INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale
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-
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 the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza- tions Act (RICO; the US racketeering law) is available as a mechanism to enforce foreign arbitral awards in the USA. This adds a potentially powerful tool for the enforcement 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 dam- ages and recovering 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, which celebrated its 67th anniversary in 2025. The Convention protects the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards, ensuring – with rare excep- tions – that arbitral awards can be enforced against award debtors. In its global reach and success, the New York Convention remains unparalleled in other forms of international dispute resolution. Use of artificial intelligence Investment in technology and AI continues to boom as companies have invested heavily, especially in the use
tion. USA
In the USA, the Trump administration has implement- ed a series of unilateralist and protectionist trade poli- cies that were dramatically announced on 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 are 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 (Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement; 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 has 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
9 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook