International Arbitration 2026

Global Overview: International Arbitration in 2026

The international arbitration landscape in 2026 is dominated by macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. After a series of economic shocks in recent years, the global economy is on the brink of recession. Geopolitical conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, have profoundly disrupted the energy and shipping industries. The tariff war following the announcement of sweeping US tariffs in April 2025 has combined with elevated public debt levels, high sovereign borrowing costs and persistent inflation to leave the global economy in a precarious position: in April 2026, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned of a sharp global economic slowdown and a high risk of recession. 

This macroeconomic uncertainty has combined with geopolitical events (including the rise of nationalist and protectionist policies and the increasing use of international sanctions) to present serious supply chain challenges and create a highly volatile and uncertain business environment. This instability and volatility has, in turn, led to a proliferation of disputes across a wide range of sectors. The areas that are seeing the most disputes are construction, energy and shipping. These are sectors in which arbitration has historically been, and continues to be, the preferred dispute resolution mechanism. 

Against this background, it is hardly surprising that most leading arbitral institutions have reported a record – or close-to-record – caseload over the past year in terms of both the number of disputes referred to arbitration and the size of those disputes.

The USA-Iran War

The military conflict between the USA, Israel and Iran that broke out in March 2026 has severely disrupted global trade, primarily by triggering a de facto closure, the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and international sanctions. Many international businesses are unable to use critical trade corridors, which has made the performance of numerous existing commercial contracts more difficult and, in some cases, impossible. This has triggered a surge of international arbitrations concerning force majeure or contract frustration-based claims as parties seek to enforce, suspend or terminate supply contracts. 

The USA-Iran conflict has also triggered a number of treaty-based claims. The most prominent treaty claim is Iran’s new inter-governmental claim before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague, in which it has cited US military and economic actions in 2026 as violations of the 1981 Algiers Accords.

The ongoing military confrontation in the region is likely to continue to cause supply chain disruptions as shipping, flight and trade routes are suspended or disrupted, and many UAE-based businesses have activated contingency measures. These disruptions are, in turn, likely to trigger a further wave of international trade-related disputes that will be referred to arbitration over the coming months and years.

The Russia-Ukraine War

The effect of the Russia-Ukraine war on the arbitration landscape has changed over time. Initially, in 2022, there was a sharp decline in the number of Russia-related arbitrations as reported by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and other major institutions. The ensuing disruptions, however, have triggered a large number of Russia-related disputes. Since the invasion, many businesses have been forced to cease operations in Russia or have seen their operations taken over by the Russian government. In 2025, Naftogaz, Ukraine’s largest national oil and gas company, and Net4Gas, the Czech Republic’s gas transmission system operator, secured billion-dollar awards against Gazprom over its failure to make monthly payments under their gas transportation contracts.

Global sanctions against Russia and the anti-arbitration stance of the Russian courts have created complications for parties bringing claims against Russian sanctioned entities. Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code grants Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned Russian entities. Since 2024, it has been invoked over 200 times to override exclusive jurisdiction clauses and/or to issue anti-arbitration injunctions. This stance has resulted in courts in both common and civil law jurisdictions ordering anti-suit relief against Russian proceedings.

Technology and Generative AI

Investment in technology and AI continues to boom as companies have invested heavily, especially in the use of generative AI. This is having obvious and profound effects on the arbitration landscape. Many major arbitral institutions are either already using AI or considering it, for services including vetting and conflict checks, transcription and award scrutiny.

The extent to which tribunals may rely on AI remains highly controversial. Most recently, in April 2026, the Supreme Court of Quebec in ARIHQ v Santé Québec, 2026 QCCS 1360 (22 April 2026) set aside a domestic award because the arbitrator had cited fabricated cases and authorities, generated by a large language model, and had developed his analysis based on those AI hallucinations. We can expect further challenges to awards in other jurisdictions based on the Tribunal’s use of AI.

Several initiatives have emerged to address, and seek to standardise, the use of AI in international arbitration. The most notable are the Guidelines on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and the JAMS AI Rules published in April 2024. Another key, related development is the EU’s AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, and is the world’s first comprehensive AI law that provides for EU-wide rules on data quality, transparency, human oversight and accountability.

Together with an increased use of AI in the arbitral process, there has been a rise in technology and AI-related arbitrations. This increase is driven by the rapid growth of the tech industry and the increasing reliance on ever-more complex technologies and AI across a range of industries. According to recent statistics, information and communication-related technology disputes now represents around 10% of the caseload of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Examples of such disputes include Chinese telecoms giant Huawei’s treaty claim against the government of Sweden over its exclusion from the 5G network and Uber’s dispute with Colombia. Investor-state technology disputes of this nature are likely to raise a host of new and topical issues including whether digital assets, blockchain, AI or decentralised assets qualify as investments.

Caseload of Arbitral Institutions

Arbitration continues to remain a preferred method of dispute resolution for many international businesses. A number of arbitral institutions recorded high numbers of new case filings. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) registered 895 new arbitrations in 2025, with a total of 1,896 cases being administered by the ICC Secretariat. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) recorded 886 new case filings, which is its second-highest annual caseload on record. Other institutions also recorded sizeable numbers with 318 new cases for the LCIA and 582 for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).

