Search Results

< Back < Previous | Next > Dispute Resolution Mediation in Practice: Empowering Legal Professionals with Strategic Tools for Commercial Disputes 28 May 2025 On 28 May, ICC Netherlands joined forces with CMS and the Academy of Legal Mediation for a highly interactive and well-attended afternoon dedicated to exploring the strategic use of mediation in commercial disputes. On 28 May, ICC Netherlands joined forces with CMS and the Academy of Legal Mediation for a highly interactive and well-attended afternoon dedicated to exploring the strategic use of mediation in commercial disputes. Held at the CMS offices in Amsterdam, the session brought together legal practitioners, both in-house and external counsel, for a hands-on program of expert insights, practical tools, and a live demonstration of mediation in action. This session was part of ICC NL’s ongoing efforts to support effective dispute resolution across borders, empower professionals with practical tools, and promote the strategic inclusion of mediation in contract design and corporate policy. Setting the Scene: The Mediation Clause as a Strategic Tool The afternoon opened with an engaging presentation by Bart-Adriaan de Ruijter , Partner Corporate Litigation at CMS, Jeremy Mash , Partner at CMS UK, who provided in-depth guidance on how to draft effective dispute resolution clauses that include mediation. Drawing from Dutch case law, particularly the 2024 Supreme Court ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1078), he explained how mediation clauses can be interpreted as binding obligations and under what circumstances courts may suspend proceedings to enforce them. Bart-Adriaan highlighted common pitfalls in multi-tier clauses: the importance of clarity on whether mediation is a condition precedent, the mechanism for appointing a mediator, the timeframe for mediation, and the consequences of non-compliance. Model clauses from ICC and other organisations were presented as best-practice examples, with a call to legal professionals to embed these tools more systematically into commercial agreements. Meanwhile, Jeremy offered a UK perspective. He explained the shift in English jurisprudence toward enforcing mediation clauses and the impact of recent cases like Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil (2023). Mash made a strong case for the pre-emptive value of mediation, preventing disputes from escalating and preserving relationships. He warned, however, of the risk of token participation unless the process is well-structured and meaningful incentives are in place. Mediation Essentials: A Crash Course for Legal Counsel Next, internationally recognised business mediator Manon Schonewille delivered a dynamic crash course on core mediation techniques. She guided the audience through the mediation process step-by-step, focusing on the mediator’s role, party autonomy, and key techniques such as summarising, reframing, and facilitating communication. A central concept of the session was the shift from positions (what parties say they want) to underlying interests (what they really need), captured in the ICNM framework (Interests, Concerns, Needs, Motivations). As Manon explained, mediation is not about compromise, but about discovering mutual gains and building sustainable outcomes, especially valuable when emotions or long-term business relations are at stake. Key takeaways included: The importance of structured opening statements. The strategic value of separating people, problem, and process. The use of tools like the INNOVADR quadrant to choose the right mediation style (facilitative vs evaluative, directive vs non-directive). Seeing Mediation in Action Perhaps the most appreciated part of the afternoon was the live mediation demonstration featuring Jeremy Lack , an international mediator and thought leader in dispute resolution innovation. Through a role-play simulation, the audience was invited to observe, and actively comment on, a mediation scenario between two fictional business parties. The demonstration showcased different mediation styles, how parties navigate trust and power imbalances, and how mediators manage the process to bring clarity and de-escalation. This segment not only offered a behind-the-scenes look at real-time mediation tactics, but also sparked lively discussion among participants on the challenges and opportunities of applying mediation techniques in high-stakes commercial disputes. Reflections in Light of Recent Research The event also aligned closely with findings from the 2024 PBM (Platform Business Mediation) research report , which was presented during the session. Some key data points that resonated with the audience: 56.76% of companies and 41.76% of lawyers believe mediation is the most effective way to resolve business disputes, more than arbitration or litigation alone. The top reasons companies prefer mediation include preserving business relationships, faster resolution, and addressing root causes. However, many professionals still cite uncertainty around enforceability, unfamiliarity with mediation clauses, or