Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
International Arbitration 2026
Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editor Gary Born King & Spalding LLP
Global Practice Guides
International Arbitration Contributing Editor Gary Born King & Spalding LLP
2026
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2026 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, King & Spalding LLP p.7 ALBANIA Law and Practice p.12 Contributed by Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law Trends and Developments p.27 Contributed by Halimi Ahmetaj Law and Tax
BRAZIL Law and Practice p.161
Contributed by Finkelstein Advogados Trends and Developments p.178 Contributed by Ferro, Castro Neves, Daltro & Gomide Advogados
CANADA Law and Practice p.183
Contributed by Lawson Lundell LLP Trends and Developments p.196 Contributed by Lawson Lundell LLP
AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.32 Contributed by KNOETZL Trends and Developments p.45 Contributed by KNOETZL
CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.202 Contributed by Appleby
AZERBAIJAN Law and Practice p.51 Contributed by GRATA International, Azerbaijan BAHAMAS Law and Practice p.68 Contributed by McKinney, Bancroft & Hughes Trends and Developments p.78 Contributed by McKinney, Bancroft & Hughes
CHILE Law and Practice p.212 Contributed by Jana & Gil Dispute Resolution Trends and Developments p.229 Contributed by Vásquez Urra Abogados
CHINA Law and Practice p.236 Contributed by SGLA Law Firm COLOMBIA Law and Practice p.254 Contributed by DRET Trends and Developments p.271 Contributed by DRET DENMARK Law and Practice p.277 Contributed by Bech-Bruun Trends and Developments p.292 Contributed by Bech-Bruun
BAHRAIN Law and Practice p.84
Contributed by Al Tamimi & Company Trends and Developments p.101 Contributed by Al Tamimi & Company
BANGLADESH Law and Practice p.107 Contributed by Dr Kamal Hossain & Associates
BELGIUM Law and Practice p.122 Contributed by Freshfields
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Trends and Developments p.299 Contributed by LMV Advisors – Central Law Dominican Republic
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA Trends and Developments p.136 Contributed by Marić & Co.
BOTSWANA Law and Practice p.141
ECUADOR Law and Practice p.304 Contributed by Santos Burbano de Lara
Contributed by Jeremiah Tladi & Co Trends and Developments p.156 Contributed by Jeremiah Tladi & Co
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
EGYPT Law and Practice p.319
KAZAKHSTAN Law and Practice p.486 Contributed by Legit Advocates’ Bureau
Contributed by Badran Law Firm Trends and Developments p.332 Contributed by Badran Law Firm FINLAND Law and Practice p.337 Contributed by HPP Attorneys Ltd FRANCE Law and Practice p.350 Contributed by BDGS Associés Trends and Developments p.367 Contributed by Laborde Law
KENYA Law and Practice p.499
Contributed by G&A Advocates LLP Trends and Developments p.513 Contributed by G&A Advocates LLP LATVIA Trends and Developments p.519 Contributed by RockBridge Legal
LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.524 Contributed by Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd Trends and Developments p.538 Contributed by Nueber Konzett
GERMANY Law and Practice p.376 Contributed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP Trends and Developments p.393 Contributed by Pfitzner Legal (in collaboration with aginom)
LUXEMBOURG Law and Practice p.544
Contributed by KLEYR_GRASSO Trends and Developments p.558 Contributed by KLEYR_GRASSO MALAYSIA Law and Practice p.564 Contributed by Shearn Delamore & Co Trends and Developments p.581 Contributed by Shearn Delamore & Co MALTA Law and Practice p.587 Contributed by Ganado Advocates MAURITIUS Law and Practice p.603 Contributed by BLC Robert & Associates MEXICO Trends and Developments p.621 Contributed by LITREDI, S.C.
GREECE Law and Practice p.401
Contributed by Dryllerakis Law Firm Trends and Developments p.415 Contributed by Dryllerakis Law Firm HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Law and Practice p.422 Contributed by Zhong Lun Law Firm HUNGARY Law and Practice p.439 Contributed by Oppenheim Law Firm INDONESIA Law and Practice p.453 Contributed by ABNR Counsellors at Law ISRAEL Law and Practice p.470 Contributed by Goldfarb Gross Seligman & Co Trends and Developments p.478 Contributed by Goldfarb Gross Seligman & Co
NEPAL Law and Practice p.626
Contributed by Reliance Law Firm Trends and Developments p.644 Contributed by Reliance Law Firm
JAPAN Trends and Developments p.482 Contributed by Mori Hamada
4 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
NIGERIA Law and Practice p.650 Contributed by Africa Law Practice NG & Company
SENEGAL Law and Practice p.811
Contributed by AF Legal Law Firm Trends and Developments p.828 Contributed by AF Legal Law Firm
Trends and Developments p.666 Contributed by Olajide Oyewole LLP
OMAN Law and Practice p.670 Contributed by Al Khalili, Al Ghailani & Co. LLP (K&Co.) Trends and Developments p.688 Contributed by Al Khalili, Al Ghailani & Co. LLP (K&Co.)
SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.833
Contributed by WongPartnership LLP Trends and Developments p.850 Contributed by WongPartnership LLP SLOVENIA Law and Practice p.858 Contributed by Law Firm Cukrov (Odvetniška družba Cukrov o.p., d.o.o.) Trends and Developments p.872 Contributed by Law Firm Cukrov (Odvetniška družba Cukrov o.p., d.o.o.) SOUTH AFRICA Law and Practice p.879 Contributed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Trends and Developments p.898 Contributed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
PANAMA Law and Practice p.692 Contributed by FABREGA MOLINO
PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.699 Contributed by SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Trends and Developments p.717 Contributed by SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan POLAND Law and Practice p.723 Contributed by Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak Trends and Developments p.736 Contributed by Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak
SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.904 Contributed by Lee & Ko SPAIN Law and Practice p.921 Contributed by SLJ Abogados
PORTUGAL Law and Practice p.740
Contributed by Sérvulo & Associados Trends and Developments p.752 Contributed by Sérvulo & Associados PUERTO RICO Trends and Developments p.758 Contributed by Casellas Alcover & Burgos
SUDAN Law and Practice p.940
Contributed by Omer Ali Law Firm Trends and Developments p.953 Contributed by Omer Ali Law Firm SWEDEN Law and Practice p.958 Contributed by Gernandt & Danielsson Trends and Developments p.973 Contributed by Gernandt & Danielsson
ROMANIA Law and Practice p.764 Contributed by Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners Trends and Developments p.778 Contributed by Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners
SAUDI ARABIA Law and Practice p.782 Contributed by K&A Trends and Developments p.801 Contributed by K&A
5 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.977
UKRAINE Law and Practice p.1102 Contributed by IMPACTA LAW URUGUAY Law and Practice p.1119 Contributed by Bergstein Abogados
Contributed by GABRIEL Arbitration Trends and Developments p.993 Contributed by Bär & Karrer AG
THAILAND Law and Practice p.997 Contributed by Weerawong C&P Phatsawat Siwawej, Piyachon Jiraratmethakorn, Ketsirin Wisetwatcharawong Trends and Developments p.1013 Contributed by Baker McKenzie
USA Law and Practice p.1130 Contributed by Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Trends and Developments p.1142 Contributed by Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
UZBEKISTAN Law and Practice p.1149
TURKEY Law and Practice p.1019
Contributed by PraeLegal Uzbekistan Trends and Developments p.1167 Contributed by PraeLegal Uzbekistan
Contributed by Kabine Law Office Trends and Developments p.1034 Contributed by Kabine Law Office
VIETNAM Law and Practice p.1172 Contributed by Asia Legal
UAE Law and Practice p.1041 Contributed by Mayer Brown
Trends and Developments p.1060 Contributed by Gateley Middle East UGANDA Law and Practice p.1064 Contributed by MMAKS Advocates
ZAMBIA Law and Practice p.1188 Contributed by Mwamba & Milan Advocates Trends and Developments p.1204 Contributed by AMW & Company Legal Practitioners
ZIMBABWE Law and Practice p.1212 Contributed by Kanokanga & Partners
UK Law and Practice p.1078
Contributed by Gherson Solicitors LLP Trends and Developments p.1095 Contributed by King & Spalding International LLP
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION
Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, King & Spalding LLP
King & Spalding LLP offers one of the largest and most experienced international arbitration and dis - pute resolution practices. The international arbitra - tion team handles complex commercial, construction and investment treaty disputes across their full life cycle, from pre-dispute strategy through hearings, related court proceedings, enforcement and asset recovery. With experience in more than 140 coun - tries, King & Spalding represents a broad range of
clients across sectors and jurisdictions worldwide. The international arbitration team has been involved in more than 1,000 proceedings in recent years. Law - yers have successfully represented clients in a num - ber of the largest institutional arbitrations and several of the most significant ad hoc arbitrations to arise in the past decade. In addition to representing clients as counsel, many lawyers regularly sit as arbitrators in international arbitrations.
Contributing Editor
Co-Author
Gary Born is the co-chair of the International Arbitration group at King & Spalding. He has been ranked for more than 25 years as one of the world’s premier international arbitration advocates. He has led more than 750 arbitrations, including four of the largest ICC cases and several of the most significant ad hoc proceedings in recent years. He has also sat as arbitrator in more than 225 institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. Gary is widely regarded as the pre-eminent authority on international commercial arbitration and international litigation. He is the author of International Commercial Arbitration, the leading text in the field and an authoritative 5,000- page work that provides the most comprehensive available commentary on all aspects of the international commercial arbitration process.
Matteo Angelini is a counsel in the International Arbitration group at King & Spalding. Matteo Angelini is an English barrister with a global practice in the fields of international commercial arbitration, international
commercial litigation and international investment arbitration. He has represented clients in arbitrations under all major institutional rules and in both common law and civil law disputes, and is regularly instructed to represent clients in high-value complex commercial litigation in the English courts. He holds undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from the University of Oxford.
King & Spalding 8 Bishopsgate London EC2N 4BQ United Kingdom Tel: +44 20 3929 5361 Email: MAngelini@kslaw.com Web: www.kslaw.com
7 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, King & Spalding LLP
Global Overview: International Arbitration in 2026 The international arbitration landscape in 2026 is dominated by macroeconomic and geopolitical fac - tors. After a series of economic shocks in recent years, the global economy is on the brink of recession. Geopolitical conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, have profoundly disrupted the energy and shipping industries. The tariff war following the announcement of sweeping US tariffs in April 2025 has combined with elevated public debt levels, high sovereign borrow - ing costs and persistent inflation to leave the global economy in a precarious position: in April 2026, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned of a sharp global economic slowdown and a high risk of reces - sion. This macroeconomic uncertainty has combined with geopolitical events (including the rise of national - ist and protectionist policies and the increasing use of international sanctions) to present serious sup - ply chain challenges and create a highly volatile and uncertain business environment. This instability and volatility has, in turn, led to a proliferation of disputes across a wide range of sectors. The areas that are seeing the most disputes are construction, energy and shipping. These are sectors in which arbitration has historically been, and continues to be, the preferred dispute resolution mechanism. Against this background, it is hardly surprising that most leading arbitral institutions have reported a record – or close-to-record – caseload over the past year in terms of both the number of disputes referred to arbitration and the size of those disputes. The USA-Iran War The military conflict between the USA, Israel and Iran that broke out in March 2026 has severely disrupted global trade, primarily by triggering a de facto closure, the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and international sanctions. Many international businesses are unable to use critical trade corridors, which has made the performance of numerous existing com - mercial contracts more difficult and, in some cases, impossible. This has triggered a surge of internation - al arbitrations concerning force majeure or contract frustration-based claims as parties seek to enforce, suspend or terminate supply contracts.
The USA-Iran conflict has also triggered a number of treaty-based claims. The most prominent treaty claim is Iran’s new inter-governmental claim before the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague, in which it has cited US military and economic actions in 2026 as violations of the 1981 Algiers Accords. The ongoing military confrontation in the region is likely to continue to cause supply chain disruptions as shipping, flight and trade routes are suspended or disrupted, and many UAE-based businesses have activated contingency measures. These disruptions are, in turn, likely to trigger a further wave of interna - tional trade-related disputes that will be referred to arbitration over the coming months and years. The Russia-Ukraine War The effect of the Russia-Ukraine war on the arbitration landscape has changed over time. Initially, in 2022, there was a sharp decline in the number of Russia- related arbitrations as reported by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and other major institutions. The ensuing disruptions, however, have triggered a large number of Russia-related disputes. Since the invasion, many businesses have been forced to cease operations in Russia or have seen their operations taken over by the Russian govern - ment. In 2025, Naftogaz, Ukraine’s largest national oil and gas company, and Net4Gas, the Czech Repub - lic’s gas transmission system operator, secured bil - lion-dollar awards against Gazprom over its failure to make monthly payments under their gas transporta - tion contracts. Global sanctions against Russia and the anti-arbitra - tion stance of the Russian courts have created com - plications for parties bringing claims against Russian sanctioned entities. Article 248 of the Russian Arbi - trazh Procedure Code grants Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned Rus - sian entities. Since 2024, it has been invoked over 200 times to override exclusive jurisdiction clauses and/or to issue anti-arbitration injunctions. This stance has resulted in courts in both common and civil law jurisdictions ordering anti-suit relief against Russian proceedings.
8 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, King & Spalding LLP
Technology and Generative AI Investment in technology and AI continues to boom as companies have invested heavily, especially in the use of generative AI. This is having obvious and profound effects on the arbitration landscape. Many major arbitral institutions are either already using AI or considering it, for services including vetting and conflict checks, transcription and award scrutiny. The extent to which tribunals may rely on AI remains highly controversial. Most recently, in April 2026, the Supreme Court of Quebec in ARIHQ v Santé Québec , 2026 QCCS 1360 (22 April 2026) set aside a domes - tic award because the arbitrator had cited fabricated cases and authorities, generated by a large language model, and had developed his analysis based on those AI hallucinations. We can expect further chal - lenges to awards in other jurisdictions based on the Tribunal’s use of AI. Several initiatives have emerged to address, and seek to standardise, the use of AI in international arbitra - tion. The most notable are the Guidelines on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and the JAMS AI Rules pub - lished in April 2024. Another key, related develop - ment is the EU’s AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, and is the world’s first comprehensive AI law that provides for EU-wide rules on data qual - ity, transparency, human oversight and accountability. Together with an increased use of AI in the arbitral process, there has been a rise in technology and AI- related arbitrations. This increase is driven by the rapid growth of the tech industry and the increasing reliance on ever-more complex technologies and AI across a range of industries. According to recent sta - tistics, information and communication-related tech - nology disputes now represents around 10% of the caseload of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Examples of such disputes include Chinese telecoms giant Huawei’s treaty claim against the government of Sweden over its exclusion from the 5G network and Uber’s dispute with Colombia. Investor-state technology disputes of this nature are likely to raise a host of new and topical issues including whether digital assets, blockchain, AI or decentralised assets qualify as investments.
Caseload of Arbitral Institutions Arbitration continues to remain a preferred method of dispute resolution for many international businesses. A number of arbitral institutions recorded high num - bers of new case filings. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) registered 895 new arbitrations in 2025, with a total of 1,896 cases being administered by the ICC Secretariat. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) recorded 886 new case fil - ings, which is its second-highest annual caseload on record. Other institutions also recorded sizeable num - bers with 318 new cases for the LCIA and 582 for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). The five most preferred sets of arbitral rules are the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA and UNCITRAL Rules, according to the Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, a recurring feature of the arbitration landscape that the industry has now grown used to seeing as a periodic barometer of its progress. In the most recent survey, the most preferred arbitral seat is London, with users citing the stability of its commercial law and highly regarded judiciary. Singapore was the second most popular seat, with users noting that it is receiving a larger share of Asian disputes as many US and West - ern companies have relocated out of Hong Kong. New Arbitral Rules In 2025, the SIAC introduced new arbitration rules. One of the key changes in the SIAC Rules 2025 is to enhance its emergency arbitration procedure by permitting an emergency arbitrator to order ex parte interim relief. The SIAC is one of the first major arbitral institutions to permit an emergency arbitrator to order interim relief on an ex parte basis. Other key changes include: • new rules on third-party funding to give tribunals wide-ranging powers to require details of third- party funding arrangements; • a new “preliminary determination” procedure; and • a new “streamlined procedure” for disputes of low value. These new provisions all improve the time, cost-effi - ciency and attractiveness of SIAC arbitration.
9 CHAMBERS.COM
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
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, King & Spalding LLP
Smith v Spizziri The US Supreme Court held that federal courts must stay, rather than dismiss, claims that are governed by an arbitration agreement. The decision is important as, while a party can immediately appeal an order dismissing an action, there is no immediate right of appeal from an order staying the proceedings. The decision resolves a circuit split over whether FAA, 9 USC Section 3 requires a court to stay proceedings after compelling arbitration. The Supreme Court’s pro- arbitration decision reasoned that staying, instead of dismissing, lawsuits subject to an arbitration agree - ment is consistent with the supervisory role that the FAA envisions for the courts and allows parties to seek relief related to the arbitration without filing a new case.
arbitrate and, therefore, the US courts lacked juris - diction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals determined that whether Spain consented went to the scope of the arbitra - tion agreement rather than basic jurisdiction and, therefore, was a question for the tribunal. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari and left intact the DC Circuit rulings. The decision confirms the USA as a pro-enforcement jurisdiction, including with respect to awards against sovereign states.
