Although litigation in state courts remains the primary means of resolving commercial disputes in Kazakhstan, international arbitration has become a well-established mechanism for resolving cross-border commercial disputes and high-value investment projects. In practice, arbitration is most commonly used in transactions with a foreign element, where parties seek a neutral forum, procedural flexibility, confidentiality, and the enhanced enforceability of awards under the 1958 New York Convention.

Kazakhstan parties continue to refer significant international disputes to leading foreign arbitral institutions, including the ICC, the LCIA, SIAC, the SCC and increasingly CIETAC, the last of these particularly where transactions involve Chinese counterparties. At the same time, the International Arbitration Centre (IAC) of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) has established itself as an important regional forum for resolving international commercial disputes.

The IAC occupies a distinct position within Kazakhstan’s arbitration landscape. Unlike arbitral institutions operating under the national Law on Arbitration, arbitrations seated within the AIFC are governed by the AIFC Arbitration Regulations. They are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the AIFC Court. The combination of a legal framework based on the principles of English common law, an independent judiciary and access to internationally recognised arbitrators has significantly enhanced the attractiveness of the IAC for both regional and international disputes.

For disputes involving exclusively domestic parties, litigation before the state courts generally remains the default dispute resolution mechanism, reflecting established commercial practice and procedural familiarity, and a lack of awareness among potential parties to the dispute. Nevertheless, arbitration clauses are increasingly incorporated into contracts in construction, infrastructure, mining, energy, finance, international trade, and other sectors involving foreign investment or cross-border commercial activity.

As Kazakhstan continues to develop the AIFC as a regional financial and dispute-resolution hub, and as cross-border commerce in Central Asia expands, the role of international arbitration is expected to grow further. Although arbitration has not replaced litigation as the dominant mechanism for resolving commercial disputes, it is now firmly established as an integral component of Kazakhstan’s legal framework for resolving complex international commercial disputes.

International arbitration in Kazakhstan remains most prevalent in sectors involving substantial foreign investment and high-value projects, particularly mining, oil and gas, energy, construction and infrastructure. These sectors typically involve complex contractual arrangements, long-term investments and multinational counterparties, making arbitration a preferred dispute resolution mechanism.

A notable recent trend is the continued growth of Chinese investment and commercial activity in Kazakhstan. As a result, CIETAC is becoming increasingly relevant for transactions involving Chinese parties, while arbitration clauses referring disputes to other international arbitral institutions are becoming more common in projects involving Chinese investors and contractors.

In Kazakhstan, arbitration institutions can be broadly divided into two types: local arbitration tribunals, which are governed by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Arbitration”, and the International Arbitration Centre (IAC) of the International Financial Centre of Almaty (AIFC) – which has a completely different structure, closely mirroring the spirit of international arbitration.

Among the local arbitration institutions, it is worth noting bodies such as the Kazakhstan International Arbitrage, the International Arbitration Court, the Atameken Arbitration Centre and many others, which have a long-standing reputation for the quality of their decisions and primarily deal with domestic commercial and corporate disputes.

Special mention must be made of the IAC, which continues to strengthen its position as the leading international arbitral institution operating in Kazakhstan. Its modern procedural framework, international panel of arbitrators and the supervisory jurisdiction of the AIFC Court have contributed to its growing use in cross-border commercial disputes.

Despite the significant role played by local arbitration institutions in the domestic arbitration market, large international disputes are still more commonly referred to either the IAC or well-established foreign arbitral institutions.

For high-value cross-border disputes, parties from Kazakhstan continue to select institutions such as the ICC, the LCIA, SIAC and the SCC. CIETAC has also become increasingly relevant as Chinese investment and commercial activity in Kazakhstan continue to expand.

Kazakhstan does not have specialised state courts responsible exclusively for arbitration-related matters. The ordinary civil courts deal with issues concerning arbitration within their jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code and the Law on Arbitration.

The courts perform a supportive and supervisory role in arbitration. Their powers include granting interim measures, assisting with the taking of evidence where permitted by law, recognising and enforcing arbitral awards, and considering applications to set aside domestic arbitral awards on the limited grounds prescribed by law. The courts are not entitled to review the merits of an arbitral award.

A different regime applies to arbitrations seated in the AIFC. Under the AIFC legal framework, the AIFC Court exercises the supervisory jurisdiction conferred by the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, including matters relating to the appointment and challenge of arbitrators, jurisdictional rulings, applications to set aside awards, and the recognition and enforcement of IAC awards.

