BELGIUM Trends and Developments Contributed by: Nathalie Colin and Florence Frühling, Freshfields LLP
Anti-arbitration injunctions have also been issued in other contexts. This is mainly the case in common law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in certain civil law countries (eg, Brazil, Ethiopia and Indonesia). Courts have relied on various grounds to justify these injunc - tions, including: • the absence of a valid or enforceable arbitration agreement; • the existence of conflicting jurisdiction clauses; or • concerns that the arbitration would result in dupli - cative or abusive proceedings. That said, such injunctions are generally considered exceptional, particularly when the arbitration is seated abroad, and are typically granted in compelling cir - cumstances. Anti-arbitration injunctions in Belgium Belgian law does not contain any explicit provisions authorising such measures. Moreover, there is no precedent in published case law where Belgian courts have ruled on requests for anti-arbitration injunctions. The major issue associated with this relief is that it deprives the arbitral tribunal of the possibility to decide whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the dis - pute brought before it. This runs counter to the fun - damental principle of international arbitration – also recognised in Belgium – that arbitral tribunals are competent to rule on their own jurisdiction ( Kompe- tenz-Kompetenz ). Moreover, both the Belgian legisla - ture and legal doctrine have consistently emphasised the importance of safeguarding the efficiency and autonomy of arbitration. In line with these principles, Belgian courts generally refrain from interfering with ongoing arbitration proceedings. This hurdle is even greater in the context of non- domestic arbitrations where international treaties apply. For instance, the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nation - als of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the ICSID tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, thereby precluding domestic courts (including Belgian courts) from intervening in that determination. Anti-arbitration injunctions are also dif - ficult to reconcile with the Convention on the Recogni -
tion and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) as they risk undermining its multilateral framework by allowing one domestic court to unilaterally prevent other contracting states from fulfilling their obligations to recognise and enforce arbitration agreements and awards. Although Belgian law does not explicitly provide for anti-arbitration injunctions – and these are generally not permitted – certain procedural avenues may be used to seek comparable interim relief in exception - al circumstances. Under Articles 1683 and 1698 of the Belgian Judicial Code (BJC), Belgian courts may grant interim or conservatory measures in summary proceedings before or during arbitration, provided that urgency is demonstrated. While these provisions apply regardless of the seat of arbitration, Belgian courts should remain cautious of any international obligation that may restrict their ability to interfere with the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals. Use of AI Tools in International Arbitration The emergence of AI is reshaping the legal profes - sion, and international arbitration is no exception. AI is playing an increasingly prominent role throughout the arbitration process. From document review and legal research to arbitrator selection and award drafting, AI tools are being integrated at every stage. Globally, this transformation is driving expectations of greater efficiency, lower costs, enhanced transparency and more consistent procedures. Within this broader shift, Belgium stands out as a juris - diction that is both technologically open and institu - tionally cautious. Belgian arbitration practitioners are adopting AI tools pragmatically, seeking to balance innovation with fundamental principles such as confi - dentiality, fairness and procedural integrity. Global integration of AI in international arbitration Across jurisdictions, AI is being deployed to address the increasing complexity, cost and volume of cross- border arbitration. These technologies are being inte - grated at various stages of the arbitration process and generally fall into four primary categories. • “Analytical AI” uses machine learning to identify patterns in past arbitrations, predict legal out -
62 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook