Kick off Washington Arbitration Week with a fresh burst of energy. The Campaign for Greener Arbitrations (CGA), JAMS and WAW invite you to swap the usual conference room buzz for sunshine, fresh air and Washington’s most iconic views. 

Choose your adventure: cycle down the Mall with a scenic stop at the Lincoln Memorial or take a leisurely stroll towards the Washington Monument. Both groups will gather for a picnic: a chance to share food, laughter and conversations that go beyond the panel rooms. Boxed lunches will be provided courtesy of Sopra Legal.

Whether you’re rolling in, strolling by, or just showing up for the picnic spread, this is your moment to unwind, reconnect and enjoy a relaxed start to WAW 2025. Spaces are limits, so register now!

Washington, D.C. hosts one of the world’s most vibrant arbitration communities, yet the path into the field can often feel unclear for those at the outset of their careers. As the practice of arbitration continues to expand and a new generation steps forward, important questions arise: how do we nurture mentorship as a culture rather than an obligation? And how can firms, institutions and individuals create spaces where knowledge and experience are shared openly and organically? 

This session will examine the ways in which mentorship (both formal and informal) shapes professional growth and strengthens the fabric of the community. Panelists will share personal experiences, spotlight innovative approaches to mentorship and reflect on how to foster environments where guidance flows naturally across generations. Whether you are an established arbitrator or just beginning your journey, this discussion offers an opportunity to engage in a candid exchange on building a culture of support within international arbitration. 

Among the many choices parties make in arbitration, few are as strategic or as underestimated as picking the seat. It is just not a dot on the map; it is a decision that defines the legal framework, shapes judicial support and influences of how and where an award gets enforced. 

For years, the usual suspects like London, Paris and New York have been have reigned supreme, thanks to their reliable legal systems and arbitration-friendly reputations. But times are changing.  Paris, for instance, has become less attractive for investment arbitration after the CJEU’s Achmea, Komstroy and PL Holdings rulings. These decisions have prompted courts in EU Member States to annul or refuse enforcement of intra-EU investment awards. Adding to the uncertainty is the EU Commission’s position against intra-EU ISDS, which has cast doubt over arbitrations seated in the EU. 

In parallel, jurisdictions like Singapore, Geneva, Washington D.C., and London (post-Brexit) are strengthening their profiles through reforms, procedural efficiency or perceptions of neutrality. 

This panel will analyze whether traditional criteria for selecting arbitral seats—judicial independence, enforceability, cost, and political neutrality—are being reevaluated. Is a reshuffling of the global arbitration map underway? What factors are truly influencing party preferences today? And how might these developments shape the geography of international arbitration in the coming years? 

Join us as we explore the shifting terrain of arbitral geography, analyze what matters most to parties today, and consider whether the future of arbitration may be moving toward new and emerging venues. 

Across the Americas, governments are advancing regulatory reforms that directly affect foreign investment. Mexico is reshaping its electricity market through new energy policies. Colombia has adopted a significant tax reform and issued Presidential Directive No. 5 of 2025, which creates new requirements for State entities that enter into arbitration agreements. Chile continues to debate constitutional changes that could transform the framework for natural resources and water rights. These fiscal, environmental and institutional developments reflect legitimate public policy goals, but they also increase the likelihood of investment disputes. 

This panel will explore the most recent regulatory and policy developments in the region and assess their potential impact on investment arbitration. Speakers will analyze how shifts in domestic legislation, new institutional practices and political dynamics may affect treaty-based claims, contract disputes and investment disputes. The discussion aims to provide practitioners, policymakers and investors with insights into emerging risks and strategies for navigating the evolving dispute-resolution landscape in the Americas. 

In recent years, many sovereign States have taken important steps to strengthen their in-house legal capacities to defend against investor claims. National agencies and specialized legal teams are increasingly managing complex arbitration proceedings without relying exclusively on external counsel. At the same time, State owned companies are becoming frequent parties in international commercial arbitration, in sectors such as energy, infrastructure and natural resources. These developments reflect both a shift toward greater autonomy in dispute management and a need for institutional strategies that align with global best practices. 

This panel will explore how sovereign States are strengthening their internal capacities to manage investment arbitration and how State-owned companies are navigating the field of international commercial arbitration. Speakers will analyze recent institutional reforms, new government initiatives and ongoing efforts to develop permanent in-house teams that can lead and co-ordinate arbitration strategy. The panel will identify lessons learned from both successes and setbacks and will consider the advantages of building specialized in house capacity, as well as the challenges. By bringing together perspectives from government practitioners, arbitral institutions and private counsel, the session will provide a comprehensive view of how States and their companies can enhance their effectiveness in arbitration and contribute to the development of more sustainable and transparent practices international dispute resolution. 

As climate ambitions heat up, so do investment disputes. From phasing out fossil fuels to cancelling extraction projects and tightening environmental regulations, governments are making bold policy moves — and investors are pushing back. In this high-stakes tug of war, figuring out how much an asset is worth has never been trickier.   

Recent investment arbitration cases such as Azienda Elettrica Ticinese v. Germany (2023, ICSID), RWE v. Netherlands (2021, ICSID) and Antin v. Spain (2013–2025, ICSID/EU) highlight the valuation challenges that arise when climate regulations reshape the investment landscape. These cases involve the early closure of coal plants, the phaseout of fossil fuels and reductions in renewable energy subsidies—raising complex questions of fair market value, regulatory risk and investor protection. In addition, the sequence of advisory opinions on international obligations of State concerning climate change by the ICJ, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and ITLOS, might also influence quantum analysis. 

Tribunals today face a complex web of legal, economic, and political uncertainties—from shifting discount rates and competing counterfactuals to the increasing relevance of ESG and climate policy measures. Whether the dispute involves renewables, fossil fuel phase-outs, or regulatory shifts, determining what is “fair” in fair market value calculations seems to involve a greater degree of complexity.  

Can yesterday’s spending justify today’s compensation? This panel explores the evolving role of sunk cost analysis in investment arbitration. While, it is a widely used method, questions have been raised about whether it is being overused or whether its application is in decline.

We will examine when tribunals tend to favor, or perhaps overly favor, a sunk cost approach instead of forward-looking methods in an effort to construct a non-speculative but-for scenario. This panel will also look at when and why the sunk cost analysis is applied, how it measures up against other valuation methods, and the circumstances in which this approach is considered appropriate based on the specific features of each case. 

The global life sciences sector has become one of the most dynamic and contested areas in international arbitration. Pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms and medical device manufacturers are operating in a landscape marked by rapid innovation, complex regulatory frameworks and heightened public interest. Governments are also exercising stronger oversight in matters such as drug pricing, compulsory licensing and public health emergencies. This can create tension between sovereign policy goals and private contractual rights. These developments highlight the growing importance of arbitration as a mechanism for resolving high stakes disputes in an industry where science, law and policy intersect. 

This panel will examine emerging trends and challenges in the resolution of life sciences disputes through international arbitration. Speakers will analyze recent cases and institutional practices that reveal how arbitral tribunals approach issues such as scientific evidence, regulatory compliance and confidentiality of sensitive data. The discussion will also explore the role of investment treaties in protecting life sciences investments and the strategic choices parties face when drafting dispute resolution clauses.  

By combining perspectives from practitioners, industry experts and academics, the session aims to question how arbitration can adapt to the evolving needs of the life sciences sector and to equip participants with practical insights for navigating disputes in this highly specialized and rapidly changing field. 

The rise of generative AI is transforming legal practice across disciplines. International arbitration is no exception. From drafting procedural documents and analyzing voluminous evidence to predicting case outcomes, AI tools are increasingly being integrated into the daily workflow of arbitration professionals. At the same time, their use raises important questions about accuracy, confidentiality, bias and the evolving role of human decision-making in arbitration. As arbitral institutions and practitioners navigate these opportunities and risks, the need for clarity, best practices and critical dialogue has never been greater.  

This hands-on workshop aims to demystify the use of generative AI in international arbitration by focusing on practical applications, real-world case studies and emerging tools that are already reshaping the field. Participants will explore how AI can assist in tasks such as drafting procedural orders, preparing submissions, managing document production and assisting tools when the arbitrator drafts the award.  

The session will also address ethical considerations, institutional guidance, changing views on the use and trustworthiness of AI-generated content. Designed specifically for counsel and arbitrators, this workshop promises an opportunity to share experiences, ask hard questions, and rethink how generative AI can work hand-in-hand with human expertise to shape the future of international arbitration. 

Governments routinely engage in mediation, resolving disputes across tax, labor, regulatory, and environmental matters through structured, facilitated negotiation. If mediation works within governments, why is it not yet mainstream in the investor-state context? This panel challenges the artificial divide between domestic and international mediation involving sovereigns. Drawing from real-world cases, including extensive public-sector mediation activity in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, panelists will explore how and why governments already know how to mediate, and what’s preventing that practice from crossing borders into the investor-State context. The discussion will examine how institutions, legal frameworks and cultural and professional perceptions intersect—and how organizations like ICSID and JAMS can help bridge the gap to normalize mediation in investor-state disputes.

Ever wondered what it is like to put a quantum expert in the hot seat? Ready to test your advocacy skills in conditions that feel just like the real thing but without the client stress? Here is your chance. 

As part of Washington Arbitration Week 2025, we are delighted to invite applications for an interactive Expert Witness Cross-Examination Training, organized in partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and White & Case LLP. 

Participants will have the rare opportunity to cross-examine a real quantum expert before a panel of seasoned arbitrators, receive tailored feedback from the tribunal and hone their skills in a safe, collaborative setting. 

The global legal and economic landscape for government contracts and infrastructure development is being reshaped by geopolitical tensions, protectionism and shifting supply chains. This has raised new challenges around procurement rules, investor protections and dispute resolution. In this complex context, international arbitration may play a relevant as dispute resolution mechanism. From sanctions to the renegotiation or termination of large-scale contracts, recent developments have put procurement and construction agreements under heightened scrutiny. The legal frameworks that once ensured predictability and neutrality are now being tested by political risk, resource nationalism, and competing regulatory regimes.  

 This panel aims to explore how international arbitration is responding to this evolving environment, with a particular focus on disputes arising out of public procurement, government contracts and cross-border construction projects. By bringing together experts in international arbitration, construction law and public procurement, the panel will provide a comparative and practice-oriented discussion on how dispute resolution is adapting to new realities. Whether dealing with infrastructure funded by multilateral institutions, mega-projects involving foreign state-owned enterprises, or domestic procurement contracts affected by global events, the panel will consider what practitioners and stakeholders need to know to remain effective and forward-looking in an era of legal and political volatility.  

The replacement of NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) ignited hopes of a new era for North American trade and investment. Yet, these hopes were short lived. With sceptical voices against the USMCA arising from DC and an upcoming “joint review” looming in 2026, the future of investor-state dispute settlement in the region hangs in the balance.  

Will there be a «NAFTA 3.0»? And if so, will ISDS find a place at the table for additional reform, will it remain untouched, or will it be limited even further? As the parties reflect on two decades of investor-State arbitration under NAFTA, key lessons emerge: What has worked, what hasn’t and what changes might be needed to protect the States’ regulatory space and investors’ legitimate expectations? Is touching what remains of NAFTA, now under the current USMCA, on investor-State dispute resolution between the United States and Mexico, premature?  

This panel will bring together leading voices from across the region to debate the next chapter of North American investment protection. Expect insights, and a candid exploration of what “protection” really means in today’s geopolitical and economic climate. Join us to discuss whether ISDS can or should survive in the new trade and investment landscape. 

The ability to make decisions impacting international affairs can be a thorny subject for a federal state like Canada. Provinces wield considerable constitutionally assigned powers, but do those extend to Canada’s dealings with other nations? How is power over foreign affairs defined within the law? Foreign Affairs in the Canadian Constitution breaks new ground with a rigorous exploration of these questions. 

Scott Fairley proposes that the weight of history, constitutional evolution, governmental practice, and judicial interpretation have established foreign affairs as a constitutionally supported and integrated field of federal jurisdiction. This rigorously argued conclusion allows us a better understanding of Canada as a unified nation-state within the community of nations. 

H. Scott Fairley is a partner at Cambridge LLP, Toronto, with extensive experience litigating international and constitutional issues. He has lectured and published extensively on these subjects both within Canada and internationally. He holds a doctorate in law (SJD) from Harvard University. He began his career as a full-time academic at the University of Windsor and has since taught as adjunct faculty at several other Ontario universities. He also served as constitutional counsel to the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General before entering private practice. 

As the global energy sector races toward greener, more sustainable models, the disputes that accompany that transition are becoming ever more complex and high stakes. This panel explores the vital role of women in shaping renewable energy disputes: as arbitrators, as damages experts and as counsel. 

Join leading practitioners at the forefront of renewables law and arbitration as they share perspectives on the unique challenges and opportunities shaping this sector. The discussion will cover damages valuation in the face of environmental and regulatory change, navigating the technical and contractual complexity of energy projects, addressing systemic barriers in appointments, and amplifying diverse voices in the resolution of energy-related disputes. 

March 2025 marked the 60th anniversary of the ICSID Convention, now with 158 Contracting States worldwide. As the world’s preeminent center for resolving investor-State disputes—with over 1,000 cases administered—ICSID stands as a pillar of international investment arbitration and a cornerstone of the global economy. Over six decades, ICSID has not only grown in reach and influence, but has also undergone rigorous self-examination and adaptation. Calls for reform and questions of legitimacy culminated in a comprehensive amendment of the ICSID Rules in 2022, setting new standards for transparency and efficiency.  

ICSID remains crucial in strengthening the international rule of law and building investor confidence as cross-border investments become increasingly important. Today, new challenges such as global conflicts, trade tensions, and rapid technological change make ICSID’s adaptable framework more relevant than ever, ensuring its ongoing role in supporting international investment and economic development.  

Let’s face it, PO1 doesn’t get the love and critical importance it deserves. Since, it is the first procedural order, it is wrongly perceived by some as a routine procedure. But behind its humble name lies serious influence. PO1 is where it all beings. It sets the tempo, tone, the language and the deadlines. From translation quirks to document production battles and cross-examination tactics, it lays out the game plan and the traps for the entire arbitration.  

This practical and slightly irreverent session dives into the real questions behind PO1: Should reply deadlines run from the Statement of Defence or the end of document production? Are “X days after” timelines your friend or your future headache? How much document production is realistic before counsel starts weeping into their binders?  

Whether it’s your first PO1 or your fiftieth, come sharpen your instincts, swap war stories, and maybe even laugh (or cry) a little at the document that quietly rules us all. 

Investment treaties are typically designed to shield foreign investors from government abuse and breach of international standards of protection. However, the inclusion of general exception clauses (which serve as the legal basis for general exceptions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), raises important questions about their effectiveness in the investment context.  

Some modern FTAs investment chapters contain exception clauses inspired by Article XX of the GATT, although they do not incorporate them. These clauses have been tested in a few investment arbitration cases, such as Eco-Oro v. Colombia and Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Peru. In both cases, the tribunals offered divergent interpretations, and in some instances, questioned the effect utile (practical effect) of the exceptions. These outcomes have exposed the uncertainty surrounding the legal effectiveness of such clauses, when weighed against obligations like fair and equitable treatment or indirect expropriation. 

In contrast, newer FTAs like CETA, the CPTPP and the EU–Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement introduce more targeted exceptions, particularly for environmental and climate-related measures. This panel will explore whether these provisions are being applied in accordance with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the intent of the treaty parties, or whether they are being treated as if they were never included at all.  

Join us as we examine how general exceptions are being drafted, applied in arbitration and whether they offer a real path toward a more balanced and sustainable investment framework. 

Originally developed to support impecunious parties unable to pursue their claims, third-party funding has evolved from a niche practice to a not uncommon option in international arbitration. While third-party funding may facilitate access to justice and improved financial management, critics also raise concerns about confidentiality, excessive influence from funders in the arbitration, and ethical boundaries.  

As the funding industry matures, arbitral institutions and rule-makers have responded by adopting arbitration rules focused on transparency and disclosure of the claim being funded by a third-party and the name of the funder in order to avoid any conflicts. Consideration to the disclosure of the funding agreement has also been given in the arbitration rules of various centers.   

This panel aims to provide a timely and critical examination of how third-party funding is reshaping international arbitration. The discussion will highlight recent institutional reforms and practical experiences from funders, counsel and arbitrators. Panelists will explore key questions: How are arbitral rules adapting to the realities of funding? What standards of disclosure apply? How should tribunals manage risk of bias or inequality of arms? And how are funders themselves evolving in response to legal and regulatory shifts?   

Annulment proceedings have become an important and increasingly frequent feature of investor–state dispute settlement. In 2021, Baker Botts, in collaboration with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, completed its first annulment study. That project examined ICSID annulment cases and found that annulments were not only rare, but growing rarer, even as the number of applications steadily increased. 

As part of Washington, D.C. Arbitration Week, Baker Botts will present the findings from its second annulment study. This undertaking is a world-first, with the team reviewing more than 200 ICSID annulment proceedings and over 150 non-ICSID investor–state annulment proceedings across 16 jurisdictions. The event will highlight key trends in both categories, with particular attention to the different approaches adopted by national courts and ICSID annulment committees when faced with applications for annulment. 

Big news, fam:  

Millennials — i.e., the last generation to have an analog childhood and the first digital natives — are no longer just scribbling notes from the second chair. They are now leading case teams; sitting as (gasp!) arbitrators; and increasingly shaping the culture and language of our field.  

In parallel, Baby Boomers and Gen X are also beginning next chapters, and the Zoomer generation is entering the profession. This is a seismic shift, and it’s time to explore what to make of it.  

In this session, we kick off conversations that are sure to continue beside the water coolers of the future, making use of a blend of retro and modern tools to enable audience members (who so wish) to participate in the fun. Leading the discussion is a multi-generational panel with experience in academia, civil service, private practice, institutions, and everything from assisting an arbitrator to being one.  

Join us for a “download” of recent practical history and an exciting look ahead to international arbitration’s next era.   

While treaty-based claims have long dominated proceedings at ICSID, contractual disputes between States and foreign investors are gaining renewed attention. At a moment when investor-State dispute settlement reform intensify, could we be witnessing a shift toward contract-based arbitration within the ICSID system?   

This panel will explore whether arbitration of contractual investor-State claims is truly on the rise and what this development could mean for the future of investment arbitration. Are parties turning to contracts as more flexible, depoliticized vehicles for dispute resolution? What are the legal, jurisdictional and quantum implications of bringing purely contractual claims before ICSID? How do these cases differ from treaty-based disputes in terms of standards, remedies and State defenses?   

This discussion will explore the evolving role of contracts in a system predominantly invoking treaties as instruments of consent to investment arbitration and assess whether they represent a complement to treaty-based arbitration or a challenge in a rapidly shifting dispute resolution landscape. 

International arbitration would be futile without meaningful enforcement. The European Court of Justice’s rulings in Achmea and Komstroy have disrupted expectations and continue to reverberate across jurisdictions, raising complex questions about the relationship between domestic regional law and States’ international obligations. 

In the United States, those tensions have produced sharply diverging rulings. In NextEra and 9REN, the D.C. District Court rejected Spain’s argument that EU law rendered its consent to arbitrate invalid, treating it instead as a merits defence rather than a jurisdictional bar under the FSIA. By contrast, in Blasket, the same court sided with Spain, finding no valid agreement to arbitrate under EU law and deeming Spain immune. 

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed Blasket and affirmed NextEra and 9REN in relevant part, holding that Spain had entered into an arbitration agreement through the Energy Charter Treaty. Spain’s objection that it had not consented to arbitrate disputes with the specific investors was treated as a merits issue, not one depriving the court of jurisdiction. 

Appellate courts in the United States, however, remain divided on whether sovereign consent to arbitrate is a jurisdictional threshold or a merits issue under the FSIA—an uncertainty that challenges the predictability of the U.S. as a forum for award enforcement. With a petition for certiorari now pending in Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments, the Supreme Court of the United States may soon decide whether to resolve this split or allow uncertainty to persist. Meanwhile, in other common law jurisdictions, namely Australia and the U.K., the highest courts have upheld ICSID awards as enforceable, in particular in Blasket, 9REN Holding and NextEra v Spain and Micula v Romania, respectively. 

Across many jurisdictions, mining disputes are growing more intense as three forces come together: the economics needed to sustain large, long-term projects, increasingly strict environmental and climate regulations, and the “social license to operate,” meaning the trust and acceptance of local and Indigenous communities. 

These disputes often revolve around issues such as permits and land access, water use, biodiversity and tailings management, cultural heritage, community impacts, and the knock-on effects of regulatory changes on sunk investments. Conflicts rarely stay in one forum. They can spread through administrative reviews, domestic courts, commercial arbitration over construction and supply contracts, and, in some cases, investor–State proceedings when treaty protections are triggered. This raises difficult questions about overlapping proceedings and enforcement. 

The central tensions are familiar but evolving: how to balance contractual stability with new sustainability standards, how to align investors’ legitimate expectations with a State’s duty to regulate in the public interest, how to turn promises of community benefits into measurable outcomes, and how to design remedies that are legally enforceable and credible on the ground—financially viable, environmentally sound, and socially accepted. 

This session will map the terrain, clarify key vocabulary and recurring pressure points, and open a comparative conversation about emerging patterns across jurisdictions: what they mean for counsel, companies, communities, and States, and where the field may be heading next. 

As technological progress brings space exploration by private companies —and not only States— is the new reality, the question of how space resources such as lunar minerals, asteroid metals and other celestial materials can be accessed, utilized and governed has emerged as a pressing issue in international law.  

The Artemis Accords, led by the United States and signed by a growing number of spacefaring nations, aim to promote peaceful exploration and use of outer space through cooperation and shared principles. However, they have also sparked legal and political debate about whether they reflect or challenge the existing framework established by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, particularly with regard to the non-appropriation principle and the equitable use of space resources.  

This panel will examine the legal, political and economic implications of space resource exploitation, with particular reference to the Artemis Accords. It will consider whether the Accords signal the emergence of a new legal framework in space law or reflect a unilateral interpretation of existing space law. The panel may also analyze how these accords might shape State practice, contribute to the development of customary international law, and influence future multilateral agreements involving Space law.   

Key questions will include ownership rights over extracted resources, liability for activities conducted in space, the involvement of private actors and the availability of dispute resolution mechanisms beyond Earth. Bringing together leading experts from the space industry, the panel will engage in a forward-looking discussion on the governance of space resources at a time of renewed exploration, commercial innovation and geospatial and geopolitical competition.  

High costs, complex procedures, and limited resources can prevent small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from accessing effective dispute settlement mechanisms, leaving them at a disadvantage compared to larger investors. 

While larger corporations may have the legal and financial muscle to pursue claims, SMEs frequently lack access to affordable legal advice, risk mitigation tools or information about their rights. Recent discussions in the UNCITRAL Working Group III along with regional treaty reform efforts such as CETA have highlighted the need to adapt dispute settlement mechanisms to better reflect the realities faced by SMEs. Proposed reforms include the creation of advisory centres, streamlined procedures such as appointing a sole arbitrator, adopting shorter timelines, and implementing enhanced transparency in both procedural rules and third-party funding.    

This panel will delve into how investment dispute settlement systems can evolve to provide meaningful access for SMEs. Bringing together experts from arbitral institutions and the private sector, this session will examine current barriers that inhibit SME participation. The panel will also evaluate the practical viability of proposed reforms. This discussion will also assess the potential roles of both host and home States in supporting SME claimants. A forward-looking dialogue may also identify both short-term improvements and long-term structural shifts that could broaden access to justice in investment arbitration.