Two separate legislative regimes govern international arbitration in Kazakhstan.

Arbitrations seated outside the AIFC are governed by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Arbitration” dated 8 April 2016. The Law is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Still, it contains several jurisdiction-specific provisions, particularly regarding arbitrability, the qualification requirements for arbitrators, and certain categories of disputes involving public-sector entities.

Arbitrations seated in the AIFC are governed by the AIFC Arbitration Regulations 2017, adopted pursuant to the Constitutional Law on the Astana International Financial Centre. The AIFC Arbitration Regulations are based on internationally recognised arbitration principles and apply independently of the national Law on Arbitration.

As a result, parties choosing the AIFC as the seat of arbitration are subject to a distinct legislative framework, with supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the AIFC Court.

There have been no significant legislative changes affecting arbitration in Kazakhstan during the past 12 months. The principal legislative framework, including the Law on Arbitration and the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, has remained unchanged.

Recent developments have instead been driven by the continued development of arbitration practice, particularly within the AIFC framework, and by the increasing use of arbitration in cross-border commercial transactions.

It should be noted, however, that with the entry into force of the new Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, adopted by a national referendum on 15 March 2026, Kazakhstan has abandoned the principle of primacy of international treaties, placing the country’s Constitution and its laws at the top of the hierarchy.

The new Constitution also specifically authorises the Constitutional Court to decide on the issue of whether the decisions of international organisations and their bodies comply with the Constitution; it also empowers the Prosecutor General to raise these issues before the Constitutional Court. It is not yet entirely clear what consequences this will have for arbitration at present. Some concerns were expressed that these provisions could be used to challenge decisions made by international arbitration bodies that are unfavourable to the state.

At the time of writing this chapter, there are no other draft laws that could significantly alter the current arbitration framework.

An arbitration agreement is enforceable under Kazakhstan law provided that it is concluded in writing and relates to a dispute that is capable of settlement by arbitration.

The writing requirement may be satisfied by a document signed by the parties, by an exchange of correspondence or electronic communications, or by an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the arbitration agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

The arbitration agreement must also comply with the mandatory provisions of the Law on Arbitration, including the statutory restrictions on the arbitrability of certain categories of disputes. Arbitration agreements seated in the AIFC are governed by the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, which largely follow the approach of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

As a general rule, disputes arising out of civil law relationships are capable of settlement by arbitration under Kazakhstan law unless expressly excluded by legislation.

The Law on Arbitration excludes certain categories of disputes from arbitration. These include disputes arising from personal non-property relationships, bankruptcy and rehabilitation proceedings, and certain disputes involving public authorities, state-owned entities, natural monopolies and consumers, where arbitration is restricted by law. In addition, Kazakhstan law imposes specific requirements for the inclusion of arbitration clauses in contracts involving certain public-sector entities.

A different approach applies to arbitrations seated in the AIFC. The AIFC Arbitration Regulations do not contain the statutory restrictions on arbitrability found in the Law on Arbitration and instead largely follow internationally recognised arbitration principles.

Where an arbitration agreement is governed by Kazakhstan law, national courts assess its validity and enforceability in accordance with the Law on Arbitration and the applicable provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

As a general rule, Kazakhstan courts recognise and enforce valid arbitration agreements. Where court proceedings are commenced in respect of a dispute covered by a valid arbitration agreement, the court will generally decline to consider the dispute on the merits, provided that the respondent raises a timely objection. The court may nevertheless proceed with the case where the arbitration agreement is found to be invalid, incapable of being performed or otherwise unenforceable.

The same general principles apply to foreign arbitration agreements, subject to the applicable international treaties and the relevant provisions of Kazakhstan law.

Kazakhstan law recognises the doctrine of separability of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, an arbitration clause is treated as an agreement independent from the underlying contract in which it is contained.

As a result, the invalidity, termination or non-performance of the underlying contract does not, by itself, render the arbitration agreement invalid or unenforceable. The arbitration agreement remains effective unless grounds specifically affecting its validity exist.

The same principle is reflected in the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

The parties are generally free to determine the number of arbitrators and the procedure for their appointment, subject to the mandatory provisions of the applicable arbitration law and institutional rules.

