Ethics and regulation

Ethics in international arbitration

This Practice Note considers the various ethical standards that may apply in an arbitration and the impact of those differing standards on various stages of the arbitration such as witness preparation, disclosure and communications between the parties and the arbitrators. The note also covers the arbitrator’s role in ethical decisions and the impact of the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration. See Practice Note: Ethical standards in international arbitration—an introduction.

Core procedural standards in arbitration

This Practice Note covers core procedural standards that govern international arbitration. It includes a discussion of the law of the seat, applicable institutional rules and other relevant standards such as professional obligations. See Practice Note: Core procedural standards in arbitration.

Conflicts of interest in arbitration—applicable principles

This Practice Note discusses general principles and guidance applicable to arbitrators and parties when assessing and dealing with conflicts of interest in arbitration. It considers: what the general principle of fairness and impartiality is, how an arbitrator’s independence is assessed, the guidance available for assessing and dealing with potential conflicts of interest. This Practice

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Brazilian Court sets scope of arbitrator disclosure duty (U. R. V. Ltda v C. de P. de C.)

Arbitration analysis: The São Paulo State Appellate Court vacated an arbitral award on the grounds of lack of sufficient disclosure by one of the arbitrators. The decision presents multiple topics, but the discussion on the effects of lack of disclosure will probably produce more immediate impact on Brazilian practice. It held that an arbitrator's failure to disclose ongoing and significant professional relationships with counsel of one party undermined confidence in impartiality, warranting nullification of the award. This decision underscores the delicate balance between ensuring transparency and avoiding disclosure overload. The case prompts consideration on whether Brazil's arbitration regime requires additional legislative intervention or refined institutional practices to guide arbitrators and parties. Written by Martim Della Valle (partner at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados) and Felipe Sartório de Melo (arbitration counsel at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados).

CRCICA announces leadership transition: Director's tenure extended and successor elected

The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) has announced a significant leadership transition. In a Board of Trustees meeting on 11 December 2024, Dr. Ismail Selim's tenure as Director was extended by one year, concluding on 31 December 2025. Concurrently, Dr. Dalia Hussein was elected as his successor, set to assume the role on 1 January 2026 for a four-year term. Dr. Hussein, with over two decades of experience in international arbitration and dispute resolution, including ten years at CRCICA, has been recognised for her impartiality, strategic vision, and commitment to excellence.

ILC publishes report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards

The International Law Compliance (ILC) has published the report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards 2024 3rd edition. The report includes the latest data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which reveals a significant increase in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases, with 1,332 known treaty-based arbitrations to date. Of the 958 concluded cases, 37.7% were decided in favour of respondent states. The report highlights Spain's position as the world leader in unpaid arbitration awards, with 24 outstanding, surpassing Venezuela and Russia. Spain also tops the list of Energy Charter Treaty disputes with 52 initiated cases.

English court declares Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear dispute (Barclays Bank plc v VEB)

Arbitration analysis: In the first of two separate judgments, the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) found that it was able to determine whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an arbitration agreement, under section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). In the second judgment, the court granted a declaration sought by Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) that an arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by VEB.RF (VEB) under a currency swap agreement. This declaration was made in circumstances where Barclays had validly served a notice on VEB pursuant to the terms of an arbitration agreement, requiring VEB's claim to be heard by the English courts. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP.