The Contents of Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 42, Issue 5 (October 2025)

Key Takeaways

• State immunity not central to ICSID award enforcement
• SGCA decision blurs arbitrator copy‑editing limits
• AI guidelines aim to prevent hallucination‑driven errors
• English AA 2025 reforms tighten appeal evidence rules
• Dutch DAA 2015 reduces set‑aside success rates

Summary

The October 2025 issue of the Journal of International Arbitration presents five scholarly contributions that examine pivotal developments in arbitration law. Darren Leow argues that state‑immunity questions arise only at the execution stage of ICSID awards, not during recognition. Kanishka Bhukya critiques the Singapore Court of Appeal’s new standards that blur permissible copying and equality of information for arbitrators. Dan Perera and Aaron Tan assess emerging AI guidelines aimed at curbing hallucinations and preserving due process. Additional articles evaluate the English Arbitration Act’s 2025 reforms and the Dutch Arbitration Act’s success in reducing set‑aside applications.

Pulse Analysis

The interaction between domestic state‑immunity statutes and the enforcement of ICSID awards is gaining scholarly attention as courts grapple with the proper jurisdictional threshold. Leow’s article underscores that immunity concerns should be confined to the execution phase, urging tribunals and litigants to focus on the arbitration exception in the State Immunity Act rather than relying on ambiguous waiver language in Article 54(1). This nuanced view could streamline enforcement proceedings and reduce litigation costs for sovereign respondents.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly infiltrating arbitration workflows, from arbitrator selection algorithms to predictive analytics. Perera and Tan highlight the double‑edged nature of this trend: while AI promises efficiency gains, unregulated use risks “hallucinations” that jeopardize due process and award validity. New guidelines from bodies such as the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Centre and CIArb aim to institutionalise safeguards—confidentiality protocols, error‑checking mechanisms, and clear attribution standards—thereby fostering responsible innovation without compromising the integrity of arbitral outcomes.

Parallel reforms in English and Dutch arbitration law illustrate a broader move toward procedural precision. The English Arbitration Act’s 2025 amendments narrow the scope of appellate review, limiting courts to previously undiscoverable evidence and reinforcing finality. Meanwhile, empirical data on the Dutch Arbitration Act 2015 reveal a dramatic drop in successful set‑aside applications, indicating that legislative tightening can effectively curb protracted challenges. Together, these developments reshape the risk calculus for parties, counsel, and institutions, emphasizing the need for strategic adaptation in a rapidly evolving arbitration landscape.