The five most preferred sets of arbitral rules are the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA and UNCITRAL Rules, according to the Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, a recurring feature of the arbitration landscape that the industry has now grown used to seeing as a periodic barometer of its progress. In the most recent survey, the most preferred arbitral seat is London, with users citing the stability of its commercial law and highly regarded judiciary. Singapore was the second most popular seat, with users noting that it is receiving a larger share of Asian disputes as many US and Western companies have relocated out of Hong Kong.

New Arbitral Rules

In 2025, the SIAC introduced new arbitration rules. One of the key changes in the SIAC Rules 2025 is to enhance its emergency arbitration procedure by permitting an emergency arbitrator to order ex parte interim relief. The SIAC is one of the first major arbitral institutions to permit an emergency arbitrator to order interim relief on an ex parte basis. Other key changes include:

• new rules on third-party funding to give tribunals wide-ranging powers to require details of third-party funding arrangements;
• a new “preliminary determination” procedure; and
• a new “streamlined procedure” for disputes of low value.

These new provisions all improve the time, cost-efficiency and attractiveness of SIAC arbitration.

In 2026, the ICC introduced new arbitration rules that are effective from 1 June 2026. Under the new ICC Rules, the Terms of Reference, a well-established feature of ICC arbitration, are no longer mandatory. Instead, tribunals retain a general discretion to conclude Terms of Reference where they consider it helpful to do so. Other key changes include:

• clarification, and expansion, of arbitrator disclosure obligations;
• a new “highly expedited” opt-in arbitration procedure;
• a revised emergency arbitration framework, which extends the scope of tribunals’ powers; and
• the introduction of early determination procedures, which enables parties to apply to the tribunal for the early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit, or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. 

The updates are aimed primarily at improving procedural efficiency, and are to be welcomed.

The Reform of the Arbitration Act (England and Wales)

In the UK, the process of reform of the Arbitration Act 1996 has reached its conclusion as the Arbitration Act 2025 entered into force in late 2025.

The most significant reform of the Arbitration Act 2025 was to introduce a new statutory rule that, in the absence of an express choice from the parties of the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law will be the law of the seat. This reform overturned the effects of Enka v Chubb, a Supreme Court decision of October 2020 that decided the vexed question of how to determine the law applicable to an arbitration agreement. In Enka v Chubb, the Supreme Court held that the default choice is the law of the contract. This is significant because, where an arbitration agreement is governed by foreign law, key provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do not apply, with the result that parties are deprived of the full protection and support of the English courts for arbitrations seated in London. 

The Arbitration Act 2025 now provides welcome clarity to the choice of law applicable to arbitration agreements by implementing a straightforward statutory rule that the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat, in the absence of an express choice of law. As a consequence, parties who choose London as an arbitral seat – in the absence of an express choice of law applicable to the arbitration agreement – now know that any dispute as to the scope or validity of the arbitration agreement will benefit from an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, offering a robust legal framework that supports and facilitates the arbitration process, and where arbitration agreements are respected and enforced.

Other key changes include the strengthening of arbitrator powers to make awards on a summary basis and to issue peremptory orders as well as a codification of the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure.

The Development of Arbitral Jurisprudence

National apex courts have recently delivered several judgments that have had a meaningful impact on the development of arbitral jurisprudence. Perhaps the most prominent of these that captivated the attention of the arbitration community were rendered by the US Supreme Court.

Jules v Andre Balazs Properties

In May 2026, the US Supreme Court held that US courts staying claims pursuant to Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) Section 3 retain jurisdiction over post-award proceedings, including whether to later confirm or vacate the tribunal’s decision. The Supreme Court observed that “nothing in the FAA eliminated that jurisdiction while the parties arbitrated”. This means that courts maintain their authority but will not actively intervene during the arbitration itself. The practical implication of the decision is to streamline enforcement by ensuring that the same court that stays an arbitration under the FAA may retain jurisdiction to enforce or vacate an award.

Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC

In June 2026, in Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in award enforcement proceedings under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against Spain. Spain argued that it had never consented to arbitrate and, therefore, the US courts lacked jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals determined that whether Spain consented went to the scope of the arbitration agreement rather than basic jurisdiction and, therefore, was a question for the tribunal. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari and left intact the DC Circuit rulings. The decision confirms the USA as a pro-enforcement jurisdiction, including with respect to awards against sovereign states.

Smith v Spizziri

The US Supreme Court held that federal courts must stay, rather than dismiss, claims that are governed by an arbitration agreement. The decision is important as, while a party can immediately appeal an order dismissing an action, there is no immediate right of appeal from an order staying the proceedings. The decision resolves a circuit split over whether FAA, 9 USC Section 3 requires a court to stay proceedings after compelling arbitration. The Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration decision reasoned that staying, instead of dismissing, lawsuits subject to an arbitration agreement is consistent with the supervisory role that the FAA envisions for the courts and allows parties to seek relief related to the arbitration without filing a new case.