Under the Law on Arbitration, arbitrators must meet certain statutory qualifications. In particular, an arbitrator must be at least 30 years old, have a university degree and have at least five years’ professional experience. The chairperson of the tribunal or a sole arbitrator must also hold a law degree. Certain categories of persons, including judges, civil servants and individuals with an unspent criminal conviction, are not eligible to act as arbitrators.

By contrast, the AIFC Arbitration Regulations do not prescribe statutory qualification requirements for arbitrators, leaving the parties broad autonomy in selecting arbitrators of their choice.

Where the parties’ agreed procedure for appointing arbitrators fails, the default appointment mechanism depends on the applicable arbitration regime.

Under the Law on Arbitration, the arbitrator is appointed by the head of the relevant permanent arbitral institution or, in ad hoc proceedings, by the Arbitration Chamber of Kazakhstan. The Law on Arbitration does not contain specific default rules for the appointment of arbitrators in multiparty arbitrations.

Under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, where the parties have not agreed on an appointment procedure or where that procedure fails, the AIFC Court may make the necessary appointments. Where the IAC administers the arbitration, the appointment procedure is governed by the applicable IAC Arbitration Rules.

Court intervention in the appointment of arbitrators is limited under Kazakhstan law.

For arbitrations governed by the Law on Arbitration, the courts generally do not participate in the appointment of arbitrators. Where the parties’ agreed appointment procedure fails, the appointment is made by the competent appointing authority provided for by the Law on Arbitration rather than by the state courts.

A different approach applies under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations. Where the conditions prescribed by the Regulations are met, the AIFC Court may exercise functions relating to the appointment of arbitrators. The AIFC Court also performs other supervisory functions expressly conferred by the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, including matters relating to challenges to arbitrators.

The Law on Arbitration provides a procedure for challenging an arbitrator when circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality, or when the arbitrator does not satisfy the statutory qualification requirements. The applicable institutional rules may provide additional grounds for challenge.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a challenge is initially determined in accordance with the procedure outlined in the applicable arbitration rules. Where the challenge is unsuccessful, the arbitration may proceed, subject to any subsequent judicial review available under the applicable law.

Under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations and the IAC Arbitration Rules, parties may challenge an arbitrator in accordance with the applicable rules. Decisions on challenges may, in the circumstances prescribed by the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, be reviewed by the AIFC Court.

The fundamental requirements applicable to arbitrators under Kazakhstan law are independence, impartiality and the disclosure of any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to either.

The Law on Arbitration requires a prospective arbitrator to disclose, without delay, any circumstances that may affect his or her independence or impartiality. Such circumstances may constitute grounds for challenge if they give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s ability to act independently and impartially.

The AIFC Arbitration Regulations and the IAC Arbitration Rules adopt the same general principles. Prospective arbitrators are required to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts regarding their independence or impartiality throughout the arbitration proceedings.

Kazakhstan law recognises the principle of competence-competence. An arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections concerning the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement.

As a general rule, jurisdictional objections are determined by the arbitral tribunal in the first instance. The courts do not ordinarily intervene before the tribunal has ruled on its jurisdiction, except where such intervention is expressly provided for by law.

The same principle applies under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

Kazakhstan courts may intervene in questions relating to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction only in the circumstances expressly provided for by law.

As a general rule, jurisdictional objections are determined by the arbitral tribunal in the first instance. Court intervention is generally limited to subsequent judicial review in proceedings concerning the setting aside, recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award, where jurisdiction forms one of the statutory grounds for review.

Under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, the AIFC Court may also determine applications relating to jurisdiction where such powers are expressly conferred by the Regulations, including reviewing certain jurisdictional rulings of the arbitral tribunal.

Under the Law on Arbitration, jurisdictional objections are ordinarily determined by the arbitral tribunal before a court may review them.

A party may seek judicial review of jurisdiction only in the circumstances provided for by law, generally after the arbitral tribunal has ruled on its jurisdiction or following the issuance of the award, depending on the applicable procedural mechanism. Kazakhstan law does not permit parties to bypass the arbitral tribunal and apply directly to the state courts solely to obtain a prior determination of jurisdiction.

A different procedure applies under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, under which the AIFC Court may review certain jurisdictional rulings of the arbitral tribunal where expressly authorised by the Regulations.

Where Kazakhstan courts are called upon to determine questions of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, they undertake an independent assessment of the jurisdictional issues falling within the scope of judicial review provided by law. The tribunal’s conclusions on jurisdiction do not bind the courts.

By contrast, questions relating solely to the admissibility of claims, including compliance with procedural preconditions to arbitration, are generally regarded as matters falling within the procedural authority of the arbitral tribunal, unless the applicable law expressly provides otherwise.

The same general distinction is reflected in proceedings before the AIFC Court under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

Kazakhstan courts do not favour initiating court proceedings in breach of a valid arbitration agreement. If a party submits a claim to a court despite the existence of such an agreement, the opposing party must raise an objection. When the arbitration agreement applies to the dispute, the court will terminate the proceedings. However, if the other party fails to raise an objection, it is deemed to have consented to the court’s jurisdiction.

In practice, courts are typically hesitant to consider disputes covered by an arbitration agreement. This is in keeping with a broader policy of endorsing arbitration and other types of alternative dispute resolution.

Generally, arbitral tribunals in Kazakhstan may not assume jurisdiction over individuals or entities that have not explicitly consented to arbitration, ie, those that are not parties to the arbitration agreement.

In exceptional cases, a tribunal may extend the proceedings to third parties if they do not object to participating or have explicitly consented, for example by signing a written agreement to that effect.

If a tribunal determines that the participation of a third party is permissible, there are no restrictions based on the nationality or jurisdiction of that party. The key requirement is either express consent or a legal connection to the arbitration agreement.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitral tribunal may grant interim measures that it considers appropriate in relation to the subject matter of the dispute.

The Law on Arbitration does not provide an exhaustive list of interim measures. Depending on the circumstances of the case, interim relief may include orders preserving assets, maintaining the status quo, preserving evidence or preventing conduct that may prejudice the arbitral proceedings or the enforcement of a future award.

The AIFC Arbitration Regulations adopt a similar approach and confer broad powers on arbitral tribunals to order interim measures, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Kazakhstan courts may grant interim measures in support of arbitration before or during arbitral proceedings. An application for interim relief to a state court does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement and is not regarded as incompatible with the agreement to arbitrate.

The powers of the courts to grant interim measures exist alongside those of the arbitral tribunal. Accordingly, a party may seek interim relief from a competent court irrespective of whether the arbitral tribunal has already been constituted, where the applicable legal requirements are satisfied.

The same general approach applies to arbitrations seated in the AIFC. Interim measures ordered by the arbitral tribunal are enforced by the Court of First Instance of the AIFC, as expressly provided for in both the Rules of the AIFC Arbitration Centre and the AIFC Arbitration Regulations. Furthermore, because the general legislation does not prohibit the parties whose dispute is being heard by the IAC of the AIFC from applying to the local courts of general jurisdiction for interim measures to secure their claim, some parties take advantage of this opportunity to seek such measures from those courts.

The Law on Arbitration does not contain provisions expressly empowering arbitral tribunals to order security for costs.

Likewise, the AIFC Arbitration Regulations do not specifically regulate security for costs. However, depending on the circumstances of the case, an arbitral tribunal may consider whether such relief may be granted within its general powers to order interim measures.

There is no established court or arbitral practice in Kazakhstan addressing security for costs.

Arbitration proceedings seated in Kazakhstan are governed by the procedural rules agreed by the parties. Where a permanent arbitral institution administers the arbitration, the applicable institutional rules govern the procedure, subject to any mandatory provisions of the applicable arbitration law.

Ad hoc arbitrations are conducted in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties. Failing such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may determine the procedure, subject to the requirements of the Law on Arbitration.

The AIFC Arbitration Regulations govern arbitrations seated in the AIFC and, where administered by the IAC, the IAC Arbitration Rules apply.

The Law on Arbitration does not prescribe a mandatory procedural framework for the conduct of arbitral proceedings. Subject to the mandatory provisions of the applicable arbitration law, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal.

In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may conduct the proceedings in such manner as it considers appropriate, while ensuring that the parties are treated equally and are given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The same general principles apply under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations and the IAC Arbitration Rules.

Arbitral tribunals have broad procedural powers to conduct arbitral proceedings, subject to the parties’ agreement and the mandatory provisions of the applicable arbitration law.

In exercising these powers, arbitrators must act independently and impartially, treat the parties equally, and ensure that each party is given a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The tribunal is also responsible for conducting the proceedings efficiently and for determining the relevance, admissibility and weight of the evidence, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

The same general principles apply under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations and the IAC Arbitration Rules.

The Law on Arbitration does not impose restrictions on the parties’ choice of legal representatives in arbitral proceedings.

Parties may be represented by lawyers or other authorised representatives of their choosing, including foreign legal counsel, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or required by the applicable institutional rules. No statutory rules equivalent to those governing rights of audience before the state courts apply in arbitration.

The same approach applies under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations and the IAC Arbitration Rules.

The parties are generally free to agree on the rules governing the collection and submission of evidence in arbitral proceedings. In the absence of such an agreement, the arbitral tribunal has broad discretion to determine the procedure for the taking of evidence.

Neither the Law on Arbitration nor the AIFC Arbitration Regulations prescribe detailed rules of evidence. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may determine the relevance, admissibility, materiality and weight of the evidence and may decide the manner in which evidence is to be presented.

In practice, arbitral tribunals in international cases may also refer to internationally recognised soft-law instruments, such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, where the parties have agreed to their application or the tribunal considers them to provide useful procedural guidance.

Kazakhstan law does not prescribe a separate code of evidentiary rules applicable to arbitration.

The parties are free to agree on the rules governing the taking of evidence. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal has broad discretion to determine the procedure for the production, examination and assessment of evidence, subject to the principles of equality of the parties and procedural fairness.

In international arbitrations, tribunals and parties may also, where appropriate, rely on internationally recognised soft-law instruments, including the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, if the tribunal considers them a useful procedural guide and the parties agree.

Arbitral tribunals do not possess coercive powers comparable to those of state courts.

Where a party or a third person fails voluntarily to produce evidence or otherwise comply with the tribunal’s procedural directions, the tribunal may draw appropriate procedural inferences. Still, it cannot compel compliance through enforcement measures.

Under the Law on Arbitration, an arbitral tribunal or a party with the tribunal’s consent may request the competent state court to assist in obtaining evidence where such assistance is required. Similar powers are available under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations through the AIFC Court.

Confidentiality is a fundamental feature of arbitration under Kazakhstan law.

The Law on Arbitration imposes confidentiality obligations on arbitrators, the permanent arbitral institution, and other persons involved in arbitral proceedings, who may not disclose information obtained in connection with the arbitration without the parties’ consent, except as required by law.

The AIFC Arbitration Regulations and the IAC Arbitration Rules likewise contain provisions protecting the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings, subject to limited exceptions recognised by the applicable rules or required by law.

An arbitral award must be made in writing and signed in accordance with the applicable arbitration law. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the award must state the reasons upon which it is based, indicate the date of the award and specify the seat of arbitration.

The award becomes binding on the parties upon its issuance, unless otherwise provided by the applicable arbitration rules or the parties’ agreement.

The same general requirements apply under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

Subject to the parties’ agreement and applicable substantive law, arbitral tribunals may grant the remedies sought by the parties, provided that such remedies are not prohibited by law and fall within the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Available remedies generally include monetary damages, specific performance where permitted by the applicable law, declaratory relief, contractual remedies and interest. An arbitral tribunal may also allocate arbitration costs and legal fees in accordance with the applicable law and the parties’ agreement.

The same general principles apply under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or restricted by the applicable substantive law, an arbitral tribunal may award interest where it forms part of the claimant’s substantive claim.

An arbitral tribunal may also allocate the costs of the arbitration, including arbitrators’ fees, institutional costs and other arbitration-related expenses, in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules and the circumstances of the case.

Legal costs may likewise be awarded where permitted by the applicable law or arbitration rules. The tribunal generally has discretion to determine whether such costs are recoverable and, if so, in what amount.

Arbitral awards rendered in Kazakhstan are not subject to appeal on the merits.

A domestic arbitral award may be set aside only on the limited grounds prescribed by the Law on Arbitration. These grounds broadly reflect those set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law and include, among others, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or inability of a party to present its case, excess of jurisdiction, irregularities in the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure, non-arbitrability of the dispute, and conflict with the public policy of Kazakhstan.

Awards rendered in arbitrations seated in the AIFC may likewise be challenged only on the limited grounds set out in the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

The grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are mandatory and cannot be expanded or excluded by the parties’ agreement.

Accordingly, the parties cannot confer on the courts a broader power to review the merits of an arbitral award, nor can they waive the statutory grounds for setting aside an award where such grounds are provided by law.

