Events 
Resources 
News News
Read our latest news, stories and articles
Swiss Arbitration Summit 2026 – Another Successful Year of Shaping the Future of Arbitration Together
Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang, Astute Dispute Resolution
For the third consecutive year, the Swiss Arbitration Summit confirmed its place as one of the most dynamic gatherings of the global arbitration community. Only two years after its inaugural edition in 2024 for the 50th anniversary of the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA), the 2026 Summit brought together more than 600 arbitration practitioners from over 30 jurisdictions in Geneva, reaffirming Switzerland’s position as a leading hub for international arbitration.
Organised under the joint aegis of ASA and the Swiss Arbitration Centre, the Summit reflects a uniquely Swiss strength. A united institutional ecosystem, a strong culture of dialogue, and a shared commitment to innovation combined to offer substantive debate, practical reflection and genuine community building.
Under the overarching theme “Shaping the Future of Arbitration Together”, the 2026 edition invited participants to reflect on how arbitration can continue to meet the expectations of its users in a rapidly changing legal, technological and geopolitical environment.
5 days dedicated to substance, exchange and community
The Summit unfolded over an intense and carefully curated programme combining two flagship conferences, numerous sponsor-led sessions, training initiatives and social events. From early morning runs along Lake Geneva to late evening discussions continuing well beyond panel sessions, the atmosphere was one of immersion and exchange.
The programme was further enriched by side events including a two-day Tribunal Secretary Training, a conference for young practitioners organized by ASA below 40 together with fellow under-40 arbitration associations from Germany, France, Italy, Austria and Liechtenstein, as well as a wide range of sessions hosted by law firms and expert service providers on topics ranging from sanctions and enforcement to energy disputes, geopolitics and post M&A arbitrations.
Social events played a central role in reinforcing the Summit’s community spirit. Highlights included opening cocktails at the Halles de l’Île with the first ever Law Rocks concert in Switzerland, , and the Gala Dinner, during which Jern Fei Ng KC received the prestigious 2026 ASA Advocacy Prize. The three-day programme concluded with a weekend in Crans Montana, offering participants the opportunity to continue exchanges in the unique setting of the Swiss Alps.
Innovation Conference : The TEF Rules – Conception and Perspectives
The Swiss Arbitration Centre’s Innovation Conference was dedicated to the new Supplemental Swiss Rules for Trust, Estate and Foundation Disputes (TEF Rules), which entered into force on 1 July 2025.
Private wealth disputes present a distinct set of challenges. They often involve multiple generations, complex asset structures across jurisdictions, emotionally charged dynamics, and a strong need for privacy. While such disputes have long existed, traditional court litigation has frequently proven ill-suited to address their international and sensitive nature.
Against this background, the TEF Rules were conceived to offer a trailblazing procedural framework capable of replacing court proceedings with arbitration in trust, estate and foundation matters, while addressing the specific difficulties that arise in the absence of traditional bilateral arbitration clauses.
The conferencekicked off with opening remarks by Christopher Boog (Schellenberg Wittmer) and consisted of two panels, bringing together the drafters of the TEF Rules to discuss the key considerations behind their elaboration, as well as experienced practitioners sharing their experience of private wealth disputes and exploring the potential impact of the TEF Rules.
The first panel, moderated by Benjamin Gottlieb (Schellenberg Wittmer), brought together members of the drafting task force: David Brownbill KC (XXIV Old Buildings), Werner Jahnel (LALIVE) and Stephanie Pfisterer (Homburger).
As of 1 January 2021, the Swiss Civil Procedure Code and Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, which govern domestic and international arbitration in Switzerland respectively, expressly provide that the arbitration provisions apply mutatis mutandis to arbitration clauses contained in unilateral legal instruments or articles of association (Article 178(4) of the PILA and Article 358(2) of the CPC).
Following this confirmation of the validity of arbitration clauses in unilateral instruments regulating trust, estate and foundation matters, the Swiss Arbitration Centre established a dedicated task force to respond to the increasing number of trust and estate related disputes being submitted to arbitration, often without a clear procedural framework adapted to their particularities.
The drafters emphasised that the objective was not merely to transpose existing arbitration rules into a new context, but to confront issues that courts themselves have long struggled with. These include the length of court proceedings, multiple parallel proceedings across jurisdictions, inconsistent decisions and ensuing issues in recognition and enforcement, lack of confidentiality, and procedural rigidity ill-suited to family and wealth planning disputes. While humbly accepting that various legal questions remain to be tested before Swiss courts, the discussion acknowledged the contribution made by the TEF Rules to global efforts to address practical concerns arising out of private wealth disputes.
