INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale
The establishment of international courts in the Middle East and Asia certainly reflects the eastward shift in economic growth and opportunity. However, all these courts are ultimately modelled on the Commercial Court of England and Wales, which remains a highly attractive jurisdiction for international dispute resolu- tion. The outbreak of war in the Middle East has created uncertainty and disruption for businesses in the Mid- dle East and triggered an increase in cases invoking, in particular, force majeure and frustration of contracts in the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts. The long-term impact of war in the Middle East on the popularity of the Middle East as a centre for dispute resolution remains to be seen. The USA In the USA, the Trump administration has implement- ed a series of unilateralist and protectionist trade poli- cies emphasising an “America First” agenda. These policies were dramatically announced on a so-called Liberation Day. As of November 2025, Census Bureau trade data shows that just under 50% of all goods that enter the USA are now subject to tariffs. The legality of many of Trump’s new tariffs is being challenged in the US Supreme Court, creating further uncertainty as to future trade conditions. More broadly, the USA has become increasingly hos- tile towards international trade treaties that commit the USA to resolving disputes by arbitration or other means of international dispute resolution. The USA has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has ruled out joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partner- ship (CPTPP). It has also renegotiated trade agree- ments with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA) and South Korea (KORUS). State courts in jurisdictions such as New York and California nevertheless remain attractive choices when international litigants enter into jurisdiction agreements. Where no jurisdiction agreement exists, the US Supreme Court has scaled back US courts’ power to assume jurisdiction over foreign companies in disputes that have arisen outside the USA ( Good-
year Dunlop Tires Operations SA v Brown , Daimler AG v Bauman, BNSF Railway Co v Tyrrell and Bristol- Myers Squibb v Superior Court of California ). This change is welcomed by foreign litigants who are anx- ious about the US courts exercising jurisdiction over disputes that have no connection to the USA. In 2025, the US Supreme Court continued its long tradition of supporting international arbitration. In CC/ Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v Antrix Corp. Ltd , the US Supreme Court issued a significant decision with respect to the federal court’s jurisdiction over the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards against a sovereign under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court held that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction exists over a sovereign entity when “an immunity exception applies and service is proper”. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the FSIA does not require a showing of “minimum contacts” with the jurisdiction in which enforcement is being sought to establish personal jurisdiction. The decision reflects the US courts’ long- standing pro-arbitration stance and a reluctance to impose restrictions on enforcement actions. In Yegiazaryan v Smagin , the Supreme Court ruled that RICO (the US racketeering law) is available as a mech- anism to enforce foreign arbitral awards in the USA. This adds a potentially powerful tool for the enforce- ment of arbitral awards in the United States: it gives judgment creditors another avenue to enforce against third parties involved in racketeering, and leaves open the possibility of obtaining treble damages and recov- ering legal costs. International arbitration Despite attempts by newly formed courts to attract international business, arbitration remains the pre- ferred form of dispute resolution for businesses operating across borders. In the recent Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey, 90% of respondents chose international arbitration – on its own or with other forms of ADR – as their preferred means of dispute resolution in international contracts. The cornerstone of international arbitration’s success is the New York Convention, ratified by 172 states,
7 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook