical for investors when structuring investments and assessing the real value and enforceability of treaty-based protections.

Third-party funding

Third-party funding (TPF) of arbitration continues to expand globally, with greater user acceptance and increasing institutional moves toward mandatory disclosure and conflict management requirements.

Research shows strong market appetite for TPF, and major arbitral institutions – including SIAC, HKIAC, QICCA and arbitrateAD – now require parties to disclose funding arrangements and funder identities, with tribunals empowered to order further details and impose sanctions for non-compliance. National developments in 2025, such as Australia’s Kain ruling and the EU’s mapping study, further shaped the regulatory landscape while leaving governance largely to institutions.

Ethical concerns persist, particularly around arbitrator impartiality, as illustrated in the Silver Bull challenge, reinforcing the importance of continuous disclosure and adherence to international conflict of interest standards.

Impact of AI on international arbitration

As arbitral institutions increasingly integrate AI into case management and decision support tools, businesses using arbitration must implement strong governance to harness efficiency gains without creating legal or procedural risks.

Leading institutions – including the LCIA, ICC, DIAC, HKIAC and AAAICDR – have launched partnerships, platforms and guidelines to support responsible AI adoption, while courts globally have sanctioned lawyers for relying on unverified AI outputs, underscoring the dangers of hallucinated citations and confidentiality breaches. Professional bodies such as the CIArb have responded with AI guidance emphasising verification, transparency, and human control. To avoid jeopardising enforceability, parties should adopt internal AI protocols, ensure strict oversight of AI-assisted drafting, protect confidential data, and agree early guardrails with tribunals.

Renewable energy arbitration

The global shift toward renewable energy is driving a significant rise in disputes, as developers and contractors face challenges linked to price volatility, regulatory changes, supply chain disruption and the adoption of new or untested technologies. Complex project structures, including joint ventures, multi-contract procurement models and sequential work dependencies, further increase the risk of interface failures, delays, cost overruns and disagreements over responsibility.

Arbitration is the preferred mechanism for resolving these disputes, offering neutrality, technical expertise, confidentiality and tools such as consolidation, joinder, preliminary determination and protective orders, which are well suited to large, multiparty infrastructure projects. As renewable energy capacity rapidly scales worldwide, the proportion of energy transition-related disputes handled by arbitral institutions is expected to continue rising over the next decade.