9th Cambridge Arbitration Days

Citil Attorney Partnership


Since its founding in 2010, Citil Attorney Partnership has been delivering consulting and litigation services to its clients doing business on a worldwide scale. Citil Attorney Partnership has conducted operations from its Istanbul headquarters and its staff comprises nearly 50 members. Through the “business partnership model” we have established and contacted partner offices in Asia, North America, and EMEA. By integrating a comprehensive understanding of Turkish jurisprudence and international law, we formulate legal and practical resolutions that effectively address the dynamic requirements of our clients with international goals. International investments and trade, data protection and cybersecurity law, real estate, international arbitration, corporate law, contracts law, litigation and dispute resolution services, international crimes and white collar offenses, intellectual property, and administrative law are among our particular areas of expertise.
First of all, it was stated by the speakers that the headline includes different subjects from e- commerce platforms (Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)) to remote hearings also along with new technologies (such as blockchain and AI).
Turkey Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

PANEL I: Making International Arbitration Fit for the Digital Age

Moderator: Mr Sam Brown (Clifford Chance, Senior Associate)


Dr Sara Hourani
Middlesex University London
Senior Lecturer in Law

Mr Rupert Reece

Mr Leith Ben Ammar
Greenberg Traurig
Of Counsel

Mr William George
Cryptoeconomics Researcher

First of all, it was stated by the speakers that the headline includes different subjects from e- commerce platforms (Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)) to remote hearings also along with new technologies (such as blockchain and AI).

Furthermore, during the panel, self-executing smart contracts were described as automated commercial agreements that are executed contract without human interaction by transferring digital assets, updating accounts etc. and a couple of examples were given, such as Kleros and government backed UKJT Digital Dispute Resolution Rules.

However, it was also pointed out that there are at least several potential problems with this trend. For instance, parties' right to an oral hearing or a hearing could be subject of such as problem. Moreover, subjects such as the reasoning of an arbitral award and choosing an arbitrator were named as potential problems of this trend.

Further, it was stated that AI will not be replacing lawyers anytime soon, but it will change the scope of lawyers' work. Nowadays, technology assisted reviews, summaries, chronologies, early case assessments etc are offered by the AI.

Later, the distinction between public blockchains and private blockchains was explained, with public blockchains being accessible by everyone and decentralised, however, private blockchains are accessed by the invitations and are more centralised. Additionally, the requirements for the on-chain enforcement of two options were outlined:

  • First option:
    • A crypto wallet by a third-party oracle,
    • The buyer to make an advance payment in that crypto wallet,
    • A contract between the three which defines when and how the third-party oracle enforces the award on the wallet.
  • Second Option:
    • The identity of the buyer and seller,
    • A valid arbitration agreement between the buyer and the seller,
    • A valid award under the New York Convention.

With regards to the comparison of Kleros to traditional ODR, it was claimed that:

  • Kleros is faster and cheaper.
  • Information is open where the traditional ODR is confidential.
  • Arbitrators have financial interests whereas in traditional ODR the arbitrators do not have financial interests.

PANEL II: Investment Arbitration and Energy Transition

Moderator: Mr Javier Echeverri (Wordstone Dispute Resolution, Senior Associate)


Ms Alice Osman
Arnold &Porter
Senior Associate

Mr Alexander Leventhal
Quinn Emanuel
Paris Partner

Ms Emilie Gonin
Brick Court Chambers

Ms Ceyda Knoebel
Gibson Dunn
Of Counsel

ISDS received criticism from time to time, especially about transparency, and nowadays, public health and environmental concerns. It was pointed out that tension generally arises when it comes to comparing the states' right to regulate in accordance with the public interest, such as public health and securities, to the ISDS. A great example of this is Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7. In addition, sometimes human rights and environmental obligations are used as a way to avoid obligations against the investor. Although, tribunals are careful about human rights and environmental obligations defences. It is generally accepted that states should be able to show that the measures were taken in order to comply with the human rights obligations.

Also, sometimes, it is possible for third parties to bring human rights obligations rather than states, for example, Italy did not invoke human rights obligation in the Rockhopper case. Even though counterclaims against investors by the states or activists are also possible, only two counterclaims were successful until now:

  • Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5
  • Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26

Also, with regard to the obligations regarding human rights and the environment, on 29 March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States with respect to climate change.

European Commission proposed to withdraw from the ECT after a long list of member states withdrew or proposed to withdraw from the ECT during the last couple of years. However, it was pointed out that even though one of the reasons of the EU's intention to withdraw was ECT's incompatibility with the obligations of the states under the Paris Agreement, most of the cases submitted under ECT were regarding renewable energies.

PANEL III: Access to Justice and Costs of Arbitration

Moderator: Ms Alina Papanastasiou (Three Crowns, Associate)


Dr Crina Baltag
Stockholm University
Associate Professor in International Arbitration

Ms Ayse Yazir Acii
Bench Walk Advisors
Global Head of Origination

Mr Ashkhan Candey
Managing Partner

Mr Richard Trinick
Three Crowns

Mr Kartik Sharma

The panel started by stating that the concept of 'access to justice' was only brought during the 19th century, even though recoverability of the cost is one of the major concerns in arbitration nowadays, for instance, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre issued a note to suggest the arbitrators to take costs into account. Furthermore, it was stated by panellists that the seat of arbitration is one of the most important aspects to consider regarding the costs and approaching the disputes commercially can make the clients find you more relatable. Some aspects of the dispute, such as the amount of documents that need to be reviewed and the amount of money in dispute may affect the cost of the arbitration.

PANEL IV: Striving for 'Perfect' Arbitration Legislation

Moderator: Ms Srishti Jain (Keidan Harrison, Managing Associate)


Ms Hannah Ambrose
Herbert Smith Freehills

Dr Mladen Stojiljkovic
Nater Dallafior

Mr Maximilian Bülau
Hengeler Mueller

The proposed English Arbitration Act provides some advantages but of course, also comes with aspects that are widely debated. For instance, Swiss law does not provide a two-step system whereas the proposed English Arbitration Act provides that the law governing law of the arbitration agreement will be the law of the seat unless the parties expressly agree on another law. Swiss law provides that the arbitration agreement is valid under whether the law governing the contract, the law of the seat, or the law expressly stated.

The proposed English Arbitration Act also aims to regulate the topic of disclosure by the arbitrators. This topic has been the subject of some interesting decisions, such as Hayat v. Radisson Hotels where it was stated the fact that the arbitrator failed to disclose something that should have been does not necessarily mean that the arbitrator is biased.


Mr Gary Born
Chair of the International Arbitration Practice Group at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

The 9th Cambridge Arbitration Day ended with a keynote speech given by Mr Gary Born, and during his speech, Mr Gary Born pointed out recent developments via different decisions with regard to key points on arbitral proceedings.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More