The Contents of Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 43, Issue 2 (April 2026)

Key Takeaways

• First Procedural Orders set arbitration tone, affecting competence and award enforceability
• Party‑arbitrator agreements aim to harmonise arbitrator immunity across jurisdictions
• AI‑assisted track retains human oversight; AI‑exclusive track limited to sandbox pilots
• Mediation offers stakeholder‑centric resolution for just‑energy transition disputes
• Iran’s enforcement of foreign awards hinges on public‑policy and procedural formalities

Pulse Analysis

The latest Journal of International Arbitration issue underscores a pivotal shift toward procedural precision and technological integration in global dispute resolution. By dissecting the First Procedural Order, Björn Arp highlights how early tribunal directives can redefine party autonomy, competence‑competence doctrines, and the enforceability of awards. This analysis resonates with practitioners seeking to calibrate their procedural strategies to avoid costly jurisdictional challenges and to preserve the integrity of the arbitration agreement.

Equally transformative are the proposals on arbitrator liability and artificial intelligence. Edgardo Muñoz and Paulina Meza Barocio’s model party‑arbitrator agreements aim to bridge fragmented immunity regimes, offering a contractual blueprint that could reduce satellite litigation and enhance predictability. Meanwhile, Mikołaj and Krzysztof Sienicki’s two‑track AI framework balances efficiency gains with due‑process safeguards, aligning with emerging EU AI regulations and addressing practical threats such as prompt injection and data drift. These insights provide counsel to firms contemplating AI‑enhanced arbitration while preserving the New York Convention’s enforceability standards.

The issue also expands the scope of arbitration into public‑interest arenas. Tomoko Ishikawa’s examination of mediation for just‑energy transition disputes illustrates how alternative dispute resolution can reconcile climate goals with community rights, suggesting design principles that mitigate power imbalances and ensure transparency. Complementary articles on ethical arbitration, state recognition in investor‑state cases, and Iran’s award enforcement further illustrate the field’s complexity, offering practitioners actionable guidance on navigating jurisdictional nuances, ethical dilemmas, and enforcement hurdles in volatile markets. Together, these contributions chart a roadmap for more accountable, technologically adept, and socially responsive international arbitration.