The International Pacific Bar Association’s Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee (DRAC) organised the inaugural IPBA Arbitration Day in collaboration with the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) on 18th September which brought together over 160 participants, marking a historic moment for international arbitration in the country. Ms. Swee Yen Koh, Partner, Wong Partnership, welcomed the participants, and Mr. Vyapak Desai, IPBA Arbitration Day Host Committee Member, Mumbai, reflected on the journey of Arbitration Day from Tokyo to Mumbai, emphasizing India’s rising prominence in the field. Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, Former CJI spoke about the judiciary’s embrace of party autonomy, emergency arbitration, and multi-tier dispute resolution, while Ms. Lucy Reed, President, SIAC Court, New York, traced arbitration’s evolution from historical tribunals to modern disputes involving AI, cryptocurrency, climate change, and data protection. Together, they underscored the growing importance of arbitration in an interconnected world where commercial disputes are increasingly global and complex. Ms. Neeti Sachdeva, Registrar & Secretary General, MCIA, highlighted several “firsts” for India, including domestic transcription services and the integration of Arbitration Day into India ADR Week, reinforcing the event’s historic significance.
Session 1: International Arbitration in a Conflict-Ridden World
Moderated by Mr. Naresh Thacker, Vice-Chair, IPBA DRAC, Mumbai, this session explored arbitration’s role amidst sanctions, tariffs, and geopolitical crises. The panel examined how investor–state disputes differ from commercial ones and the impact of sanctions on neutrality and fairness. Ms. Sitpah Selvaratnam, Independent Arbitrator, Petaling Jaya, emphasized arbitrators’ moral responsibilities, stressing the need to preserve fairness even when dealing with sanctioned entities. Mr. Lars Markert, Co-Chair, IPBA DRAC, Tokyo, illustrated challenges with case studies from Crimea and the Arab Spring, showing how political sensitivities can threaten tribunal legitimacy. Mr. Ashutosh Ray, Associate, Jenner & Block, London, reaffirmed arbitration as a practical forum when arbitrators act conscientiously, while Ms. Mariel Dimsey, Independent Arbitrator, Hong Kong, noted that sanctions have created mistrust but arbitration remains a viable pathway to justice.
Mr. Naresh Thacker highlighted the session’s purpose, noting: “The key question is whether arbitration remains a trusted and neutral forum even in times of sanctions and political upheaval, and how investor–state disputes differ from standard commercial disputes.” Panelists concluded that Asia, particularly India, is emerging as a hub for international arbitration, provided that procedural fairness, neutrality, and arbitrator expertise are strengthened. Ms. Sitpah Selvaratnam remarked: “Our challenge as arbitrators is not to turn away from sanctioned entities, but to design processes that preserve fairness while respecting global obligations.” The session emphasized that trust, impartiality, and comprehensive procedural guidance are key to sustaining arbitration’s credibility in politically and economically volatile environments.
Session 2: Global South vs Global North – Viability of ISDS
Moderated by Ms. Neeti Sachdeva, Registrar & Secretary General, MCIA, this session examined the shifting dynamics of Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Mr. Gaganpreet Puri, Partner, Grant Thornton Bharat, Gurgaon, noted that rising nationalism and politicization of settlements are eroding ISDS credibility, particularly in the Global South where regulations often outpace treaties. Ms. Sapna Jhangiani KC, Blackstone Chambers, Singapore, argued that ISDS faces a legitimacy crisis, especially in disputes related to climate change and conflict, and stressed that incremental UNCITRAL reforms remain superficial. Mr. Patrick Taylor, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton, London, positioned ISDS as a competitiveness tool akin to tax incentives, referencing studies linking strong ISDS protections with foreign direct investment. Audience interventions highlighted India and Brazil as examples of attracting investment without ISDS, emphasizing the importance of domestic policy frameworks.
Panelists explored alternatives including multilateral investment courts, state-to-state settlements, mediation, and improved contract drafting. Ms. Sapna Jhangiani KC emphasized: “If ISDS is to survive, it must transform structurally—not merely apply surface fixes that fail to address inclusivity and legitimacy.” The discussion concluded that ISDS may survive in the near term, but structural reform and adaptation, rather than abolition, are key to maintaining its long-term relevance and credibility in both the Global South and North.
Session 3: Challenges of Enforcing Arbitral Awards
Moderated by Mr. Vyapak Desai, IPBA Arbitration Day Host Committee Member, Mumbai, this session addressed challenges in enforcing arbitral awards. Justice Nageshwar Rao, Retired Judge,.Supreme Court of India, acknowledged that while recognition of awards in India is achievable, enforcement often faces delays due to asset tracing and recovery issues. Ms. Swee Yen Koh, Partner, Wong Partnership, contrasted India’s hurdles with Singapore’s proactive tools such as Examination of Judgment Debtor proceedings and pre-award asset tracing. Mr. Colin Johnson, Managing Director, Alvarez & Marsal, London, emphasized geopolitical shifts and resource nationalism as complicating factors, while Mr. Lars Markert, Co-Chair, IPBA DRAC, Tokyo, cautioned against equating arbitration-friendliness with blind enforcement.
Justice Rao highlighted India’s Section 36 amendment, requiring debtors to deposit significant sums before challenges proceed, expediting settlements and, in some respects, surpassing Singapore’s framework. He reflected: “Recognition of awards is no longer our problem—true reform lies in ensuring that enforcement does not stretch into decades.” The session reinforced the need for strategic planning, monitoring, and judicial oversight to ensure timely and effective enforcement of arbitral awards, balancing efficiency with fairness.
Session 4: Climate Change and Arbitration
Moderated by Mr. Raj Pachmatia, IPBA Arbitration Day Host Committee Member, Mumbai, this session examined arbitration’s growing role in climate-related and ESG disputes. Speakers discussed cross-border challenges related to carbon markets, renewable energy, and climate finance, emphasizing arbitration’s role in resolving disputes at the intersection of international obligations and commercial contracts. The discussion explored whether current arbitral frameworks and arbitrators have the necessary expertise to handle such specialized disputes while balancing state sovereignty with global climate imperatives.
Panelists highlighted innovative approaches to integrating sustainability considerations into arbitration practices and the need for specialized expertise in environmental and climate law. The debate underlined the importance of evolving dispute resolution mechanisms to keep pace with complex, interdisciplinary, and transnational challenges, ensuring arbitration remains effective, credible, and adaptable in addressing climate and ESG conflicts.
Debate – Arbitration Artificial Intelligence
Moderated by Mr. Mustafa Motiwala, IPBA Arbitration Day Host Committee Member, Mumbai, the debate addressed the motion: “This house believes that in the future of arbitration AI should replace the Counsel and not the Arbitrator.” In favor, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, and Mr. Woo Jae-Hyong, International Dispute Resolution, Seoul, argued that counsel’s work is largely data-driven, making it ripe for AI enhancement, while human arbitrators remain essential for judgment and fairness. Ms. Genevieve Poirier, Partner, Lalive, London, countered that advocacy requires creativity, persuasion, and ethical judgment, which AI cannot replicate. Mr. Kelvin Poon, Partner, Rajah & Tann, Singapore, suggested that future AI arbitrators might surpass humans in neutrality and analytical power.
Ms. Genevieve Poirier observed: “Counsel are not machines—we read between the lines, persuade, and imagine solutions in ways no algorithm can.” The debate concluded with spirited audience questions about enforceability and ethics. Mr. Lars Markert, Co-Chair, IPBA DRAC, Tokyo, delivered closing remarks, thanking all speakers, sponsors, and participants for their engagement throughout the day. The final debate on AI in arbitration ended with Mr. Kelvin Poon humorously noting: “Now, this is truly deflating for me. But what I would say is this—the motion says the future of arbitration. The future?” Mr. Mustafa Motiwala responded: “Yeah. It’s the future. So subject to amendment of laws and carrying out all those required abundances.”
Mr. Lars Markert thanked all the speakers, moderators, and participants for their engagement throughout the day, highlighting the depth and breadth of discussions on international arbitration. He emphasized that the day had provided a unique platform for practitioners, academics, and arbitrators from across the globe to share insights, deliberate on emerging challenges, and explore innovative solutions in arbitration. He expressed appreciation for the patience and active participation of all attendees and noted that the collaborative spirit of the IPBA had once again been demonstrated. Concluding, he remarked that the exchanges and learnings from the day would contribute meaningfully to shaping the future of international arbitration and strengthening India’s position as a leading hub for dispute resolution globally.