Boutique by Design - International by Instinct

/
/
/
GAR Live Istanbul – Geopolitical Impact on International Arbitration

GAR Live Istanbul – Geopolitical Impact on International Arbitration

Share

On 25 June 2026, Hamish Lal chaired a Panel at GAR Live Istanbul analysing how geopolitics impacts international arbitration. An initial poll found that over 75% of Delegates considered that arbitral institutions could have done more to assist ‘sanctioned entities’ to participate in arbitrations. The Panel then looked at the impact of the “Lugovoy Law”; how arbitral institutions developed measures to resist Russian court interference, such as in OMV v. Gazprom (ICC, November 2024) where the Tribunal proceeded despite Russian injunctions, awarding OMV €230 million; and enforcement, such as in the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in March 2026 where the Court refused enforcement of an LCIA award where the claimant was 41% owned by a sanctioned entity.

Related Insights

/

The US Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the legal regime governing non-signatories to arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. In particular, the Court is now asked to resolve whether state law principles of equitable estoppel apply to a claim to extend an arbitration agreement, or whether “federal common law” derived from a […]

/

Arbitral awards are rarely set aside. In DWL v DWM,[1] the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to set-aside an arbitral award for excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. Eminent judges have been clear “there is a difference between, on the one hand, a party having no opportunity to address a point or […]

/

In JKD and anor v IKC,[1] the English High Court dismissed a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an arbitral Order refusing to restrain a call on a bond. This is another important case because it reinforces the thinking that section 68 challenges apply only to Awards (not arbitral Orders) and […]

/

In DSS v DST,[1] the Singapore High Court found that an award, where 108 out of the 211 paragraphs were wholesale or substantial reproductions of excerpts from a related award, was not rendered in breach of natural justice. The Claimant said that the reproductions were not limited to reciting of uncontroversial procedural matters but “extend […]

/

In TTSJV W.L.L and others v BapCo Refining B.S.C (TTSJV),[1] the English High Court dismissed an application for an injunction against a bond call. Applications to restrain bond calls are difficult, given the high threshold. London has reaffirmed the position that a call on an ‘on-demand’ bond can only be restrained in cases of fraud […]

/

Third-Party Funding (TPF) comes up in international arbitration. Agreements typically require a successful party to reimburse the sums provided by the funder and pay an uplift. There is debate as to whether this uplift (TPF Costs) can be recovered in international arbitration from the unsuccessful party. Tribunals have discretion in costs allocation. The types of […]

© Copyright 2026 – Hamish Lal Partners