INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, King & Spalding LLP
In 2026, the ICC introduced new arbitration rules that are effective from 1 June 2026. Under the new ICC Rules, the Terms of Reference, a well-established feature of ICC arbitration, are no longer mandatory. Instead, tribunals retain a general discretion to con - clude Terms of Reference where they consider it help - ful to do so. Other key changes include: • clarification, and expansion, of arbitrator disclosure obligations; • a new “highly expedited” opt-in arbitration proce - dure; • a revised emergency arbitration framework, which extends the scope of tribunals’ powers; and • the introduction of early determination procedures, which enables parties to apply to the tribunal for the early determination of claims or defences that are manifestly without merit, or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The updates are aimed primarily at improving proce - dural efficiency, and are to be welcomed. The Reform of the Arbitration Act (England and Wales) In the UK, the process of reform of the Arbitration Act 1996 has reached its conclusion as the Arbitration Act 2025 entered into force in late 2025. The most significant reform of the Arbitration Act 2025 was to introduce a new statutory rule that, in the absence of an express choice from the parties of the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law will be the law of the seat. This reform overturned the effects of Enka v Chubb , a Supreme Court decision of October 2020 that decided the vexed question of how to determine the law applica - ble to an arbitration agreement. In Enka v Chubb , the Supreme Court held that the default choice is the law of the contract. This is significant because, where an arbitration agreement is governed by foreign law, key provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do not apply, with the result that parties are deprived of the full pro - tection and support of the English courts for arbitra - tions seated in London. The Arbitration Act 2025 now provides welcome clar - ity to the choice of law applicable to arbitration agree -
ments by implementing a straightforward statutory rule that the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat, in the absence of an express choice of law. As a consequence, parties who choose Lon - don as an arbitral seat – in the absence of an express choice of law applicable to the arbitration agreement – now know that any dispute as to the scope or valid - ity of the arbitration agreement will benefit from an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, offering a robust legal framework that supports and facilitates the arbitra - tion process, and where arbitration agreements are respected and enforced. Other key changes include the strengthening of arbi - trator powers to make awards on a summary basis and to issue peremptory orders as well as a codifica - tion of the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure. The Development of Arbitral Jurisprudence National apex courts have recently delivered several judgments that have had a meaningful impact on the development of arbitral jurisprudence. Perhaps the most prominent of these that captivated the attention of the arbitration community were rendered by the US Supreme Court. Jules v Andre Balazs Properties In May 2026, the US Supreme Court held that US courts staying claims pursuant to Federal Arbitra - tion Act (FAA) Section 3 retain jurisdiction over post- award proceedings, including whether to later confirm or vacate the tribunal’s decision. The Supreme Court observed that “nothing in the FAA eliminated that jurisdiction while the parties arbitrated”. This means that courts maintain their authority but will not actively intervene during the arbitration itself. The practical implication of the decision is to streamline enforce - ment by ensuring that the same court that stays an arbitration under the FAA may retain jurisdiction to enforce or vacate an award. Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renewable Investments LLC In June 2026, in Kingdom of Spain v Blasket Renew- able Investments LLC , the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in award enforcement proceedings under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against Spain. Spain argued that it had never consented to
10 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook