Events 
Resources 
News News
Read our latest news, stories and articles
Key Takeaways: JAA x ASA Conference @JIAW25
Andrew Halliwell (Anderson Mori & Tomotsune)
On 25 November 2025, as part of Japan International Arbitration Week, the Swiss Arbitration Association co-hosted a conference, in Tokyo, together with the Japan Association of Arbitrators (JAA) and the Ministry of Justice of Japan (MOJ), on the “Impact of the Current Upheaval in International Trade.”
Setting the tone for the day’s insightful discussions, Felix Dasser (Homburger, and Honorary ASA President) gave warm and illuminating welcome remarks highlighting the timeliness of the theme.
Keynote: Arbitrating Trade Disputes
Gary Born (WilmerHale) delivered the keynote, “Arbitrating Trade Disputes: New Approaches to New Challenges,” in which he surveyed recent developments in international arbitration. Against a backdrop of increased volatility in international trade, he emphasised the importance of legal frameworks that promote predictability, neutrality, and finality as parties seek dependable dispute resolution mechanisms.
International Trade in a New World Order: How to Solve Tariff-Related Disputes
In a panel moderated by Yoshimi Ohara (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu), speakers Andrés Jana (Jana & Gil), Sanjeev Kapoor (Khaitan & Co), Lars Markert (Nishimura & Asahi), and Huawei Sun (Zhong Lun) examined tariff‑related disputes and sanctions in a shifting geopolitical landscape. Jana noted a discernible move from multilateral rules to bilateral leverage and addressed ways in which tribunals can steer affected parties toward commercially reasonable outcomes. Sanjeev highlighted the need for precise drafting, particularly force majeure clauses, to address sanctions and tariffs, especially in jurisdictions lacking appropriate statutory provisions. Lars observed that deglobalisation and heightened investment screening have potential to reshape risk profiles, citing the recently launched US DOJ Trade Fraud Task Force. From a China perspective, Huawei considered the geo-politicization of economic security, referencing the Nexperia case to illustrate how regulatory conflicts may disturb commercial certainty and create regulatory clashes.
Suitable Venues for Commercial and Investment Disputes in a Time Where Arbitration is Under Attack
The afternoon panel, moderated by Michael Mroczek (Nozomi Sogo) included contributions from Cecilia Carrara (Legance), Felix Dasser (Homburger), Tony Dymond (Debevoise & Plimpton), and Aiko Hosokawa (Oh‑Ebashi LPC & Partners), explored what defines an arbitration‑friendly seat. An audience poll ranked neutrality first, followed by: enforceability; a supportive judiciary; and low annulment risk; with speed ranked as less decisive. The speakers unpacked neutrality as encompassing political neutrality, lack of prejudice, and lack of home advantage, and highlighted how neutral seat options may be narrowing amid global instability. Singapore and Hong Kong remain leading Asian seats, with Hong Kong benefitting from the Arrangement on interim measures with Mainland courts. Sanctions were noted as potentially limiting venue options and affecting access to justice, while jurisdictions with more liberal regimes continue to offer alternatives. The panel also stressed that the speed and cost of recognition, enforcement, and potential set‑aside proceedings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.
Choice of Law and Forum in International Trade Contracts
The final session, chaired by Kevin Kim (Peter & Kim) with speakers Christopher Boog (Schellenberg Wittmer), Tony Andriotis (DLA Piper), Andrew Pullen (Fountain Court Chambers), and Seri Takahashi (Mori Hamada & Matsumoto), addressed lessons learned on governing law and forum choices in trade contracts. The discussion highlighted differences between civil and common law approaches to interim relief, as well as specific performance, and penalties; the latter of which are more routine in civil law jurisdictions but generally exceptional and discretionary in common law. The panel noted that tribunals’ willingness to grant relief is shaped not only by applicable law but also by arbitrators’ legal backgrounds and procedural sensibilities. Divergent approaches to contractual interpretation – objective in common law, more subjective in civil law – carry implications for evidence and document production. The treatment of international instruments such as the CISG was also examined, with shifting attitudes noted among Japanese parties.
Hiroyuki Tezuka (Nishimura & Asahi, and JAA Vice President) concluded the discussions with warm and considered closing remarks, reflecting the tone of the day’s proceedings.
The day concluded with a well‑attended gala dinner, providing a forum for continued discussion and networking, with a series of excellent speeches.