As with the 2023 Swiss Arbitration Centre’s Supplemental Rules for Corporate Law Disputes, a central concern of the drafters was the subjective scope of unilateral arbitration clauses. In such settings, classic notions of consent reach their limits. The TEF Rules therefore deliberately move away from traditional party-centric concepts and instead introduce the notion of “entitled persons”, reflecting the broader group of individuals whose rights or interests may be affected by the dispute.
Article 2 of the TEF Rules establishes detailed mechanisms for identifying, notifying and representing such entitled persons who may include heirs, beneficiaries, future or unborn beneficiaries, or individuals lacking legal capacity. The provision defines when notice is deemed received and sets rules for calculating time limits, ensuring all affected parties are identified, represented, and allowed to comment on the tribunal’s constitution. Article 3 further entitles the Swiss Arbitration Centre’s Arbitration Court to appoint some or all arbitrators where not all entitled persons are legally represented or where other circumstances warrant such procedure. The framework is designed to guarantee a fair constitution of the tribunal in all circumstances. The disclosure of all entitled persons remains an obligation of the claiming party and within the ultimate control of the parties. Given the significance of substantive law requirements, the parties have a strong incentive to disclose everyone who is entitled.
The panel underscored that effective notification is not a mere procedural formality. Without it, arbitral awards would risk suffering the same weaknesses as court judgments in this field, namely limited recognition and vulnerability to later challenges by absent stakeholders.
Drawing inspiration from long-standing solutions developed in court proceedings, the TEF Rules allow for the appointment of representatives to protect the interests of minors, incapacitated persons or future beneficiaries. While not all entitled persons must necessarily participate in the arbitration, the framework ensures that their interests are identified and considered, thereby enhancing both fairness and enforceability.
The discussions also highlighted the careful balance struck by the rules. Rather than exhaustively defining who is bound by an arbitration clause, the TEF Rules intentionally leave certain questions to substantive law and future court guidance. The aim is to provide a workable procedural structure while acknowledging that issues of validity and arbitrability will continue to evolve through jurisprudence on unilateral arbitration clauses.
The second panel, moderated by Juliette Asso-Richard (LALIVE), shifted the focus to practical application. The panel was composed of distinguished experts in private wealth disputes: Alexandra Geiger (MME Legal), Nicholas Pell (Rhone Group) and Angelina Petti (von Segesser Law Offices).
The panelists examined typical trust and foundation structures, often involving multiple jurisdictions, movable and immovable assets, and overlapping succession planning tools. The nature of disputes was also highlighted, and the fact that emotions and reputation issues play a greater role than in commercial settings.
Several speakers emphasized the particular importance of confidentiality in private wealth disputes. Public proceedings may expose sensitive information regarding family relationships, asset locations or governance arrangements, with potentially irreversible reputational consequences. In this respect, arbitration offers a compelling alternative, even if certain stages such as enforcement may still involve limited publicity.
The panel also explored the complex interplay between the applicable law and the seat of the arbitration. Differences between civil law and common law approaches, mandatory rules on forced heirship, and restrictions on choice of law continue to pose challenges. The TEF Rules do not eliminate the need for occasional parallel court proceedings, particularly to preserve statutory deadlines, but provide a structure capable of consolidating disputes and significantly streamlining their resolution.
Looking ahead, speakers expressed cautious optimism regarding market adoption. While the trust sector has traditionally been slow to embrace arbitration, the growing globalisation of private wealth, combined with user demand for privacy, expertise and procedural efficiency, may well accelerate acceptance of arbitration clauses governed by the TEF Rules. As to Switzerland, while a Swiss seat offers advantages because of Switzerland’s strong legal framework and single reviewing court, the developments are limited insofar as trusts are still to be recognized in Swiss law and the law applicable is therefore always a foreign law.
The TEF Rules and their explanatory notes are available here.
ASA Winter Conference: Business as Usual? How Arbitration Best Meets Business Expectations
The ASA Winter Conference was the flagship of the Swiss Arbitration Summit 2026, offering a thorough and honest look at arbitration from the perspective of its primary users: businesses. Instead of following a traditional panel format, the conference was designed as a journey, urging attendees to address a challenging but important question: How can current arbitration practice meet the needs of business even better?
Throughout the day, a recurring theme emerged. Businesses value speed, predictability, and practical outcomes over procedural perfection. Arbitration remains attractive, and has the flexibility to adapt its tools, mindset and culture to meet these expectations.
Keynote – Lessons from a Hostage Negotiator
After the welcome address of the conference organisers Dorothée Schramm, Christoph Müller and Mélanie Van Leeuwen, the conference opened with a keynote address by Matthias Herter, former Head of Crisis Management and Negotiation Units of the Swiss Federal Police and former President of the European Network of Advisory Teams for Kidnapping, Hostage Taking and Extortion, whose experience as one of Switzerland’s premier hostage negotiators offered a strikingly relevant lens through which to view arbitration.
Drawing on missions ranging from domestic kidnappings to high-stakes international crises, Herter emphasised preparation as the foundation of getting commitments from the parties as well as effective decision making under pressure. He described the importance of defining one’s role and objective, understanding the counterpart’s mental state and motivations, and preparing for best, worst and most likely scenarios.
Particular attention was given to the so called “golden hour”. The preparation of the initial phase of engagement during which trust can be built, information is gathered and the tone of the interaction is set. Once this window passes, positions harden and negotiation becomes more difficult. The parallels with arbitration were immediately apparent, whether at the first case management conference, during procedural negotiations or in settlement discussions.
Herter also highlighted the centrality of active listening. Techniques such as minimal encouragers, open-ended questions, reflective summaries and effective pauses are not soft skills, but strategic tools. They allow the decision maker to understand what truly drives the other side and to keep the conversation going even in highly adversarial or emotionally charged situations.
The keynote served as a powerful reminder that arbitration is not merely a legal process. It is a human process. The quality of leadership exercised by arbitrators and counsel can decisively shape both the efficiency of the proceedings and the parties’ perception of procedural fairness.
Panel 1 – Business Tools for Arbitration
The first panel was moderated by Mélanie van Leeuwen (Vanguard International Dispute Resolution) and consisted of Claudia Götz Staehelin (Nater Dallafior), Clemens-August Heusch (Nokia), Yann Schneller (Darci) and Alexander Fessas (ICC International Court of Arbitration).
This session refocused the discussion on arbitration’s original function: meeting the needs of business. Drawing on experiences with dispute boards, adjudication and mediation, the panel explored how business-driven dispute resolution mechanisms prioritise operational continuity while conflicts are addressed.
Dispute boards, particularly standing boards established at the outset of major construction projects, were highlighted as one of the most effective tools for dispute avoidance and early resolution. Rather than intervening only once a dispute has been crystallised, as ad hoc dispute boards do, standing boards accompany the project throughout its life cycle, addressing issues in real time and often issuing informal opinions rather than binding decisions. These opinions, grounded in technical and contractual expertise, are often complied with, and so frequently prevent disputes from escalating. Adjudicators’ decisions reach the same level of compliance.
At the level of formal decision-making, dispute boards inform the parties when they have reached a decision. The parties can then opt for the dispute board to change hat and try to mediate the dispute. The question of acting consecutively as mediator and adjudicator is a tricky one. While changing hats in the same case is forbidden by certain laws, the switch is sometimes used in international projects and proves to be rather efficient.
Even when dispute boards issue formal decisions, parties typically demonstrate a high rate of compliance, with arbitration or litigation initiated only infrequently. In those exceptional instances where further proceedings occur, the results of arbitration or litigation are generally consistent with the dispute board’s preceding determination.
The panelists largely agreed that timing plays a crucial role. Early attempts at amicable dispute resolution, before costs escalate and positions entrench, are far more likely to succeed. Mediation, widely valued as an essential component of this toolbox, often achieves success rates between fifty and seventy percent when parties get involved actively and early. Experienced businesses also see mediation efforts as low-risk and inexpensive.
Interestingly, arbitration can generate the motivation needed for successful amicable dispute resolution. For example, after the initial Case Management Conference in ICC cases, around thirty percent of disputes are settled.
The panelists further discussed the significant success of expedited arbitration procedures, typically conducted within a 6-month time frame, and considered whether it is time to make such time frame the default rule for arbitration proceedings.
From an in-house perspective, the discussion underscored a pragmatic reality. Businesses do not seek perfect legal answers. They seek solutions that allow them to move forward. Another key consideration is ensuring that external counsel does not advocate unnecessarily for litigation or arbitration. Several speakers highlighted the adoption of fee structures designed to encourage settlement-oriented strategies.
In summary, procedural discipline, prompt engagement, and tailored dispute resolution mechanisms, including hybrid solutions, were consistently highlighted as practices that arbitration could integrate more systematically.
Panel 2 – Legal Tools for Business Driven Arbitration
Moderated by Christoph Müller (University of Neuchâtel), this panel featured Mehmet Karli (Kabine Law), Kevin Nash (LCIA), Edna Sussman (Independent Arbitrator and Mediator/Fordham University School of Law), and Laura Pavese (Hewlett Packard Enterprises).
This panel shifted the focus to procedural techniques capable of aligning arbitration even more closely with business expectations.
In-house lawyers, institutional representatives and private practitioners discussed expedited procedures, early determination of issues, bifurcation, proactive midstream case management conferences, mediation windows and settlement facilitation techniques. A key message was that efficiency is not achieved merely by compressing timelines, but by thoughtful procedural design from the very beginning of the case, including, for example, considerations as to the length of parties’ submissions.
Early determination mechanisms, where tribunals are empowered to resolve discrete issues at an early stage, were presented as powerful tools to narrow disputes or bring proceedings to an end altogether. Similarly, bifurcation, when used judiciously, can significantly reduce cost and duration by focusing first on issues capable of disposing of the case.
The topic of settlement facilitation by arbitrators, where arbitrators assist with settlement subject to the necessary waivers, was discussed openly. Hybrid models, such as arbitrators acting as mediators before reverting to their adjudicative role if no agreement is reached, and the adaptation of standing dispute boards for commercial conflicts outside the sector of construction, were explored.
Speakers also highlighted that incorporating mediation windows into arbitration proceedings can create chances for parties to settle, without anyone needing to suggest mediation first, a step that can sometimes be perceived as showing weakness.
Other mechanisms such as sealed offers and Calderbank-style proposals, which can influence cost allocation if a party unreasonably refuses to settle, were addressed. While such tools require careful handling to preserve due process and impartiality, they reflect a growing recognition that arbitration should actively encourage resolution rather than merely adjudication of disputes.
From the user perspective, predictability emerged as the dominant concern. In-house counsel emphasised the importance of understanding legal and business risk, managing budgets and avoiding surprises. Their selection of the dispute resolution mode is pivotal to their business risk assessment.
Arbitration remains attractive because it offers enforceability, neutrality and expertise, but concerns persist regarding cost, duration, lack of predictability and the limitations to the right to appeal.
The discussion made clear that no single procedure fits all disputes. The challenge for arbitration is to move away from default models and toward a genuinely tailored approach, selecting the right process for the right case.
Panel 3 – Technology Tools for Arbitration
Dorothée Schramm (Independent Arbitrator, SwissArbitrator.com) served as the moderator for the third panel, which included Bridget McCormack (AAA-ICDR), Marc Veit (LALIVE), Vikas Mahendra (Keystone Partners/TERES), and Karsten Grillitsch (Robert Bosch).
The final session explored how technology is reshaping arbitration in practice. Artificial intelligence and digital tools are no longer peripheral innovations, but integral components of modern dispute resolution.
The innovative AI-arbitrator for construction cases launched by AAA-ICDR in 2025 was introduced, highlighting the integration of human judgment into AI-driven decision-making. Other new technologies were discussed, including the AI feature in Exhibit Manager software and the online case and hearing management platforms developed by TERES. In-house counsel shared their use of an AI tool that aids in deciding whether to settle or litigate, following a mathematical model similar to that used by third-party funders.
Speakers also covered useful applications of well-established technologies such as Sharepoint, Copilot, Relativity/Luminance and Exhibit Manager, amongst many others. They demonstrated how AI helps with tasks like document review, testing arguments, cross-examination preparation, real-time support during hearings, and quick synthesis of evidence.
Arbitrators and counsel described benefits from using AI to summarise complex materials into straightforward synopses or visual diagrams, improving case comprehension. Further, advances in document management now let legal teams handle and present documents at hearings independently, often eliminating the need for expensive hearing operators.
The session also tackled risks associated with technology adoption. Data security, confidentiality, hallucinations and overreliance on automated outputs that can lead in certain contexts to delegation of decision-making were openly discussed. The consensus was that AI should augment, not replace human judgment and expertise.
A particularly striking insight concerned accessibility. Technological advances are lowering entry barriers, allowing smaller firms and independent practitioners to access tools previously reserved for large organisations. If deployed responsibly, technology may therefore contribute to a more diverse and competitive arbitration landscape.
The panel emphasised that the efficiency gains from technology should be evident and widely shared with users. Being transparent about cost reductions and process improvements is vital for maintaining business trust in arbitration.
The Swiss Arbitration Summit 2026 was organised by a dedicated task force under the aegis of ASA and the Swiss Arbitration Centre, composed of Korinna von Trotha, Felix Dasser, Dorothee Schramm, Andrea Meier, Benjamin Gottlieb, Dilber Devitre, Caroline Dos Santos, Nikolina Marusic and Manya Gopalakrishnan.
Their collective efforts once again delivered a programme that balanced innovation with tradition, theory with practice, and professional excellence with community spirit.
You can pre-register here for the next edition of the Swiss Arbitration Summit which will take place in Zurich from 20 to 24 January 2027.