HSF Kramer Dubai hosts event on developments in arbitration

On 11 November, the HSF Kramer Dubai Disputes team, together with visiting international partners, hosted its annual Dubai Arbitration Week event: “Developments in Arbitration in 2025: Regional and Global Perspectives.”

The session continued the dynamic speed-networking format that has become a hallmark of our Dubai Arbitration Week and Riyadh International Dispute Week events, creating an interactive environment where attendees are able to exchange insights on the latest developments shaping arbitration both regionally and globally.

This year’s event introduced an enhanced structure. Each of the five discussion tables featured two HSF Kramer speakers who, at the start of the event, provided attendees with opposing perspectives on each of the deliberately provocative topics by way of a quick 90-second overview.  Attendees then rotated around each of the tables to partake in five 10-minute discussions.

The topics explored were:

1. Do international parties still prefer arbitral institutions based outside of the Middle East?
2. Is mediation appropriate for the Middle East? 
3. Will AI ever be good enough to replace lawyers?
4. Are English barristers ruining civil law arbitration?
5. Should experts be appointed by the tribunal and not the parties?

After the five sessions concluded, attendees had the opportunity to vote on whether they agreed they agreed or disagreed with the proposition, following which, the results and key themes coming out of the discussions were shared.

All of the topics provoked lively debate and provided some interesting insights into how arbitration practitioners view some of the key issues shaping arbitration in 2025.  The main talking points on each topic are summarised below, together with the results of the votes.

Do international parties still prefer arbitral institutions based outside of the Middle East?

The prevailing view among attendees was that international parties continue to favour arbitral institutions based outside of the Middle East. This preference is rooted in the longstanding reputation and familiarity of the leading international institutions. 

For now, the fact that regional arbitral institutional rules align with international best practices and case management teams are highly experienced has not been enough to shift preferences. However, the consensus was that this dynamic could evolve over time as regional institutions build a stronger track record and this trend is already emerging among Russian and Chinese parties, who increasingly select regional centres and seats in response to geopolitical developments.

Is mediation appropriate for the Middle East?

There were particularly strong views on this topic, with one attendee even asking why this was even up for debate because the answer was clearly yes!

As the conversation unfolded, a clear consensus emerged: mediation could in many cases be highly effective, depending on the nature of the disputes and the willingness of the parties involved. However, where a dispute was deeply personal, or where the parties' relationship had broken down beyond repair, there was a view that since it is a process built on consent and cooperation, mediation may not be worthwhile.

Attendees were quick to highlight mediation’s unique advantages. One significant benefit discussed was how mediation allowed for creative solutions, which go beyond monetary relief. For example, a settlement might combine a financial compensatory payment with future business opportunities. As a result, a mediator could help the parties reframe the discussion and explore options they might never have considered during earlier settlement discussions.  This was seen to be a particularly attractive proposition in the Middle East where many businesses are family-owned, relationships can be deeply personal, and preserving ties can be just as valuable as resolving the dispute itself.   

Cultural context also featured prominently in the discussions. Mediation was seen to closely align with the concept of the Majlis that is at the heart of Middle Eastern society, therefore further enforcing its suitability as a form of dispute resolution to be used in the region.

Ultimately, it was agreed that parties should not inherently be averse to the idea of mediation – to the contrary, with time and education, participants thought that mediation could become a mainstream feature of dispute resolution across the region.

Will AI ever be good enough to replace lawyers?

While attendees generally agreed that AI is a powerful tool that, when used appropriately, can enhance a lawyer's efficiency, there was less certainty about whether AI will ever be good enough to completely replace lawyers. Many attendees raised concerns about the current limitations of the technology, including the predominant issue of "hallucination", wherein AI is prone to inventing case law and documents that do not actually exist. In the context of AI acting as an arbitrator, there was an overwhelming sense that people do not trust AI to make decisions and that the unsuccessful party would, in most (if not all) cases want to have the decision reviewed by a human being, making use of the technology particularly unsuitable for arbitration given its limited right of appeal. 

Furthermore, the group was concerned that the use of AI decision makers would simply lead to law firms running extensive simulations to determine a "guaranteed" way to successfully present their client's case, potentially making the process less equitable, particularly where there may be a disparity in resources between the parties. 

However, while the dominant view was one of scepticism, a number of attendees were very optimistic about AI's ability to overtake human lawyers in the near future, indicating that the "Great AI Debate" is far from over.

Are English barristers undermining civil law arbitration?

The discussion quickly moved beyond the initial question to explore the deeper contrasts between common law and civil law approaches in arbitration. Common law’s adversarial model was praised for its rigorous advocacy and ability to fully test evidence, but attendees noted it can lead to inefficiencies such as extensive disclosure and lengthy hearings. By contrast, the civil law inquisitorial approach was seen as more streamlined, allowing tribunals to identify key issues early and avoid unnecessary complexity, although some felt it risks confirmation bias and limiting the parties’ ability to fully present their case.

The prevailing view was that common law barristers are highly adaptable and able to tailor their approach to the governing law and procedural framework. In fact, their involvement can bring the best of both worlds: the rigor and advocacy of common law combined with the efficiency and focus of civil law.

The overall consensus was that common law barristers are not “ruining” civil law arbitration – they are contributing to a more balanced, hybrid model that reflects the global nature of modern disputes. This adaptability was seen as a strength, enabling parties and tribunals to achieve fair, efficient outcomes in increasingly complex cross-border cases.

Should experts be appointed by the tribunal and not the parties?

The consensus during the event was clear: experts should be party-appointed. Attendees considered that having party-appointed experts afforded each party the ability to have a fair and equal opportunity to develop its case with expert input, allowing the tribunal to fully understand each party's position.  Moreover, it was noted that at the stage that experts are appointed, the parties would have a better idea of the issues in dispute and therefore be more qualified than the tribunal to select the necessary experts.  There was a general view that any concerns about bias of party-appointed experts were overstated, especially given the safeguards of reply reports and robust cross-examination. 

By contrast, attendees considered that with tribunal-appointed experts there was a real concern that tribunals would defer key issues to them, which would undermine the tribunal’s decision-making role. 

Nevertheless, participants acknowledged that tribunal-appointed experts can be useful in select circumstances – such as when parties can agree on narrow, specific issues to be submitted to a single expert to save time and costs. In highly complex cases, or where the positions of party-appointed experts are too far apart, tribunals may also benefit from having an additional independent expert to help bridge the gap. 

Insights

While the views summarised above are those of a small group of people, they provide an interesting insight into how arbitration practitioners, including arbitrators, in-house counsel, local counsel, barristers, and experts, see the key issues currently affecting arbitration in the Middle East.  It will be interesting to see how these issues develop over the next few years, including whether mediation takes off in the region, how AI develops, and whether there is a shift to arbitral institutions based in the Middle East.

For anyone that missed the session and would like to participate in future, we will be hosting a similar event at Riyadh International Disputes Week 2026. Details will be circulated soon.