Choice of Arbitral Seats in the World: What Has Changed and Where Does Washington, D.C. Stand?

Moderator:
James Boykin (Partner, Hughes Hubbard & Reed)

Panelists:
Csaba Rusnak (Founder, Sovereign Arbitration Advisors)
Nicolle Kownacki (Partner, White & Case)
Simon Consedine (Partner, Three Crowns)
Jonathan Ulrich (Of Counsel, Paul Hasting)

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.