The same approach applies under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

Judicial review of arbitral awards in Kazakhstan is limited to the statutory grounds for setting aside or refusing recognition and enforcement of an award. The courts do not review the merits of the dispute or reassess the factual or legal conclusions reached by the arbitral tribunal.

In considering an application to set aside an award, the court determines whether any of the statutory grounds for judicial intervention have been established. The review is therefore confined to matters expressly provided for by law and does not constitute an appeal on the merits.

The same principles apply under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

Kazakhstan acceded to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1995.

The Convention forms part of Kazakhstan law and is directly applied by the courts when considering applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Kazakhstan has made the reciprocity reservation and applies the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state. It has also declared that the Convention applies only to disputes arising from legal relationships considered commercial under Kazakhstan law.

Applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are submitted to the competent Kazakhstan court in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, the Law on Arbitration and the New York Convention, where applicable.

The applicant must generally produce the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, together with certified translations where the relevant documents are not in Kazakh or Russian. The court considers the application within the statutory framework and may refuse recognition or enforcement only on the limited grounds prescribed by the applicable legislation and international treaties.

A similar procedure applies to awards rendered under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, subject to the AIFC Court’s jurisdiction, where applicable.

Kazakhstan courts generally consider applications for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards within the framework established by the New York Convention, the Law on Arbitration and the Civil Procedure Code.

Judicial review is limited to the statutory grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement. The courts do not reconsider the merits of the dispute and are not entitled to review the arbitral tribunal’s factual or legal findings.

The same approach applies to proceedings before the AIFC Court regarding awards within its jurisdiction under the AIFC legal framework.

Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused only on the limited grounds prescribed by the applicable legislation and international treaties.

In relation to foreign arbitral awards, Kazakhstan courts apply the grounds for refusal contained in the New York Convention. These include, among other things, the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or inability of a party to present its case, excess of jurisdiction, irregularities in the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure, the award not being binding or having been set aside at the seat of arbitration, non-arbitrability of the dispute, and conflict with the public policy of Kazakhstan.

The same general approach is reflected in the Law on Arbitration for domestic awards and in the AIFC Arbitration Regulations.

Kazakhstan law does not contain specific provisions governing class actions or group arbitration.

Whether multiple parties may participate in the same arbitration depends primarily on the parties’ agreement, the applicable arbitration rules and the existence of compatible arbitration agreements. Neither the Law on Arbitration nor the AIFC Arbitration Regulations establish a comprehensive procedural framework for class or representative arbitration comparable to that found in some other jurisdictions.

Accordingly, class arbitration is not a recognised feature of arbitration practice in Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan does not have a single statutory code of ethics specifically applicable to international arbitration.

Arbitrators are required to comply with the duties of independence, impartiality and disclosure imposed by the Law on Arbitration or, where applicable, the AIFC Arbitration Regulations and the IAC Arbitration Rules. These instruments contain the principal ethical obligations applicable to arbitrators.

In international arbitrations, tribunals and parties may also refer to internationally recognised soft-law instruments, including the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, where appropriate.

Neither the Law on Arbitration nor the AIFC Arbitration Regulations specifically regulate third-party funding of arbitration.

Kazakhstan law neither expressly permits nor prohibits third-party funding arrangements. Accordingly, issues relating to the validity, disclosure and consequences of funding agreements are generally governed by the applicable law and the circumstances of the particular case.

To date, there is no established judicial or arbitral practice in Kazakhstan addressing third-party funding in international arbitration.

Neither the Law on Arbitration nor the AIFC Arbitration Regulations contain a comprehensive statutory framework governing the consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

The possibility of consolidating arbitrations therefore depends primarily on the parties’ agreement and the applicable institutional rules. Where an arbitral institution administers arbitration, consolidation may be available if expressly permitted by the relevant arbitration rules and the conditions for consolidation are satisfied.

Accordingly, consolidation is principally a matter of party autonomy and institutional procedure rather than national arbitration legislation.

As a general rule, arbitration is based on the parties’ consent. Accordingly, an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction only over the parties to the arbitration agreement. It cannot determine the rights or obligations of third parties that have not consented to arbitration.

Neither the Law on Arbitration nor the AIFC Arbitration Regulations contain comprehensive provisions governing the joinder of third parties. Any participation by additional parties, therefore, depends primarily on the parties’ consent and the applicable institutional rules.