Search Results

Dispute Boards Dispute boards are permanent panels set up to accompany the performance of a contract. They assist in avoiding or overcoming disagreements and disputes. A Dispute Board (“DB”) is a standing body composed of one or three DB Members. Typically set up upon the signature or commencement of performance of a mid- or long-term contract, they are used to help parties avoid or overcome any disagreements or disputes that arise during the implementation of the contract. Although commonly used in construction projects, DBs are also effective in other areas. These areas includes research and development; intellectual property; production sharing and shareholder agreements. The ICC Dispute Board Rules (“Rules”) consist of a comprehensive set of provisions for establishing and operating a DB. They cover such matters as the appointment of the dispute board member(s); the services they provide and the compensation they receive Dispute Boards have three basic functions. They emphasise the importance of informal and formal approaches to disputes. The Rules explicitly provide that, upon perceiving a potential disagreement, the DB may identify the disagreement and encourage the parties to resolve it on their own without further involvement of the DB. If this is impossible or the disagreement is too entrenched, the DB can intervene with informal assistance to help the parties resolve the matter by agreement. Alternatively, the DB could also determine a dispute through a recommendation or a decision is sued after a procedure of formal referral. Each of these functions is of equal importance in helping to reduce the risk and cost of disruption to the parties’ contract. Dispute Board Rules The current ICC Dispute Board Rules are in force as of 1 October 2015 and the Appendices in force as from 1 October 2018. Read more Standard Dispute Board Clauses Standard clauses are for use by parties who wish to set up and operate a dispute board under the 2015 Rules. Read more Advantages of Dispute Boards Lower cost Shorter procedure Party Autonomy Neutral third-parties Experts Enforceability of Decisions Model Dispute Board Member Agreement The Model Dispute Board Member Agreement, as detailed below, must be signed by every Dispute Board Member with all parties before Dispute Board activities can begin. The Model Dispute Board Member Agreement can be accessed here . Role of the ICC Centre for ADR Types of request ICC may be called upon to: Appoint a DB member This request should include a copy of the parties’ agreement to establish a Dispute Board in accordance with the ICC Dispute Board Rules and any observations, comments or requests relevant to the appointment. Decide on a challenge of a DB member This request should include a copy of the parties’ agreement that refers to ICC Dispute Board Rules, grounds for the challenge, names of the DB members, and the full contact details of all parties and possible related entities. Review a DB Decision as to form This request should include a copy of the parties’ agreement, grounds for the review, names of the DB members, and the full contact details of all parties and possible related entities. Fix the fees of the DB Members Where to send the requests The requests should be sent by email to: disputeboards@iccwbo.org and in sufficient number of hardcopies (only if a notification in hard copy is requested) by mail to the ICC International Centre for ADR at: 33-43 avenue du Président Wilson 75116 Paris France Payment Each request must be accompanied by a non-refundable payment of a filing fee. The payment must originate from the party to the case. ICC is bound to operate in conformity with applicable sanctions regulations, such as those imposed by the United Nations, European Union and Office of Foreign Assets Control. If parties have reasonable doubt that a sanction’s regime is applicable to their request, they must inform ICC in advance. This means prior to submitting any such request and prior to paying the respective filing fee. In such case, please contact compliance@iccwbo.org . The ICC International Court of Arbitration® and International Centre for ADR compliance policies and procedures can be found here .  Payment details are available here .

< Back < Previous | Next > Shaping the next chapter of global trade: the business agenda for MC14 27 Feb 2026 Ahead of WTO MC14, 145 business organisations are urging reform and renewal of the digital trade Moratorium. This will have direct implications on legal certainty, cross-border data flows and the competitiveness of Dutch companies operating globally. Shaping the Next Chapter of Global Trade: The Business Agenda for MC14 In March 2026, ministers will gather in Yaoundé for the 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) of the World Trade Organization. The conference takes place at a time of increased trade tensions, expanding unilateral measures and growing uncertainty in global markets. For the Netherlands – one of the most open and trade-dependent economies in the world – this context has direct implications. Dutch companies operate in global value chains that depend on predictable market access, enforceable trade rules and stable digital connectivity. When those conditions weaken, businesses face higher compliance costs, greater contractual risk and more complex supply chain management. Against this backdrop, 145 chambers of commerce and business associations from all regions have endorsed a Global Business Statement urging WTO Members to launch a structured, time-bound reform process at MC14. The statement calls for restoring the WTO’s ability to negotiate updated rules, resolve disputes effectively and provide transparency in global trade. 2026-icc-MC14-Global-Business-Statement-1st-release-145-signatories .pdf Download PDF • 71KB Alongside systemic reform, the signatories underline an immediate priority: renewing the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions. The Moratorium, first introduced in 1998, prevents governments from imposing customs duties on cross-border electronic transmissions. Its renewal is once again on the MC14 agenda. Why this matters for Dutch business The Dutch government’s official position ahead of MC14 confirms that a well-functioning WTO remains essential for Dutch and European prosperity. Approximately three-quarters of global trade continues to take place under WTO rules. For a country that accounts for roughly 3% of world trade, the stability of that framework is not optional. The WTO underpins several practical aspects of business operations: Market access predictability. Exporters rely on bound tariff commitments and non-discrimination principles when entering foreign markets. Dispute settlement. When trade rules are breached, a functioning dispute mechanism provides legal recourse rather than political escalation. Level playing field. Clear disciplines on subsidies and state intervention help ensure fair competition. Digital continuity. Cross-border data flows increasingly support logistics, finance, professional services and advanced manufacturing. When institutional processes stall or enforcement weakens, uncertainty increases. This can translate into delayed investment decisions, higher risk premiums and more complex compliance requirements. The Dutch “Kaderinstructie” for MC14 highlights the importance of safeguarding core WTO principles, advancing institutional reform and maintaining the Moratorium on electronic transmissions. These priorities closely align with the positions articulated by the International Chamber of Commerce at global level. From institutional debate to operational consequences The discussion around the e-commerce Moratorium illustrates how systemic issues translate directly into operational business impact. For nearly three decades, WTO Members have refrained from applying customs duties to electronic transmissions. This has provided legal certainty for cloud computing, data analytics, software distribution and digitally enabled services. If the Moratorium were not renewed at MC14, WTO Members would be free to introduce such duties. For companies relying on cross-border cloud infrastructure, this could lead to: Higher recurring operational costs; Reassessment of data storage and processing architecture; Fragmentation of IT systems across jurisdictions; Increased administrative complexity. An example cited in ICC discussions is HARA, an Indonesian agri-tech company that relies on global cloud services to process satellite imagery and verified farmer data. The affordability of cross-border digital services enables traceability, financial inclusion and export compliance. Additional duties on electronic transmissions would directly increase costs and affect scalability. While the Dutch economic structure differs, the underlying exposure is comparable. Dutch logistics operators, agri-food exporters, fintech companies and technology firms rely heavily on integrated digital services across borders. Even moderate cost increases or regulatory fragmentation can have cumulative effects, particularly for SMEs. In this sense, the Moratorium is not a technical trade provision; it forms part of the infrastructure that supports modern commerce. ICC’s global advocacy and business mobilisation In preparation for MC14, ICC has issued a Call to Action urging WTO Members to launch formal reform negotiations with a concrete work programme. Key elements include: Addressing institutional blockages that affect decision-making and plurilateral agreements; Reinforcing dispute settlement mechanisms; Ensuring structured engagement of the private sector; Committing to a standstill on new trade-restrictive measures; and Maintaining the Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions. The Global Business Statement, now endorsed by 145 organisations worldwide, demonstrates broad cross-regional support for these priorities. The objective is pragmatic: restore confidence in the multilateral trading system and ensure it remains relevant to contemporary trade realities. ICC Netherlands: connecting global advocacy and national input At national level, ICC Netherlands convened a round table on 29 January to gather input from Dutch companies and partner organisations ahead of MC14. Discussions addressed dispute settlement, industrial subsidies, digital trade, sustainability and the broader reform agenda. The insights collected were transmitted to ICC’s global network and contributed to shaping the international business position. Importantly, there is substantial alignment between ICC advocacy and the Dutch government’s official MC14 framework. Such alignment enhances policy coherence. When national positions reflect practical business considerations, and those positions are reinforced at global level, the likelihood of consistent implementation increases. For internationally active companies, this consistency contributes to predictability. Looking ahead to MC14 MC14 is unlikely to resolve all systemic challenges facing the WTO. However, several outcomes would provide tangible value for business: Launching a structured reform process with defined timelines; Renewing the Moratorium to preserve digital trade stability; Reinforcing dialogue mechanisms that integrate private sector expertise into reform discussions. In the weeks leading up to MC14, ICC Netherlands will continue engaging with members and stakeholders to ensure that Dutch business perspectives remain visible in international discussions. Members wishing to contribute can: Participate in ICC NL trade and digitalisation workstreams; Share operational experiences related to digital trade, supply chain challenges or regulatory barriers; Endorse the Global Business Statement in support of WTO reform and Moratorium renewal. The multilateral trading system remains a cornerstone of international commerce. While reform is necessary, continuity and predictability remain essential. The decisions taken at MC14 will influence not only institutional dynamics, but also the daily operating environment of companies trading across borders. ICC Netherlands will continue to provide a channel for constructive business input as this process unfolds.

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC Model Contract New ICC Model Contract on Commissioning & After-sales Services 18 Feb 2025 The ICC Model Contract on Commissioning and After-sales Services provides a balanced and flexible legal framework for international agreements related to the installation, testing, maintenance, and repair of goods or equipment. It helps parties define clear responsibilities, timelines, and liability terms, reducing the risk of disputes in cross-border service arrangements. Companies purchasing a machine or industrial solution typically need to arrange for the provision of services to maintain the smooth functioning of operations. In the context of global trade, these services may be provided in a range of formats and across geographies. The increasing diversification and global reach of company operations highlight the need for a set of standard terms to govern such service arrangements. ICC has drafted this model contract to provide companies and their advisors with an internationally applicable, fair, and balanced template. The model covers the services connected to the supply of a machine, equipment, or an industrial solution. This typically involves installation; assembly and putting into operation (the ‘commissioning services’); and maintenance or after-sale services. The model is intended to service both manufacturers and suppliers of machines, equipment and industrial solutions, and companies providing such commissioning and maintenance and after sale services. Although the present model form has been established especially for international situations, nothing prevents the parties from using it for domestic contracts, i.e. contracts between parties having their place of business in the same country. Each ICC Model Contract includes a fully editable version in Microsoft Word, permitting you to easily adapt the contract to your specific case. Explore the ICC Model Contract: eBook: 845E ICC Model Contract Commissioning and After-sales Services | ICC WBO Netherlands

< Back < Previous | Next > WTO reform at a critical juncture: business, policymakers and institutions in dialogue Laure Jacquier 29 Jan 2026 Keeping the multilateral trading system alive Ahead of the WTO Ministerial Conference, ICC Netherlands and VNO-NCW convened a timely round table on 29 January with business, policymakers and international institutions. The discussion confirmed one clear message: the system is under pressure, but indispensable — and reform is the only viable path forward. WTO reform at a critical juncture: business, policymakers and institutions in dialogue The global trading system is under unprecedented pressure. Rising geopolitical tensions, increasing unilateral trade measures and growing fragmentation are challenging the foundations of the multilateral system. Yet, as highlighted during a round table hosted on 29 January , abandoning the system would come at a far greater cost than maintaining and reforming it. Read: The impact on developing economies of WTO dissolution Against the backdrop of the upcoming 14th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC14) in March, ICC Netherlands and VNO-NCW convened a closed-door dialogue bringing together Dutch businesses, policymakers and international institutions. The discussion formed part of ICC’s global initiative to revitalise the multilateral trading system ahead of MC14. A timely exchange ahead of MC14 The round table brought together representatives from Dutch companies active in technology, maritime, agrofood, legal, healthcare and banking, alongside key institutional voices: Andrew Wilson , Deputy Secretary General (Policy), ICC Global, on ICC’s global initiative to revitalise the trading system Mark Jacobs , Director International Trade Policy & Market Regulation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, on national policy priorities and the MC14 framework Audrey Goosen , Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the WTO, on perspectives from the Dutch Permanent Mission in Geneva Bernard Kuiten , Head of External Relations, World Trade Organization, on the latest developments within the WTO The exchange was moderated by Jasper van Schaik , board member of ICC Netherlands. Notably, the Dutch government’s MC14 Framework Instructions were published less than 30 minutes before the start of the round table , adding immediacy to the discussion. This allowed participants to reflect in real time on the Netherlands’ official positioning ahead of the Ministerial Conference and to exchange views on how these priorities translate into practice for businesses operating across global value chains. (Link to the MC14 Kaderinstructies) The system is under strain — but indispensable A key message emerged clearly from the discussion: the multilateral trading system is under strain, but it remains indispensable. For the Netherlands — one of the world’s most trade-dependent economies — an open, predictable and rules-based system is not optional. A weakened WTO would directly affect Dutch competitiveness, supply chains and long-term growth. Participants underlined that reform does not mean abandoning multilateralism. Rather, it means adapting the system to today’s economic and geopolitical realities while preserving its core principles. In the current context, keeping the system functioning already counts as success. Trade, geopolitics and fragmentation The discussion highlighted how trade policy is increasingly inseparable from geopolitics, security considerations and industrial policy. Export controls, subsidies and strategic dependencies now shape trade decisions in ways that go far beyond economics alone. While bilateral and plurilateral agreements may appear faster and easier to conclude, participants cautioned against the risks of fragmentation. A move away from common rules risks creating parallel trade regimes, leaving smaller and developing countries behind and undermining predictability for business. A rules-based multilateral framework remains essential for economic security. Reform challenges and open questions Participants acknowledged that WTO reform is necessary but politically difficult, particularly given consensus-based decision-making among 164 members. Discussions touched on possible avenues such as coalition-based approaches, plurilateral initiatives and standstill arrangements during reform phases. Key open questions remain: what does success look like? How far can reform go without losing legitimacy? And can the WTO adapt quickly enough in response to geopolitical realities? The role of business A recurring theme was the crucial role of business. Without private-sector engagement, political support for reform will weaken. Business has a responsibility to bring evidence, realism and real-world impact into policy debates, and to support reform efforts that preserve openness while addressing legitimate concerns. Dutch businesses clearly demonstrated that they are engaged and support the need to keep the multilateral trading system. A clear takeaway The takeaway from the round table was clear: keeping the multilateral trading system alive matters, and reforming it together is the only viable path forward . Inaction risks erosion by default — a scenario that would be particularly damaging for open economies and internationally operating businesses. Read ICC call to action: Revitalising the multilateral trading system: Call for action | ICC WBO Netherlands

< Back < Previous | Next > Competitiveness in times of Geo-economic Fragmentation Casper Roerade 3 Nov 2025 As global power shifts toward fragmented multipolarity, trade is increasingly shaped by geopolitics, security, and strategic autonomy. Businesses must navigate competing rules, supply-chain risks, and political pressures to remain competitive in an era of geo-economic fragmentation. Competitiveness in times of Geo-economic Fragmentation Setting the Scene: A Geopolitical update “Integrity in Transition : Culture, Power & Pressure”. The global power dynamics have shifted and the great powers of the world are reinterpreting their role in the international system. This has profound implications for the global trading system. We have entered a world of ‘ fragmented multipolarity’ . A world in which the US and China are certainly the dominant players, but middle powers play a significant role in the international system. Multipolarity does not imply the equality of all major powers, but rather a fragmented system with large "system influencers." These are states that cannot expect to individually dominate a system, but nevertheless can significantly influence its nature through unilateral and multilateral actions. Think of Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, but also the European Union (EU). These countries explicitly reject the "Cold War mentality" and consciously opt for strategic autonomy instead of one side. The EU calls it "open strategic autonomy," India calls it "multi-alignment," Brazil's "autonomia pela diversificação," and so on. Furthermore, it is not just a world of several players but a fragmented system. Not ordered around one or two dominant countries, not governed by fixed alliances and institutions but rather characterised by shifting issue-specific coalitions. This will require the EU to adopt a pragmatic approach whilst not relinquishing our values. As Henry Kissinger aptly wrote in his 1957 doctoral dissertation about the multipolar world of the 19 th century: “Whatever else a revolutionary power may achieve, it tends to erode if not the legitimacy of the international order, the restraint with which such order operates. Principles of obligation in a period of legitimacy are taken so much for granted that they are never talked about, and such periods therefore appear to posterity as shallow and self-righteous. Principles in a revolutionary situation are so central that they are constantly talked about. The very sterility of the effort soon drains them of all meaning.” Such is the challenge we face today. We are seeing many countries shirking the rules and norms of our trading system which used to be unchallenged. National security, a legitimate exemption to WTO rules under article XXI of the GATT, is roundly abused nowadays. Between 2010 and 2019, countries invoked this security concern at the WTO only eight times per year on average, but in 2024, the number of notifications reached a record high of 95. Many states, not just the US, are increasingly taking advantage of the absence of a functional Appellate Body to block WTO panel rulings by appealing into the void. Since the Appellate Body collapse, developing countries have accounted for more than half of all appeals into the void. The use of sanctions has exploded and International Investment Agreement (IIAA) terminations have exceeded newly enforced IIAs since 2017. Trade is reconfiguring accordingly. Geopolitical distance of trade (i.e. trade between politically distant countries) has decreased, as the EU and US are de-risking from China. Meanwhile new high growth corridors are emerging: EU-India, China-ASEAN and India-Middle East. As competition heats up, China has demonstrated its resolve to stand firm against economic coercion. Caught flatfooted by Trump 1.0, they have clearly expanded their arsenal for supply chain warfare. With its own export controls, unreliable entities list and antitrust reviews, China is leveraging its manufacturing centrality to choke off supplies of rare earths, batteries and green tech. China feels assured that it has won the first round of the trade war in April/May when it forced the US to back off sky-high tariffs with its rare earths export restrictions. A May 2025 national security whitepaper signaled a confident Beijing less willing to compromise. In this era of ‘ weaponized interdependence’ European businesses face a difficult prospect reconciling corporate and European interests. With China aiming to draw in as much technology, capital, and data as possible, while making it harder for firms to move out. Any rapprochement with China as signaled by the Trump-Xi meeting in South-Korea will be ephemeral as long as Chinese industrial policy enables overcapacity. The outcome of the 4th Plenum (20-23 Oct) and subsequent new Five-Year Plan up to 2030 demonstrates only that China will double down on self-reliance and industrial output. For example, China’s largest single tax, the value-added tax (VAT), is split evenly between the central government and the local government of the place where a good or service is produced , instead of where it is consumed . Since the system allocates tax revenue to regions based on production, it rewards continuous expansion of industrial bases. Local Chinese officials try to retain as much upstream and downstream activity as they can to expand their tax base. Provincial five-year are duplicates, each promising the same clusters in the same industries, offering discounted land and utilities, and guarantee quick regulatory approvals. The resulting overcapacity is the logical outcome of a tax and subsidy system that rewards scale over selectivity. Tensions will persist and business will need to navigate the dilemmas of adhering to third country laws and political alignment with the home market. How to balance compliance, impact, and geopolitical realities. It will be the challenge of our time as businesses seek to be competitive under conditions of geo-economic fragmentation. Casper Roerade is policy advisor for mainports and international supply chains at evofenedex, the leading Dutch association for logistics and international business. He specializes in supply chain resilience, trade policy, and logistics, advising companies on how to anticipate global developments and strengthen their strategic position. With an extensive network across both the Netherlands and international markets, Casper bridges politics and business to help shape future-proof supply chains in a fragmented global economy.

< Back < Previous | Next > Marketing & Advertising ICC Global Marketing and Advertising Commission 5 May 2025 At the 2025 ICC meeting, key updates were shared on advancing ethical advertising practices, including new policies on responsible AI use, environmental claims, and marketing to children—emphasizing the importance of transparency, inclusivity, and public trust. ICC reaffirmed its commitment to global collaboration, working with partners like EASA, ISO, and ESOMAR to align standards and promote responsible business conduct in advertising and communication. Some key highlights David Bates, Vice Chair, Europe, Public & Government Affairs, Edelman presented an overview of the 2025 Trust Barometer , providing key insights into the evolving landscape for businesses and societal sentiment. Despite businesses being more trusted than government, media and NGOs, there is a call for them to address more topical issues. This reinforces the recent ICC Advertising and Marketing Communication Code updates, including Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI), ensuring it guides businesses in tackling these critical concerns responsibly and ethically. All institutions must collaborate to rebuild trust. There was an update on the revision on the revision process/ new policy papers , all derived from the ICC Code, from leads of each of the workstreams and dialogue with the members: New policy product on the responsible use of AI in advertising (Alice Himsworth / Alexander Montgomery). A policy paper on the responsible use of AI in advertising, highlighting its pivotal role in the industry. There is still time to get involved, give feedback and help shape these important guidelines. Key concerns: transparency, labelling, privacy, bias, creation & delivery of ads and copyright. Updates on the ICC Framework for Responsible Environmental Marketing Communications, including a checklist as a starting point for practitioners (Sheila Miller) Revisions to the ICC / European Society for Opinion and Market Research (ESOMAR) International Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics: the public is an important stakeholder (Anders Stenlund / Judith Passingham) Revisions to the ICC Framework for Responsible Alcohol Marketing Communications (Laura Brodie / Gabrielle Robitaille). A milestone bringing all the platforms together and publish transparency reports. Revisions to the ICC Framework for Responsible Food and Beverage Marketing Communications (Gabrielle Robitaille) Revision of the ICC Toolkit: Marketing and Advertising to Children along with a new policy paper related to responsible advertising/marketing to children and teens (Adam Ingle / Sheila Millar More general was stated that ICC is not a single topic association, but addresses broad current topics. Topics effecting everybody in the ecosystem every day. Having an informal dialogue about these topics helps to deal with them. ICC aims to contribute to trust in the marketplace, so the business community is trusted and can perform. Ludovic Basset, new Director at the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA), and Tudor Manda, Self-Regulation (SR) Development Manager, presented an overview of EASA’s network and efforts in promoting responsible advertising through Self-Regulation-Organizations (SROs) enforcement of ad standards inspired by the ICC Code. They also shared insights on how ICC and EASA can strengthen collaboration. Then the latest European and International regulatory developments related to marketing and advertising were briefly discussed. Finally, Noela Garcia, Head of Sustainability and Partnerships, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), provided an introduction to ISO and collaboration prospects. Opportunities for ICC: participate in international Standards development or other deliverables and create coherence /alignment on existing standards, participate in/co-create flagship programmes, e.g., climate and sustainability and capacity building initiatives. Facilitating collaboration between national chambers of commerce and national standards bodies to convey national trade interests in international standardization and jointly design and implement advocacy/promotional activities to advance shared vision and mission. International collaboration for responsible leadership: a shoutout to the international partners and stakeholders – EASA, as well as all national Self-Regulatory Organisations, ESOMAR, International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD), and ISO for their valuable contributions and collaboration. ICC remains committed to building trust and leading the way in ethical marketing and advertising through the ICC Advertising and Marketing Communications Code. This Code is now available in many languages, including Dutch →

Explore ICC's comprehensive business solutions designed to facilitate global trade. From ATA Carnets and Incoterms® to model contracts, certificates of origin, and digital trade tools, discover how ICC's standards and resources support businesses of all sizes and drive international commerce. Grow your business beyond borders with ICC One Click Are you a business looking to trade globally? ICC One Click is your gateway to trade tools, solutions and  guides to export and grow globally. One click, one world Expanding your business internationally has its challenges but ICC One Click has the trusted tools you need to succeed. Brought to you by ICC, the world’s business organisation, ICC One Click provides easy access to trade resources, providing support to expand into new markets, guidance for cross-border trade and tips to increase your global competitiveness. Who can use ICC One Click? Whether you are a seasoned exporter or a small business just getting started, ICC One Click ensures smooth sailing on your international trade journey. How to seize global trade opportunities Explore trade opportunities, get to know the basics of trade, and showcase your products abroad. Learn more How to draft a contract Include the right clauses and Incoterms® rules for a successful business relationship. Learn more How to execute a business transaction Understand how trade finance can support your cross-border transactions and learn to navigate local laws and regulations. Learn more How to prevent and solve disputes Resolve your disputes timely and cost-effectively with ICC’s market-leading dispute resolution services. Learn more How to meet international ESG requirements Understand how to meet environmental, social and governance (ESG) requirements from global regulators, investors, banks and buyers. Learn more

< Back < Previous | Next > Joint ICC Arbitration Day: Key Takeaways Lauren Rasking, Counsel at A&O Shearman 17 Dec 2025 Arbitration is evolving, fast. Missed the Joint ICC Arbitration Day? Catch the key moments: new ICC rules, Court insights, in-house expectations, and Europe’s shifting landscape. Joint ICC Arbitration Day Key Takeaways HIGHLIGHTS OF THE “MOST COURAGEOUS AND FORWARD-THINKING” JOINT ICC EVENT TO DATE Hosted by ICC Belgium, ICC France, ICC Netherlands and ICC Germany, the Joint ICC Arbitration Day brought together private practitioners, in house counsel and ICC Court members for a brisk tour of where international arbitration stands—and where it is headed. From upbeat opening remarks to candid in house perspectives, the day balanced data, doctrine and practicalities with a clear European focus. Setting the tone WELCOME BY NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRS After some kind words of introduction from Marco Schoups, the Chairs from the four ICC National Committees (Yves Herinckx, Marnix Leijten, Clément Fouchard and Glenn Baumgarten) framed the day with energy and humor. Belgium’s great 2025 vintage of Supreme Court decisions set the tone, the Netherlands teased a “hostile takeover” of ICC Belgium, and Germany highlighted its centenary and the (applauded) growing presence of in house counsel. The cross border and cross disciplinary attendance underscored the event’s aim: convening diverse voices with a shared interest in arbitration. ICC by the numbers AS LITTLE STATISTICS AS POSSIBLE BUT WHAT’S NEXT In a forward looking keynote, ICC Court Secretary General Alexander Fessas highlighted that the ICC is on the verge of registering its 30,000th case, with around 1,800 matters currently pending. The caseload spans the spectrum—large and small, standard and expedited—yet remains anchored in Europe, with half of seats located there and Paris retaining a notable role. Several strategic commitments stood out. Rules are now being revised more regularly, with a new iteration targeted by 1 June 2026. Further investment in Case Connect is planned for 2026, and a new Paris hearing centre complements ICC’s recognition as a most preferred institution in recent surveys. On technology, the message was pragmatic: the time for AI will come, but not without transparency and guidance. An ICC Task Force is already examining AI use by arbitrators. Inside the ICC Court SCRUTINY, CONFLICTS AND MODERNISATION A panel of ICC Court members (Rolf Trittmann, Dirk De Meulemeester, Marieke van Hooijdonk and Julien Fouret), moderated by Françoise Lefèvre, lifted the curtain on how the Court operates. With 172 Court members, 19 Vice Presidents and one President, the Court oversees the nomination, challenge and replacement of arbitrators, scrutinizes awards and sets fees. Its scrutiny aims squarely at enforceability, and participants noted that more draft awards are being sent back for improvement—evidence of a rigorous process. Geopolitics has had limited operational impact, though sensitivities do arise, including Russian anti suit dynamics and limits on the participation of certain national Court members in specific cases. Penetration beyond Western Europe continues to deepen, with China’s evolving law and practice pointing to greater openness. On conflicts, the Court’s approach is deliberately robust. Challenges remain relatively low (33 in 2024, with 7 upheld), and approximately 25 non confirmations occurred. We also received insights on the most striking upcoming rule change summarized as “the Terms of Reference are dead”. Expect also a wholesale move away from hard copies, electronic signatures for awards, tighter disclosure requirements and a gradual rise in the threshold for expedited proceedings, with 4 million flagged for new cases. Arbitration in a changing world THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Stephanie Leupold, Head of legal affairs and dispute settlement at DG Trade of the European Commission situated arbitration within a recalibrating global economy. Policy has moved from pure efficiency to economic security, supply chain resilience and strategic autonomy. She underscored the continued need for credible enforcement architecture: while the WTO’s appellate layer remains stalled, the multi-party interim appeal arrangement has attracted broad participation and is serving its purpose. Legal practitioners, arbitrators and academics, she stressed, remain central to a rules based trading order. Remarks also touched on evolving sanctions policy and its implications for recognition and enforcement. In house counsel priorities PRAGMATISM, SECURITY AND VALUE Corporate counsel Glenn Baumgarten and Cyril Dumoulin, under control of moderator Julie Otjacques, brought a grounded view from the front lines. They support arbitration, but a “horses for courses” approach prevails: ICC arbitration is preferred, but region specific arbitration and state courts have their place. Data protection and security are now venue selection factors, with predictable regimes prized. On technology, digitalization is here to stay, and AI is being embraced—cautiously. Failing to engage with AI risks becoming a stranger in your own team. The upshot for external counsel is clear: leverage tools responsibly, deliver cost efficiency and maintain human oversight. There was strong appetite for an institution managed, secure case platform to streamline filings and even tools to facilitate document production and preliminary assessments. On costs and outcomes, the message was pragmatic: arbitrators who manage proceedings efficiently—and who help parties find settlement when sensible—are valued. Try living by the benchmark: “is it legal, ethical and wise”. Mediation drew mixed views: although promising in principle, it may be harder to sell internally without predictability, though some urged a broader definition of “winning” that includes commercially optimal outcomes. A seasonal tip from finance minded participants: avoid issuing awards just before year end closes. We closed the first part of the day with remarks from Arnaud Nuyts, who noted that in an increasingly complex and unpredictable world, arbitration has a vital role to play—reminding us that order, reason, and dialogue still matter. The rest of the evening… FURTHER REFLECTION AT THE MERODE (The author also extends a warm thank you to the other member of the Belgian party committee, Julie Deré and Guillaume Croisant). Lauren Rasking Counsel A&O Shearman

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC warns of double taxation risks in latest UN tax talks 19 Dec 2025 As United Nations negotiations on a Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation continue, ICC warns that reforms risk creating new layers of double taxation. Following the latest round of talks in Nairobi, ICC states that expanding taxing rights without mandatory safeguards and relief from double taxation could undermine cross-border investment, strain tax administrations and weaken global growth. Government negotiators gathered mid-November for the third session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiations Committee (INC) on the Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. Ambition is high: to reshape global tax rules under UN auspices, with a particular eye on fairness and development. For business, however, the direction of travel raises familiar, and serious, questions about certainty, coherence and the risk of double taxation. As the institutional representative of over 45 million companies worldwide, ICC used the Nairobi session to drive home its message. In written submissions to the negotiating workstreams, ICC advocated that without clear safeguards, the Convention could unintentionally undermine cross-border trade and investment rather than support sustainable development. A convention with many moving parts The first week in Nairobi focused on the draft commitments in articles to be included in the Convention itself ( Workstream I ). These articles ranged widely – from fair allocation of taxing rights, the treatment of high-net-worth individuals and sustainable development, to illicit financial flows, tax avoidance and evasion, harmful tax practices, and the prevention and resolution of tax disputes. Double taxation: a severe and unacceptable risk for business For the business community, the most sensitive provision is Article 4 on the ‘fair allocation of taxing rights’. As currently worded, Article 4 asserts broad taxing rights for jurisdictions but offers little guidance on how income should be allocated between them. From a business perspective, this creates a severe and unacceptable risk of double and even multiple taxation – an ambiguity could lead to a regulatory ‘free-for-all’ for jurisdictions. ICC advocated that the Convention must explicitly state the prevention and relief of double taxation as a core non-negotiable objective. Any new source-based taxing rights must be paired with mandatory relief by the residence country, whether through exemptions, tax credits or equivalent measures. Put more simply, if the Convention gives multiple countries the right to tax the very same profits, it must also require relief from double taxation, for instance, through recognition of a tax credit. Otherwise, if the same profits are taxed more than once, it will no longer be economically viable for companies to operate in more than one country. This ultimately leads to a decrease in investments and job creation, and distress in local supply chains and the overall local economy. Expanding taxing rights without equally strong relief mechanisms would, ICC says, amplify the problem rather than solve it. Closely linked is the question of definitions . ICC stressed the need to align concepts and definitions with existing international usage standards, such as those of the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Fragmented definitions increase compliance costs, strain tax administrations and raise the likelihood of disputes – outcomes that would disproportionately affect developing countries with more limited administrative capacity. Dispute prevention and resolution must be strengthened to safeguard tax certainty. The second week of negotiations turned to Workstream III , covering the latest concept note released by the UN Protocol II on dispute prevention and resolution. The concept note outlines an optional mechanism for the protocol to work, allowing countries to choose from a range of mechanisms, those suitable to their legal, political and institutional contexts. The concept note also included open questions on scope, mechanisms and capacity building. While details remain uncertain, our response is unambiguous. Without credible dispute resolution, tax certainty, cross-border investment and sustainable economic growth are at risk. To enhance tax certainty and reduce the volume of disputes, ICC proposed incorporating new prevention instruments into the Protocol: ‘MAP-Lite’ Framework: a streamlined process that allows tax authorities to cooperate quickly, review cases early and grant temporary tax relief while disagreements are being resolved – giving companies interim certainty and reducing the impact on business. ‘Synthetic’ APAs: Encouraging the possibility of coordinating two unilateral Advance Pricing Arrangements (APAs) to create the certainty equivalent of a bilateral APA, yet with less complexity and delay. Simple Safe Harbours: Introducing simple ‘safe harbours’ – pre-agreed tax rules – for low-risk services and routine distribution margins. Where disputes cannot be avoided, ICC strongly supports reinforcing the effectiveness of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) – a formal process that allows governments to resolve cross-border tax disputes between themselves – supported by a binding arbitration backstop. Experience from existing treaties suggests that the mere presence of binding arbitration encourages tax authorities to settle cases within MAP, reducing uncertainty for both governments and taxpayers. One notable absence from Nairobi was progress on Workstream II, covering the taxation of cross-border services. No new document was presented, although a fresh proposal is expected ahead of the next session in New York, starting on 2 February 2026. For now, the UN tax process remains very much a work in progress. Whether it delivers a predictable, rules-based framework or a patchwork of competing claims will depend on choices made by negotiators. ICC remains committed to constructive engagement with the INC and to delivering a predictable, rules-based system that benefits the global economy, while supporting developing countries in achieving needed revenues alongside investment confidence.

< Back < Previous | Next > Leading with integrity in a Digital Age Sam Solaimani 1 Jun 2026 By Sam Solaimani, Professor of Digital Technology, Innovation & Operations Management, Nyenrode Business Universiteit; Senior Managing Advisor, Berenschot Leading with integrity in a Digital Age By Sam Solaimani, Professor of Digital Technology, Innovation & Operations Management, Nyenrode Business Universiteit ; Senior Managing Advisor, Berenschot Most organisations did not begin their AI journey with a board decision. They began with a colleague summarising a document, a manager testing a chatbot before a meeting, a legal team exploring a first draft, or a marketing professional generating ideas for a campaign. In many cases, AI entered the organisation quietly, not through a formal transformation programme, but through individual curiosity and the pressure to work faster. That is understandable. Innovation often starts with people trying to improve their work. But it also creates a leadership challenge. In many organisations, actual AI use is moving faster than policy, governance and collective understanding. This is where integrity becomes essential. In its simplest form, integrity means alignment between what we say and what we do. Values are not just words on a website or principles in a code of conduct. They become real only when they are visible in decisions, systems, incentives and daily behaviour. In the digital age, that alignment is becoming harder to maintain. An organisation may speak confidently about responsible AI, ethical principles and human oversight, while employees are already using AI tools in ways that are informal, uncoordinated or not fully understood. The result is not only a governance gap, but an integrity gap. From individual use to organisational responsibility In Berenschot’s annual AI Trend Research – conducted in collaboration with PublicNL and Link Magazine , and this year joined by Nyenrode Business University - we examine how organisations are actually using AI in practice. One of the striking findings from last year’s edition was the gap between expectation and structure. More than 90% of organisations expected AI use to increase, while fewer than 10% reported structural use based on formal policy. The most frequently mentioned concerns included digital security and the knowledge and skills needed to use AI responsibly. For this year’s edition, we are again gathering insights from organisations across sectors. Directors, executives and professionals who want to contribute to this broader understanding of AI adoption can participate in the short AI Trend Research survey. The results will be shared with participants and are intended to offer practical insights for their own organisations. This finding should not lead to panic, but it should focus attention. AI is already present in daily work. Employees experiment, teams find shortcuts, and business units test tools because the pressure to improve productivity, quality and speed is real. The answer is not to stop experimentation. That would be unrealistic and, in many cases, unwise. The answer is to lead it. If leaders do not create clarity, the organisation will still move — but it will move through fragmented choices, informal habits and local improvisation. That is not a deliberate transformation. It is organisational drift. Make the invisible visible The first responsibility of leadership is to understand reality. Many executive teams see approved systems, official pilots and formal technology roadmaps. They see less of the informal AI use already happening in departments, teams, and individual workflows. This so-called “shadow AI” is not always malicious or reckless. Often, it is simply the result of motivated employees trying to solve practical problems. But what remains invisible cannot be governed. Leaders should, therefore, create conditions in which actual AI use can surface. This requires more than a policy. It requires psychological safety. If employees believe that transparency will be punished, they will not disclose how they use AI. If they believe the organisation is willing to learn, they are more likely to share practices, concerns and lessons. That visibility is the starting point for responsible scaling. Governance should change behaviour There is a temptation to respond to digital risk with documents. Policies, frameworks and principles all have a role to play, especially for multinational companies operating across jurisdictions. But a policy that nobody reads, understands or applies is not governance. It is a theatre. Effective AI governance is proportional. It should be strict where the risks are high and simple where the risks are low. Summarising a public document is not the same as using AI to support recruitment, pricing, credit decisions, compliance assessments or customer interactions. The level of oversight should reflect the materiality of the decision. Good governance is also practical. It helps people make better decisions in real situations. Can I enter this data into this tool? Can I use AI-generated analysis in a client report? When do I need human review? Who is accountable if the output is wrong? Which use cases are encouraged, restricted or prohibited? The test is not whether governance exists. The test is whether it changes behaviour. Integrity cannot be delegated Legal, compliance, risk and IT functions are essential in this agenda. But they cannot carry it alone. AI affects strategy, operations, people, customers and reputation. It is therefore a leadership issue. Executives set the tone not only by how they speak about AI but also by how they use it themselves. Leaders who are curious, transparent and thoughtful in their own use of AI create a different culture from leaders who delegate the topic to a working group and move on. This does not mean that every board member must become a technologist. It does mean that leaders need enough understanding to ask the right questions, challenge easy answers and recognise when risks are being hidden behind technical language. For multinational companies, the stakes are especially high. They operate across legal systems, cultures and stakeholder expectations. A digital practice that seems acceptable in one context may create legal, ethical or reputational problems in another. At a global scale, small blind spots can quickly become serious issues. The real test of digital leadership The real test of leadership is not whether an organisation can launch AI pilots. Almost every organisation can do that. The test is whether it can translate experimentation into reliable, responsible and value-creating practice. That requires more than technology. It requires organisational adaptability: the ability to renew processes, capabilities, governance and culture as technology changes. In my experience, digital transformations rarely fail because the technology is not impressive enough. They fail because the organisation lacks the capability to absorb, steer and scale the change. Leading with integrity in a digital age, therefore, means asking more than “Can we use this technology?” It means asking: “Should we use it here, in this way, for this purpose, with these safeguards?” AI will continue to move quickly. Regulation will continue to develop. Competitive pressure will continue to rise. But trust remains the foundation on which business is built. Customers, employees, regulators, investors and society will judge companies not only on whether they use AI, but also on whether they use it responsibly. Integrity is not the brake on digital innovation. It is the steering system. Without it, speed becomes risk. With it, digital transformation can become what it should be: a source of better work, better decisions and more resilient organisations. Prof. Dr. Sam Solaimani is involved in the annual AI Trend Research, a collaboration between Berenschot, PublicNL, Link Magazine and Nyenrode Business Universiteit. The research tracks how organisations across sectors are adopting, governing and responding to AI — and the organisational implications that follow.

< Back < Previous | Next > Multilateralism Africa – issues and opportunities relating to trade 1 Jun 2025 In the previous issue of this newsletter we heard that the USA represents just 13% of global trade. In our conversation with Secretary General of ICC United Kingdom Chris Southworth, he said that “we need to focus on the remaining 87% of the global trade system.” With this in mind, we contacted Karima-Catherine Goundian to learn more about Africa’s current and future role in the global trade environment. Karima-Catherine Goundian Can we start off with a definition of Africa's current standing in global trade – looking at both established and emerging sectors? Africa’s position in global trade is still largely defined by raw material exports. For example, oil from Nigeria, cobalt from Democratic Republic of the Congo, and cocoa from Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire. With South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt and Morocco leading in terms of trade volume and influence, there's a growing momentum towards diversification and value addition. Ethiopia is building a textile manufacturing base; Kenya is known for fintech and innovation; Morocco is advancing in automotive and green energy; Rwanda and Ghana are making significant leaps in positioning themselves as innovation and logistics hubs. The narrative about Africa is shifting slowly to being recognised more as a growing frontier. Considering the diversity of this huge continent, is it just too simple to talk about ‘Africa’ as one entity? Africa is 54 countries with multiple economy blocks, diverse political systems, and different languages that are obviously based on the colonial past. It is really critical to avoid oversimplification. In addition, Africa has historically been grouped with the Gulf region to form the MENA region, as if it’s all the same. However, if you are comparing, for example, the business environment of Mauritius to DRC, it’s like comparing Sweden and Brazil. They have nothing to do with each other. I think we really must engage in shifting against that narrative about what Africa is at the regional and national level. With that in mind, how should foreign companies look at working with African businesses? I think it’s important not to look at Africa as a continent, but as an opportunity region; the same way you would if you were to go to Europe. For example, you’re not going to tackle all of the European countries at once; it depends on what you are looking for. Are you looking to manufacture? Are you looking to commercialise? Are you looking for partners and collaborators? Are you doing research and development? What are the most significant challenges facing African trade? Debt relief, climate vulnerability and political instability are all very significant. And I haven’t even started talking about the health hazards. Those challenges all are deep-rooted. What are the solutions to progress? I think that strength will come from collaboration. This is where it gets tricky: this collaboration must be with groups that have Africa’s best interests in mind. Otherwise, it’s going to be a repeat of colonialism, just with different people involved, which is what we are seeing in some places. This is why I believe the next frontier for Africa has to come from within Africa; with new leaders who think differently and understand the challenges; people who are not foresighted, trying to gain for themselves or their immediate family and friends. Do you have any examples of this new style of leadership? A good example happened just a few weeks ago: Guinea’s military-led government revoked the licences of 51 mining companies, citing non-compliance with development obligations and underutilisation of concessions. This spans the bauxite, gold, diamond, graphite and iron mining industries. This sends an important message, it’s a signal that Guinea is really serious about enforcing codes. This kind of stance is very good and very new to Africa, where there is a courage to ask people to abide by rules and hold them to it. How does the energy transition and sustainability align with the development of African trade? Looking at the challenges of the energy transition and sustainability, we’re trying to balance industrial growth with climate goals, which, traditionally, are conflicting. Many African nations have renewable resources – solar, wind and hydroelectric power – but lack the infrastructure to scale them. The other big challenge is financing. If you’re talking about green transition funds, they’re often inefficient or just inaccessible. When I look at the future in this specific area, capacity building and technology transfers are crucial. There are definitely opportunities, for which I think the regional integration of the AfCFTA [African Continental Free Trade Area] is really important. I hope that we can get to a common currency in Africa; this would help a lot in trade within and outside Africa. Let’s turn our attention to ICC's involvement. Does the ICC help? ICC’s role is huge: I see it as a bridge between global vision and local implementation. It can serve as a safeguard and guardrail to provide clarity in trade rules, support arbitration and dispute resolution. And with the right partnerships, ICC can really drive policy advocacy at local government level and shape those trade ecosystems; promoting digital standards for cross-border commerce, for example. ICC can really bring value in helping with ESG reporting, promoting ethical business practices. Procurement reform and capacity building are important as well, specifically when we talk about doing business in Africa, and giving SMEs access to global markets. And how does your work align with the development of companies based in Africa? In my work, I operate a global platform that connects vetted small and medium-sized businesses across markets. This gives me direct insight into the structural barriers they face—from regulatory friction to trust gaps—and into the types of support that actually drive successful partnerships. That perspective shapes how I see the ICC’s role—not just as a policy advocate, but as a practical enabler of high-impact, cross-border collaboration. With a focus on avoiding neo-colonisation, what are emerging African sectors looking for in a trading partner? That’s the million-dollar question. It really is a funnel question – it depends if you’re talking about government, SMEs, or larger groups there. I think what is important is achieving competitiveness. Policies are really important but this will require investment in infrastructure, education and digital connectivity. Those are the three key pieces.

< Back < Previous | Next > Sustainability New ICC Policy Brief Calls for Regulatory Reforms to Unlock Climate Finance in Emerging Markets 30 Jun 2025 ICC urges targeted reforms to global banking rules, especially Basel III, to unlock climate finance for emerging markets. The brief proposes near-term fixes and deeper changes to ease capital barriers without risking financial stability. Targeted adjustments to global banking rules could mobilize billions for climate investment without compromising financial stability. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released a new policy brief outlining how targeted reforms to the global banking regulatory framework could dramatically increase the flow of private capital to climate projects in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). Launched this week alongside the FfD4 conference in Seville, the brief—titled Enhancing Climate Finance in EMDEs through Prudential Regulatory Clarification and Reform—provides concrete recommendations to align prudential rules with climate and development goals. At the heart of the brief is a simple but urgent message: if we want to reach net zero globally, we must unlock more finance for the countries that need it most—and current banking rules are getting in the way. Why this matters Despite representing 25% of global GDP, EMDEs attract only 14% of international climate finance. According to the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, these economies need an additional $450–550 billion per year in external finance by 2030 to stay on track with global climate goals. However, ICC’s global business network reports that banks face major obstacles when trying to finance climate-aligned projects in EMDEs—primarily due to how the Basel III framework treats project finance, credit enhancements, and country risk. These technical rules significantly raise capital requirements for EMDE exposures, even when strong risk mitigants are in place. As a result, banks are either exiting these markets or passing on high risk premiums that cancel out the benefits of concessional finance. What ICC proposes The policy brief sets out a two-step reform agenda: Quick Wins: Technical Clarifications and Adjustments These include: Updating Basel guidance to better reflect how credit guarantees, political risk insurance, and blended finance structures actually work in practice. Recognizing partial guarantees and borrower-level protections (like power purchase agreements and FX hedging) when calculating capital relief. Automatically extending favorable risk treatment to all multilateral development banks (MDBs) with AA- credit ratings or higher. Longer-Term Structural Reforms These include: Revising how project finance is treated across its lifecycle, given evidence of strong performance and high recovery rates in EMDEs. Rethinking the use of country risk ceilings to better differentiate project-level risk from sovereign risk. Exploring a “climate supporting factor” for EMDE investments, similar to how SMEs and infrastructure receive adjusted risk weights in some jurisdictions. A call to action ICC is calling for a structured dialogue under the Baku to Belém Roadmap—bringing together financial regulators, development institutions, and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The aim: implement near-term fixes and build momentum toward broader alignment between prudential rules and climate goals. “Finance is the lifeblood of the climate transition,” said ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO. “If we want private capital to flow to the right places, the rules must work with—not against—climate ambition.” The full policy brief is available here: Download