Events 
Resources 
News News
Read our latest news, stories and articles
Is Geopolitics Changing What “Neutral” Means in International Arbitration?
Aliénor Dardel, Homburger
Neutrality has long been one of international arbitration’s defining promises. Yet in a world increasingly shaped by sanctions, national-security concerns and geopolitical divisions, that promise is being put to the test.
Does an arbitrator’s nationality matter more today? Can a process remain neutral in practice when geopolitical pressures affect appointments, participation or enforcement?
These questions have particular resonance in Switzerland, where neutrality is itself the subject of renewed public debate. We asked corporate users of arbitration – Leyla Orak Çelikboya of Pegasus Airlines and Wolfgang Junge of MSC – and an institutional representative, Korinna von Trotha of the Swiss Arbitration Centre, to share their perspectives.
“One of the defining advantages of arbitration has always been party autonomy and choice: the ability to choose the arbitrators, the seat and the procedural rules governing a dispute. This choice has traditionally reinforced parties’ confidence in the neutrality, independence and impartiality of the process.
Geopolitical fragmentation, however, has increased scrutiny of arbitrators’ nationalities and whether particular jurisdictions are perceived as neutral. Perceived neutrality may therefore determine not only how parties select the arbitrators, seat and institution, but whether they choose arbitration at all.
It should not be forgotten that, at its core, arbitration remains a decentralised system rooted in a centuries-old dispute resolution culture. That being said, recent developments highlight the importance of comprehensive disclosure by arbitrators, careful attention to independence and impartiality, and well-reasoned awards. These safeguards will become essential to preserve arbitration’s resilience and reduce the risk of annulment or non-enforcement faced with increased geopolitical concerns.
Foreseeability is paramount for businesses. Confidence in arbitration requires both a fair and predictable process and an award that can be recognised and enforced. Geopolitical considerations that put either at risk will directly shape companies’ choice of arbitrators, seat and institution.”
Leyla Orak Çelikboya, Head of Legal, Compliance and Dispute Resolution, Pegasus Airlines
“Geopolitics has not fundamentally changed how I assess “neutrality” or what I expect from a neutral arbitral process. What has changed, in my perception, is the attention parties pay to whether sanctions, export controls, banking restrictions, visa limitations or political tensions could affect the proceedings or the award’s enforceability. An arbitrator may satisfy the IBA Guidelines on independence and impartiality, and the process may be legally neutral, yet concerns may remain if external factors restrict access to counsel, witnesses or evidence, hinder payments, disrupt the tribunal or impede enforcement.I do not believe that an arbitrator’s nationality should become a proxy for neutrality. Sophisticated users continue to value experience, judgement and reputation above passports, which often reveal little about actual biases. That said, parties are understandably more attentive to circumstances that could create even the perception of partiality or trigger practical complications.
In the future, businesses will look for arbitral processes resilient to geopolitical change, rather than merely “neutral”. A genuinely neutral arbitration must remain accessible and operational despite global tensions and produce an enforceable award. The challenge is therefore not simply to preserve neutrality as a legal concept, but to ensure that it remains operational under real-world pressure.”
*The views expressed are personal and do not represent those of MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company.
Wolfgang Junge, Legal Director and Head of Dispute Resolution, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA*
“Geopolitical tensions are reshaping international arbitration, influencing not only the disputes parties bring but also their expectations of neutrality. For arbitral institutions, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity to reaffirm the foundations of trusted dispute resolution.
Traditionally, neutrality has been understood through equal treatment of parties, procedural fairness, and independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Today, however, parties increasingly scrutinise institutional governance, jurisdiction, perceived national affiliations, and exposure to political or economic pressure. Neutrality is expected not merely to exist, but to be embedded in rules and practices.
Arbitral institutions should respond not by aligning themselves with particular interests, but by reinforcing consistent procedures, robust conflict-of-interest safeguards, equal opportunities for parties to present their cases, and transparent appointment processes. They must also navigate challenges involving sanctions, confidentiality, and competing legal requirements without compromising due process.
A neutral process cannot guarantee that every party will be satisfied with the outcome. It must, however, provide a framework in which parties trust that their case will be considered fairly, irrespective of nationality or geopolitical context.
Ultimately, geopolitics is not changing the fundamental principles of neutrality of the arbitration process; it is raising the bar for how institutions demonstrate it. The task is to maintain a consistent application of neutrality in an increasingly complex international environment.“
Korinna von Trotha, Executive Director, Swiss Arbitration Centre
These perspectives highlight two sides of the same question. For users, neutrality is ultimately about confidence in the choices they make and the process they rely on. For institutions, it is about earning and maintaining that confidence through consistent and credible practices. The real test is whether the confidence institutions seek to inspire matches what users experience when geopolitical pressures come into play.