Jurisdiction and applicable laws

Jurisdictional issues arising in international arbitration

This Practice Note identifies some of the jurisdictional issues that often arise in international arbitration. It indicates how those challenges may arise and what recourse a party may have. See Practice Note: Jurisdictional issues arising in international arbitration.

Applicable laws in international arbitration

This Practice Note gives guidance on the important subject of the various laws that may apply in an international arbitration. It sets out the circumstances where different laws may apply and gives guidance as to how the relevant law will be identified. See Practice Note: Applicable laws in international arbitration.

Anti-suit injunctions in arbitration (England and Wales)

This Practice Note sets out what an anti-suit injunction is in the context of arbitration, how and when it might be used to restrain the breach of an arbitration agreement. It gives details of the English court's jurisdiction to grant such an injunction under both AA 1996, s 44 and SCA 1981, s 37 and the relationship between those provisions. The note gives information about the scope of an injunction (if awarded) and the court's approach

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

Enforcement of ICSID Awards, State Immunity—(Blasket v Spain)

Arbitration analysis: In Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 1028, the Federal Court of Australia considered Spain’s plea of sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts in proceedings to enforce intra-EU International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) awards in light of Spain’s argument that the awards sought to be enforced were not binding and enforceable against Spain because intra-EU investment arbitration is not permitted under EU law. Contrary to Spain’s arguments, the court held that the awards were binding under Article 53 of the ICSID Convention and enforceable in Australia under Article 54 because Spain waived its immunity from enforcement jurisdiction by entering into the ICSID Convention. The court rejected Spain’s arguments that EU law could prevent enforcement, and also confirmed that the assignment of two awards to Blasket did not affect their enforceability. The decision affirmed the primacy of the ICSID Convention as implemented in Australian law on questions of enforcement, and rejected both the relevance and the merit of Spain’s EU law objections in this context. Written by Marina Kofman, principal at Kofman Arbitration.

AAA-ICDR launches AI arbitrator for construction dispute resolution cases

The American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) has announced the availability of its AI arbitrator for two-party, documents-only construction cases. The system operates under a human-in-the-loop framework where parties review and validate the AI's understanding of submissions, whilst human arbitrators oversee, revise if necessary, confirm and authorise each outcome before finalising awards. The AI arbitrator was trained on AAA construction awards and refined using expert-labelled examples. Participation remains voluntary and fully opt-in, with parties able to proceed under traditional AAA-ICDR processes if they opt out or fall outside the initial use case parameters. The organisation expects to expand the system to additional industries, case types and higher value claims in future phases, including multi-party proceedings and cross-border elements.

French courts re-affirmed how the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy (SNEL v Congo and FG Hemisphere)

Arbitration analysis: On 16 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court) dismissed Congolese company Société Nationale d’Électricité (SNEL)’s application to set aside an ICC award rendered against it and the Democratic Republic of Congo, confirming France’s pro-enforcement stance. The Court held that as a matter of principle, the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a non-EU foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy in circumstances where the foreign judgment has first obtained exequatur in France and the irreconcilable decisions result in mutually exclusive consequences. In the present case, because the Congolese judgment relied upon by SNEL had been denied exequatur for lack of proper notice to the opposing party, no irreconciliability could arise. The Court reaffirmed that the mere disregard of a foreign judgment’s res judicata effect by an arbitral award is not, in and of itself, contrary to international public policy. The Court further clarified that the exequatur judge exercises only limited review, verifying the existence of the arbitral award and the absence of any manifest breach of international public policy, dismissing SNEL’s other arguments based on capacity to arbitrate, arbitrability, and foreign procurement rules, which did not amount to a breach of French international public policy. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law, and Carl Szymura, associate at Le 16 Law.

IBA publishes emergency arbitration guide for young practitioners

The International Bar Association’s (IBA’s) Arb40 Subcommittee has published a guide titled Emergency Arbitration: A Practical Guide for Young Arbitration Practitioners, to provide practical and comparative guidance on the use of emergency arbitration (EA) as a means of obtaining urgent interim relief before a tribunal is constituted. The guide outlines the procedural framework governing EA, including its consensual basis, jurisdictional limits, appointment of emergency arbitrators within days, and the expedited conduct of proceedings under strict timelines. It explains that emergency arbitrators have broad procedural discretion but must balance speed with fairness, assessing factors such as urgency, irreparable harm, likelihood of success, proportionality, and necessity. The publication also analyses enforcement challenges, noting varied recognition of EA decisions across jurisdictions but high rates of voluntary compliance and settlement. In investment treaty arbitration, it highlights the limited availability of EA, complexities arising from State sovereignty, cooling-off periods, and most-favoured-nation provisions. Concluding that EA has become an integral feature of modern arbitration, the Subcommittee presents it as both a vital procedural tool and an important training ground for emerging practitioners in international dispute resolution.