International Dispute Settlement: Current Trends — Where Next?

On 28 August 2025, as part of the Singapore Convention Week 2025, the International and Comparative Law Research Center (ICLRC) held a panel discussion entitled “International Dispute Settlement: Current Trends — Where Next?”.

The Asian Academy of International Law was the Information & Media Partner of the event.

The panel discussion aimed to explore current and emerging trends, including possible reforms, across various forms of international dispute resolution in inter-State, investor-State, and commercial domains.

The list of panellists included experts in international law and international dispute settlement:

• Roman Kolodkin — Judge at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Advisor on Public International Law at the ICLRC (participating and speaking in his personal capacity)
• Alina Miron — Professor at the University of Angers in France and Partner at FAR Avocats;
• Chin Heng Ong — Senior Director and Senior State Counsel at the International Affairs Division of the Attorney-General’s Chambers of Singapore;
• Francis Xavier — the Regional Head of Disputes Group at the Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP;
• Xiaoxue Ji — Senior Legal Officer and Head of Negotiation and Research Division of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) Preparatory Office.

The discussion was moderated by Egor Fedorov – Head of Research Projects (Law of the Sea) at the ICLRC. Welcome remarks were offered by Yulia Mullina — General Director at the ICLRC.

The event was attended, among others, by representatives of State authorities, lawyers from international law firms, arbitrators and mediators, representatives of dispute resolution organisations and bodies, as well as academic institutions.

As a matter of introduction to the head topic of the panel discussion, Mr. Fedorov noted that settlement of disputes is one of the key functions of law and one could see how — primarily over the last century — the system of dispute resolution in inter-State, investor-State and commercial domains had been developing. At the same time, as he pointed out, some means of dispute settlement were more percipient to the needs and challenges of time, and some were not, which resulted in certain mechanisms and bodies passing to history and some new international courts and tribunals emerging and flourishing.

Proceeding to the discussion of inter-State dispute settlement, the moderator referred to the increasing caseload of universal and regional courts and tribunals and a trend since the 1980s and 1990s towards “judicialization of international relations”. At the same time, more recently a number of criticisms had been addressed to international courts and tribunals, irrespective of whether they were universal or regional, permanent or ad hoc, general or specialized.

With this background set, speaking on the current trends and challenges in inter-State dispute settlement, Judge Roman Kolodkin drew the audience’s attention to the increasing interest of States from different parts of the world in utilizing international dispute settlement mechanisms generally, but also sometimes even as a part of the so-called “lawfare”. At the same time, Judge Kolodkin noted the divergent approaches of States towards international courts and tribunals, whereby some States place their hopes on international courts while the attitude of others reveals a certain level of distrust. Contemplating on the latter, Judge Kolodkin pointed out the central role played by States’ consent in international law, with it being a foundation of international courts’ jurisdiction in particular. In this context, he highlighted a trend towards a growing interest of States in promoting and using alternative dispute settlement means. Concluding his presentation, Judge Kolodkin quoted the recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, which stated that international law has “an important but ultimately limited role” in resolving the problem of climate change — in this regard, he posed a rhetorical question whether the same important, but ultimately limited role generally belongs to international courts and tribunals in inter-State dispute settlement.

Continuing on with the discussion of trends and challenges in inter-State dispute settlement, Professor Alina Miron began her presentation by drawing on the interplay between recourse to international inter-State litigation and the changing landscape of international relations in the era of multilateralism, which at the moment reveals a certain crisis in it. In this context, speaking of the role of international courts, Professor Miron noted a shift from traditional bilateral dispute settlement to a broader role of participation in international justice, evidencing a remaining hope for the rule of law being upheld by courts at international level. The latter, as suggested by Professor Miron, must be done within the limits of jurisdiction of international courts and, therefore, States’ consent to their jurisdiction must be established. In noting this, she expressed a view that overall international courts have managed to maintain a very rigorous analysis of consent by States. To substantiate the statement, Professor Miron brought in three examples concerning international courts’ practice and their role in relation to (1) “community interests” (or erga omnes) cases, (2) interventions by third States, and (3) advisory proceedings.

Responding to an additional question from the moderator on whether international courts and tribunals represent a “beacon of hope” in the face of sometimes ineffective multilateralism, Judge Kolodkin and Professor Miron once again noted an important — though limited — role of international courts, whereby the latter may not substitute States as authors of the law.

Turning to the trends and challenges in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), Mr. Fedorov observed that the legal framework for ISDS has been significantly developing since the 1960s but more recently the ISDS system has been under serious scrutiny by the international community. Particularly, he referred to the ongoing debate on the needs of possible reform of the system in the Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

In relation to the above, Mr. Chin Heng Ong provided an overview of ISDS statistics and trends over the years (case-loads, amounts claimed, win-lose rates, top claimant nationalities and respondent States, and costs and durations of cases). Mr. Ong then proceeded with an analysis of the criticism that has been voiced against ISDS, mentioning among others the lack of coherence and predictability of arbitral awards, concerns about arbitrator independence and impartiality, and high costs and duration. Against this backdrop, Mr. Ong described in detail the ongoing discussions on the ISDS reform at the UNCITRAL Working Group III, touching upon the reform options as supported by various States and groups. These included procedural and cross-cutting issues, possible design options for standing multilateral mechanism(-s), as well as the multilateral instrument to implement ISDS reform.

Further discussing the investor-State dispute settlement, Mr. Francis Xavier expressed the view that, from a practical perspective, the biggest problem with the ISDS lies in the high degree of uncertainty created by the system. In this regard, Mr. Xavier conveyed that what is needed is a coherent approach towards major standards in international investment law, which could potentially be developed through a somewhat “Best Practices Guide” in interpreting common standards. To illustrate a need for the latter, he referred to the recent practice of Australia, India, and Indonesia with respect to exiting previously existing bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and concluding new BITs on more restrictive grounds.

Acknowledging the criticism and ongoing transformation processes as noted by Mr. Ong and Mr. Xavier, Mr. Fedorov posed a question to both panellists on whether by resembling national courts more and more (due to greater control of States over ISDS, general institutionalization and formalization of arbitration, the changing approach towards confidentiality issues, etc.) investment and commercial arbitration may eventually deter business from using such means of dispute resolution. Mr. Ong agreed with his observations about the trends and called the attention of the audience to the ultimate need to strike a balance between interests of all stakeholders in dispute resolution. Alluding to the importance of sticking to traditional investment and commercial arbitration, Mr. Xavier noted the role that could be played by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) with its “tailor-made” rules for investor-State disputes.

Carrying on the discussion to the role of mediation in resolution of international disputes involving different actors, the moderator noted the existence of the Singapore Convention on Mediation and the recent adoption of the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed Convention), questioning whether there is any link or certain interplay between the two instruments.

Taking the floor, Ms. Xiaoxue Ji pointed out that the IOMed is the first treaty-based intergovernmental organisation dedicated solely to mediation, the idea of which came about due to a growing demand and an institutional gap in mediation. In relation to that, Ms. Ji suggested that the Singapore Convention on Mediation and the IOMed Convention are mutually reinforcing, whereby the former provides a framework for cross-border enforcement of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, while the latter is there to strengthen the availability and quality of mediation itself by offering an institutional platform for it. Therefore, the two instruments together, in her view, should contribute to the use of mediation as the first choice for dispute resolution by different actors. Ms. Ji then proceeded with the discussion of advantages of the IOMed as an institutional platform, mentioning, in particular, (1) the strong political commitment to mediating international disputes, (2) the treaty-based nature of the institution fostering the harmonisation of international mediation law, (3) the credibility and capability of the institution, as well as (4) the offered possibility of collaboration on best practices and capacity-building between different institutions in the field. Ms. Ji concluded her presentation by listing the key features of the IOMed Convention and highlighting the next steps towards IOMed establishment.

Noting the growing interest to ADR means, including mediation, Mr. Fedorov pointed to the issue of transparency and an ever-enhanced scrutiny over inter-State and  Iinvestor-State disputes and, therefore, questioning whether — by being confidential in nature — mediation might be confronted once again with public criticism and pressure for the lack of transparency. In response, Ms. Ji reasserted the essential value of confidentiality in mediation but recognised the need for mindful approach to transparency especially in investor-State dispute settlement. To address this issue, Ms. Ji introduced the current practices and offered a view on possible steps that could be taken, including (1) the carefully-designed exceptions to confidentiality, (2) ensuring the adequate flexibility and a margin of discretion for States in mediating disputes, allowing States to take appropriate measures that best fit their needs and meet their own domestic requirements for transparency and public scrutiny, and (3) the institutional support in administering mediation of international disputes, in particular the role of the IOMed as a reliable platform for mediation and exploration of best practices.

The Q&A session followed the presentations by panellists and additional questions of the moderator.

As such, one of the audience participants noted an additional issue for which the existing ISDS system has been criticised — the issue of assessment of damages, the methods of assessment used by tribunals and unreasonably high awards against States coming out of that. The same participant also called upon the UNCITRAL Working Group III to focus on this matter and come up with certain guidelines. In response, Mr. Ong drew the attention of the audience to the UNCITRAL Working Group III mandate which concerns procedural reform of ISDS. The issue of assessment of damages, however, falls into a “grey area”, and there is no consensus of the members of the Working Group III on whether this is of procedural or substantive nature and, therefore, is within or outside the mandate of the Working Group.

Another comment from the audience highlighted the growing docket of the International Court of Justice and the resulting longer period of time required for the Court to dispose of cases before it. Taking the floor to respond, Professor Miron acknowledged the existing problem which could in part be rooted in the human and financial resources available to the Court, as well as in the increasing number of provisional measures proceedings and interventions by third States, which can be particularly burdensome. In her view, the discussion on the working methods of the ICJ is indeed required and one way to deal, for instance, with the provisional measures could be establishing a special chamber of the Court. Concluding her response, Professor Miron indicated that the existing problem is not just the fault of the Court as States themselves sometimes tend to prolong the cases.

In addition, the issue of diverse competence restraints in the IOMed Convention was also addressed by one of the audience participants, who was wondering how such restraints on mediation would be exercised in practice. Ms. Ji pointed out in response that the existing restraints were thought to allow States joining the IOMed Convention have flexibility in excluding certain categories of disputes from being mediated at the IOMed. She also noted that nothing in the IOMed Convention would prevent States from waiving such exclusion if they wished to submit a specific case to the IOMed.

Another member of the audience invited the views of the panelists on the issue of propriety of the same counsel participating in different domains of international settlement — inter-State, investor-State and commercial. Generally, the panelists viewed this as beneficial rather than hurting the proceedings but noted the importance of knowing the forum where counsel put their feet in.

Following on the discussion on counsel, the moderator also wondered if the question “Who are the judges?” has become more relevant recently for different dispute resolution mechanisms. With respect to standing international courts, Judge Kolodkin said he believed in the sufficiency of the existing criteria for formation of the panels of judges, such criteria having been carefully drafted by States in multilateral instruments. He also asked rhetorically whether the chambers formed within the standing international courts should meet the relevant criteria similar to those applied to the whole bench (such as the representation of the principal legal systems of the world and equitable geographical distribution — ICLRC).

Summarising the session, Mr. Fedorov noted that the trends and challenges as discussed by the panellists revealed certain ongoing re-evaluation processes with respect to the international dispute settlement system and expressed a hope that the discussion would stimulate further dialogue and thoughtful analysis of the ways forward on matters of concern in international dispute settlement.