11 CHAMBERS.COM
ALBANIA
Serbia
Montenegro
Bulgaria
Kosovo
North Macedonia
Albania Tirana
Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
Italy
Greece
Contents 1. General p.14 1.1 Prevalence of Arbitration p.14 1.2 Key Industries p.14 1.3 Arbitration Institutions p.14 1.4 National Courts p.15 2. Governing Legislation p.15 2.1 Governing Law p.15 2.2 Changes to National Law p.15 3. The Arbitration Agreement p.16 3.1 Enforceability p.16 3.2 Arbitrability p.16 3.3 National Courts’ Approach p.16 3.4 Validity p.16
7. Procedure p.20 7.1 Governing Rules p.20 7.2 Procedural Steps p.20 7.3 Powers and Duties of Arbitrators p.21 7.4 Legal Representatives p.21 8. Evidence p.21 8.1 Collection and Submission of Evidence p.21 8.2 Rules of Evidence p.21 8.3 Powers of Compulsion p.22 9. Confidentiality p.22 9.1 Extent of Confidentiality p.22 10. The Award p.22 10.1 Legal Requirements p.22 10.2 Types of Remedies p.22 10.3 Recovering Interest and Legal Costs p.23 11. Review of an Award p.23 11.1 Grounds for Appeal p.23 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal p.23
4. The Arbitral Tribunal p.17 4.1 Limits on Selection p.17 4.2 Default Procedures p.17 4.3 Court Intervention p.17 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators p.17 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements p.18 5. Jurisdiction p.18 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction p.18 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention p.18 5.3 Timing of Challenge p.18 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/ Admissibility p.19 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement p.19 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties p.19 6. Preliminary and Interim Relief p.19
11.3 Standard of Judicial Review p.24 12. Enforcement of an Award p.24 12.1 New York Convention p.24 12.2 Enforcement Procedure p.24 12.3 Approach of the Courts p.24 13. Miscellaneous p.25 13.1 Class Action or Group Arbitration p.25 13.2 Ethical Codes p.25 13.3 Third-Party Funding p.25 13.4 Consolidation p.25 13.5 Binding of Third Parties p.26
6.1 Types of Relief p.19 6.2 Role of Courts p.19 6.3 Security for Costs p.20
12 CHAMBERS.COM
ALBANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law has been dedicat - ed to providing tailored and efficient legal services to clients since 1992. Renowned for its exceptional dis - pute resolution track record, its expertise in interna - tional arbitration is sought by foreign law firms across Europe, where it jointly handles significant cases for the Albanian government. With a remarkable 90% success rate, the firm excels in extra-judicial conflict resolution, saving clients time and costs. Practice areas include arbitration law, banking law, corporate and commercial law, criminal law, energy law, hu -
man rights law, maritime law and more. Maintaining a strong presence in EU law and international arbitra - tion, it has represented over 50 cases before the Eu - ropean Court of Human Rights. The team comprises experienced arbitrators, and engages in proceedings across foreign jurisdictions. With a solid reputation, the firm handles complex commercial transactions, maintaining partnerships with international law firms and strong ties to Albanian government authorities and international organisations.
Authors
Maksim Haxhia is a founding partner of Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law, and is an esteemed legal luminary who has excelled as a criminal lawyer in Albania. With a distinguished career progression, Av Haxhia’s expertise in
Artan Hajdari is a founding partner of Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law and former Vice Minister of Justice. He started practising law in 1991 and was called to the Albanian Bar in 1998. He holds a law degree from the
criminal law is unparalleled, having fearlessly handled high-profile cases and representing notable individuals such as the former Minister of Interior Affairs and the former Governor of the Bank of Albania. As the Chairman of the Albanian Chamber of Advocacy, he actively shapes the legal profession, while his extensive academic credentials and fluency in multiple languages make him a trusted advocate for clients facing complex legal challenges.
University of Tirana and a master’s degree in European Studies (2005). Dr Hajdari has served as Chair of both Fier and Vlora District Courts. Aligning Albanian legislation with European standards, he imparts knowledge as a lecturer at the School of Magistrates. He is fluent in Albanian, English and Italian, and excels in civil, commercial, M&A, energy, telecommunications, insurance, labour, customs, banking, financial and concession law, thus offering exceptional expertise for clients.
Eris Hysi is an accomplished legal professional, and commenced her law career in 2001 at Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law, where she attained the level of partner. Called to the Albanian Bar in 2002, she holds a
Bachelor of Law degree and a Master’s in European Business Law from the University of Tirana, as well as a PhD from Sapienza University. Notably, she has been appointed to the ICSID panel of conciliators and/or arbitrators, highlighting her proficiency in international dispute resolution. Av Hysi’s expertise in corporate law, M&A and competition law, along with her fluency in Albanian, English and Italian, further enhances the firm’s representation for clients.
13 CHAMBERS.COM
ALBANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law Blv. “Dëshmorët e Kombit”Twin Towers, 2, Suite 9/1 & 2 Tirana Albania Tel: +355 42 280171 Email: office@lawfirmhh.com Web: www.lawfirmhh.com
1. General 1.1 Prevalence of Arbitration
and interaction with public authorities. Energy, con - struction and infrastructure, concessions, transport and logistics, natural resources, telecommunications and information-related businesses are the principal areas in which arbitration clauses and investor-State disputes are encountered. Recent publicly recorded proceedings illustrate con - tinuing investment-arbitration activity and a broad - er range of regulated businesses. EMS Shipping & Trading GmbH v Republic of Albania , ICSID Case No ARB/23/9, remains publicly listed by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as an Albania-related investment case. Mrs Mimoza Ndroqi v Republic of Albania , PCA Case No 2023-64, is a pending investment arbitration identified by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the informa - tion and communication sector. These sectors tend to generate arbitration because projects are long term, heavily regulated and frequently involve licences, con - cessions, public bodies or significant sunk costs. Dis - putes therefore commonly raise questions of contrac - tual performance, regulatory intervention, termination and compensation. 1.3 Arbitration Institutions For investment disputes involving Albania, ICSID remains a prominent forum where the jurisdictional requirements of the ICSID Convention and the rele - vant investment instrument are satisfied. PCA-admin - istered proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are also used in Albania-related investor-State cases. In international commercial contracts, the Inter - national Chamber of Commerce (ICC) continues to be
International arbitration is an established dispute- resolution mechanism in Albania, particularly for cross-border projects, foreign investment and con - tracts involving the State or State-linked entities. It is frequently selected in concession, infrastructure, energy and other long-term projects where the par - ties seek a neutral forum, specialised decision-makers and an award capable of cross-border enforcement. For purely domestic disputes, court litigation remains more common, although arbitration is now supported by a dedicated statutory framework. The position has changed materially since 2023 and the guide for that year. Law No 52/2023 on Arbitration now regulates both domestic and international arbitra - tion where the seat is in Albania. The new framework has removed the earlier legislative gap and provides rules on arbitral agreements, tribunal formation, inter - im measures, procedure, awards, setting-aside and enforcement. In practice, Albania-related arbitration continues to be most visible through contractual arbi - tration clauses, investment arbitration and the recog - nition or enforcement of foreign awards; Albania is not yet a frequently selected international seat, but the 2023 law creates a clearer basis for seated pro - ceedings. 1.2 Key Industries International arbitration activity involving Albania remains concentrated in sectors characterised by sig - nificant foreign investment, capital-intensive projects
14 CHAMBERS.COM
ALBANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
a common institutional choice, particularly where one party is foreign or the transaction is connected with a major project or public authority. Law No 52/2023 expressly permits arbitration to be administered by a permanent arbitral institution under its rules or to proceed on an ad hoc basis under rules agreed by the parties. The official public sources reviewed for this guide do not identify a newly estab - lished Albanian arbitral institution in the last 12 months that has become a significant administering centre for international cases. For ICC clauses concluded or proceedings commenced under the current institu - tional framework, practitioners should also note that the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules entered into force on 1 June 2026. 1.4 National Courts Albania has not created a specialist arbitration court or a separate international commercial court. Judicial functions connected with arbitration are allocated to the ordinary courts by Law No 52/2023. The territorially competent first-instance court of gen - eral jurisdiction at the seat performs key support and supervisory functions, including certain appointments of arbitrators, review of challenges or termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, court assistance in taking evidence and orders connected with enforcement. Applications to set aside an Albania-seated award are determined by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction in whose territorial jurisdiction the seat is located. This should be read against Albania’s reor - ganised judicial map, under which the general-juris - diction court structure was consolidated from 2023. Accordingly, the relevant court is identified by the statutory function and territorial competence rather than by a specialist arbitration division.
also applies where the seat is outside Albania or has not yet been determined. The 2023 law is based substantially on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, including the 2006 amendments, and UNCITRAL records Albania as a Model Law jurisdiction from 2023. The Albanian statute nevertheless contains a number of locally tailored provisions. These include: • specific eligibility restrictions for arbitrators; • detailed statutory conflict grounds and short dis - closure periods; • special formal requirements for consumer arbitra - tion agreements; • approval requirements for certain public entities; • a detailed default approach to allocating arbitration costs; and • prescribed content for awards. The law therefore follows the Model Law architecture while supplementing it with more prescriptive domes - tic rules in several areas. 2.2 Changes to National Law The principal legislative development remains the adoption of Law No 52/2023, which replaced the ear - lier position in which the former arbitration provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure had been repealed without a comprehensive standalone arbitration stat - ute. The 2023 law now provides a complete frame - work for domestic and international arbitration seated in Albania. As of July 2026, no significant amendment to Law No 52/2023 has been identified in the official legislative sources reviewed for this guide. The practical focus is therefore on implementation of the new statute and the development of court practice concerning juris - diction, interim measures, setting-aside and enforce - ment. Separately, parties using ICC arbitration should account for the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, in force from 1 June 2026. Those institutional changes are not amendments to Albanian national law, but they may affect the procedural design of Albania-related inter - national arbitrations where ICC Rules apply.
2. Governing Legislation 2.1 Governing Law
The principal legislation is Law No 52/2023 on Arbitra - tion in the Republic of Albania. It applies to domestic and international arbitration where the seat is in Alba - nia. Its provision on court-ordered interim measures
15 CHAMBERS.COM
ALBANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
3. The Arbitration Agreement 3.1 Enforceability
commercial and proprietary disputes, while preserv - ing mandatory judicial competence in reserved areas. 3.3 National Courts’ Approach Law No 52/2023 adopts a clearly arbitration-support - ive approach. Where a court is seised of a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement, it must, includ - ing on its own initiative, decline judicial jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly invalid. Once arbitration has commenced, a separate court action challenging the validity of the arbitration agree - ment may not be brought. Ambiguity concerning the arbitration agreement or the tribunal’s jurisdiction is interpreted by reference to the parties’ intention to submit the dispute to arbitration. For setting-aside purposes, the validity of the arbitra - tion agreement is assessed under the law chosen by the parties or otherwise applicable to it; in the absence of such a choice, Albanian law is relevant under the statutory review framework. Foreign awards are con - sidered under the New York Convention and the Code of Civil Procedure. The legislation therefore expects courts to give effect to valid arbitration agreements and confines judicial intervention to the circumstances expressly identified by law. 3.4 Validity The rule of separability is expressly recognised by Law No 52/2023. An arbitration clause is treated as sepa - rate and independent from the contract in which it appears. The invalidity of the underlying contract does not, by itself, render the arbitration agreement invalid. This enables the arbitral tribunal to determine dis - putes concerning the existence, validity, termination or consequences of the main contract without losing jurisdiction merely because the contract is alleged to be void. The arbitration agreement may, of course, be challenged on grounds directed specifically at the arbitration agreement itself, such as lack of consent, incapacity, failure to meet mandatory form require - ments or non-arbitrability. Separability therefore pro - tects the parties’ procedural agreement while preserv - ing a distinct review of whether that agreement was validly concluded.
As a rule, an arbitration agreement must be in writing. The writing requirement may be satisfied by a clause in a contract or a separate agreement and may also be evidenced through fax, telegram, telex, email or another recordable form of communication or data storage that provides written proof of the agreement. The agreement must identify a dispute or category of disputes capable of being submitted to arbitration and must otherwise satisfy applicable rules on consent, capacity and arbitrability. Law No 52/2023 imposes additional safeguards in specific situations. A consumer arbitration agreement must be personally signed by the parties and must be separate and independent from the underlying agree - ment. Certain ministries, local government bodies, dependent public institutions, autonomous agencies and state-owned companies are subject to statutory approval or consent requirements before entering an arbitration agreement. Exceptionally, a defect in writ - ten form may be cured where arbitration begins and the other party does not object to the tribunal’s juris - diction. 3.2 Arbitrability The Albanian Arbitration Law adopts a broad concept of arbitrability for proprietary disputes. Any property claim or demand arising from a property relationship may generally be referred to arbitration. This includes contractual and non-contractual civil or commercial disputes with an economic character. The principal limits arise where special legislation prohibits arbitration, permits it only subject to spe - cific conditions, or reserves the subject matter to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Albanian courts. The parties may agree to arbitrate even after court pro - ceedings have begun, but not in respect of matters falling within exclusive court jurisdiction. Arbitrability is therefore assessed by examining the nature of the right or claim, the applicable special legislation and any exclusive-jurisdiction rule. A non-arbitrable sub - ject matter may lead to the setting-aside of an Alba - nia-seated award or refusal of recognition of a foreign award. The approach is thus generally permissive for
16 CHAMBERS.COM
ALBANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
4. The Arbitral Tribunal 4.1 Limits on Selection
4.3 Court Intervention Court intervention in the appointment of arbitrators is limited to the circumstances provided by Law No 52/2023. The competent first-instance court at the seat may appoint an arbitrator where the parties’ agreed or statutory appointment mechanism has failed and no agreed appointing authority is able to resolve the failure. Before making an appointment, the court hears the parties’ views and considers any qualifications agreed for the arbitrator as well as the requirements of inde - pendence and impartiality. The court may appoint a person from lists maintained by permanent arbitral institutions. It should refuse to make an appointment where there is no arbitration agreement or the agree - ment is manifestly invalid. The court is required to decide the appointment application within the statu - tory period, and its appointment decision is not sub - ject to appeal. The court’s role is therefore supportive and residual; it does not replace a functioning party- agreed appointment process. 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators Law No 52/2023 contains detailed rules on challenge and termination of an arbitrator’s mandate. A chal - lenge may be based on failure to meet agreed quali - fications or on circumstances creating reasonable doubts as to independence or impartiality. The statute also identifies specific conflict situations, including: • prior involvement in the dispute; • certain family or close personal relationships; • direct interests in a related dispute; • employment or advisory links; • litigation or hostility; and • specified financial relationships with a party or representative. Unless the parties have agreed another procedure, a written challenge must be made within 15 days after the party learns of the relevant circumstance or, where already known, after constitution of the tribunal. If the arbitrator does not withdraw and the other party does not accept the challenge, the tribunal decides it. A rejected challenge may be referred to the competent first-instance court within 30 days. The court’s deci -
Party autonomy is the starting point for the selec - tion of arbitrators. The parties may agree on a sole arbitrator or an arbitral panel; where a panel is used, the number of arbitrators must be odd. If the parties do not determine the number, the statutory default is three arbitrators. The law does impose minimum eligibility and integrity requirements. An arbitrator must be a natural person with full legal capacity, must be independent and impartial and must satisfy any qualifications agreed by the parties or required by the rules of the selected arbitral institution. A person with a final criminal con - viction or a final judicial prohibition from exercising public functions is not eligible. Nationality is not pre - scribed as a general restriction. The principal practical limits on party choice therefore arise from mandatory eligibility requirements, agreed qualifications and con - flicts of interest rather than from a closed professional category of eligible arbitrators. 4.2 Default Procedures The parties may agree their own appointment proce - dure. In an ad hoc three-member tribunal, the statu - tory default requires each party to appoint one arbitra - tor within 30 days after commencement and the two party-appointed arbitrators to appoint the chair within a further 30 days. For a sole arbitrator, the parties have 30 days to agree the appointment. If the agreed or statutory appointment process fails, a third party designated by the parties may act as appointing authority. Where no such third party has been designated, or it fails to act within the statutory period, the territorially competent first-instance court at the seat may make the appointment. Law No 52/2023 does not contain a detailed bespoke appointment mechanism for multiparty arbitration comparable to the special multiparty provisions found in some institutional rules. Multiparty cases should therefore be addressed expressly in the arbitration agreement or through suitable institutional rules; oth - erwise, the statutory fallback may require court sup - port where the appointment process breaks down.
17 CHAMBERS.COM
ALBANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
sion is final, and the challenge does not automatically suspend the arbitration or prevent an award. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements Independence and impartiality are mandatory statu - tory requirements. On accepting appointment, an arbitrator must make a written declaration confirming that there are no circumstances capable of creating reasonable doubts as to independence or impartiality and confirming compliance with any agreed qualifica - tion requirements. The duty is continuing. An arbitrator must disclose a circumstance giving rise to reasonable doubts within five days after becoming aware of it, unless the par - ties already know the relevant facts. Law No 52/2023 also contains an extensive list of relationships and prior roles that may justify exclusion or challenge. These statutory requirements apply alongside any more detailed standards contained in the rules of the chosen arbitral institution. In practice, parties and arbitrators should therefore review both the Albanian statutory conflict rules and the applicable institutional disclosure framework at appointment and throughout the proceedings. The principle of competence-competence is expressly recognised. Under Article 22 of Law No 52/2023, the arbitral tribunal has authority to rule on its own juris - diction and on the validity of the arbitration agreement. A plea that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction must gener - ally be raised no later than the statement of defence. A party is not prevented from making the plea merely because it appointed, or participated in appointing, an arbitrator. An objection that the tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority must be raised when the allegedly excess matter is introduced in the proceed - ings. The tribunal may admit a late objection where the delay is justified, subject to the statutory condi - tions. Competence-competence operates together with separability and the court referral rule, creating a system in which the tribunal addresses jurisdiction in 5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
the first instance, with targeted judicial review avail - able in the cases specified by the law. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention Court review of jurisdiction is available through defined statutory routes rather than through general intervention in the arbitral process. At the litigation stage, a court must decline jurisdiction over a dis - pute covered by an arbitration agreement unless the agreement is manifestly invalid. The court may also consider the existence or manifest invalidity of the arbitration agreement when exercising specific sup - port functions, such as a default appointment. Where the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection and rules that it has jurisdiction, the objecting party may apply to the competent first-instance court at the seat within 30 days. The court must decide the appli - cation within the statutory period, and the arbitration may continue while review is pending. The law does not provide the same immediate standalone review route for a tribunal’s negative ruling that it lacks juris - diction. Jurisdictional defects may also be relevant after an award in setting-aside proceedings. Overall, the statutory structure limits court intervention and favours continuation of the arbitration pending review. 5.3 Timing of Challenge A jurisdictional objection should first be raised before the arbitral tribunal. The general deadline is the state - ment of defence. An objection that the tribunal has exceeded its authority should be made when the matter said to fall outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction is introduced. The tribunal may accept a late objection in the circumstances permitted by the law where the delay is justified. If the tribunal rejects the objection and confirms its jurisdiction by an interim decision, the challenging party has 30 days to apply to the competent first- instance court at the seat. It is therefore unnecessary to wait for a final award in order to seek judicial review of a positive jurisdiction ruling. The court application does not suspend the arbitration or the tribunal’s abil - ity to render a final award. After an award, defects concerning the validity or scope of the arbitration agreement may also fall within the statutory setting- aside grounds.
18 CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199Powered by FlippingBook