lack of internal policy as reasons mediation is underused. These findings underscore the importance of continued capacity-building and cultural change within legal teams and organisations. A Call for Smarter Dispute Resolution ICC Netherlands is committed to promoting dispute resolution methods that are practical, flexible, and efficient, supporting businesses not only in managing risk but also in safeguarding relationships and reputations. With mediation now gaining stronger recognition, especially under the ICC Mediation, this session offered a timely reminder: well-drafted clauses and well-trained professionals are key to making mediation work. We thank all our speakers for their contributions, and CMS for hosting this session in Amsterdam. Top Tips for an Effective Mediation Clause 1. Be clear about intent → Is mediation voluntary , mandatory , or a precondition to arbitration/litigation? 2. Define the procedure → Specify the applicable rules (e.g. ICC)→ Clarify how and when the mediator is appointed 3. Timeframe matters → State when mediation should occur (e.g. within 30–45 days of dispute notice) 4. Avoid vague language → Phrases like “parties may consider mediation” lack enforceability→ Use firm language: “shall refer the dispute…” 5. Allow flexibility → Keep process design open where possible—many mediators use their own proven approach 6. Plan for what’s next → Mediation clause ≠ settlement clause. Spell out what happens if mediation fails 7. Reference known standards → ICC Mediation Rules or other reputable institutions give clarity and international consistency Bonus tip: Use ICC Clause D if you want a robust, staged process: mediation first, arbitration if needed. Interested in Learning More? If you missed the session or would like to go deeper: Download the ICC model clauses for mediation and arbitration: iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution Explore mediation advocacy training: Academy of Legal Mediation Try the InnovADR Diagnostic Tool : innovadr.com/diagnostic Read the PBM Research Report : platformbusinessmediation.nl Certificates of attendance and PO points are available for those who joined. For follow-up questions or guidance on implementing mediation in your practice, don’t hesitate to reach out to ICC Netherlands.

< Back < Previous | Next > Model Contracts and Clauses ICC Anti-corruption Clause 4 Jul 2025 The ICC Anti-corruption Clause is a voluntary contractual provision that companies can include in their commercial agreements, whereby they undertake to comply with the 2023 ICC Rules on Combating Corruption or commit to put in place and maintain an anti-corruption compliance programme. Download The ICC Anti-corruption Clause is a voluntary contractual provision that companies can include in their commercial agreements, whereby they undertake to comply with the 2023 ICC Rules on Combatting Corruption or commit to put in place and maintain an anti-corruption compliance programme. The purpose is to provide an underlying legal foundation to mitigate corruption risks during the negotiation and contractual period. The inclusion of the Clause thereby reassures both parties about the integrity of their counterpart, and includes clear and actionable avenues for redress where there are allegations of breach. By establishing clearly defined anti-corruption obligations, the Clause creates a transparent framework for ethical business conduct. This reduces compliance uncertainty, enhances mutual accountability, builds trust on a foundation of shared ethical standards, and ultimately strengthens commercial partnerships. Widely used by businesses and even by some governments, the 2025 Clause has been updated to align with current business practices and the 2023 ICC Anti-corruption Rules. ICC Anti-Corruption Clause – 2025 edition: What’s new? The 2025 Anti-corruption Clause ensures alignment with the 2023 ICC Rules on Combating Corruption, which serve as both a self-regulation tool for business and a roadmap for governments in their efforts to fight corruption. The new edition includes a recognition that parties may opt to use this ICC Anti-corruption Clause, or the spirit of this ICC Clause, as part of a broader compliance or business integrity clause, and a reaffirmed commitment on the prevention of conflicts of interest. The Clause is an essential component of ICC’s renown lead in setting standards of business integrity worldwide, and forms part of ICC’s larger body of work on Model Contracts and Clauses – a suite of practical legal tools drafted by legal experts. These contracts and clauses enable business to avoid the significant time and expense of drafting bespoke contracts, offering instead proven, reliable templates that ensure equitable terms for all parties. How to include the ICC Anti-corruption Clause in a contract The ICC Anti-corruption Clause can be included via one of three options: Option 1 : Incorporation by reference of the ICC Rules on Combating Corruption 2023 Option 2 : Incorporation of the full text of the ICC Rules on Combating Corruption 2023, or Option 3 : An undertaking to implement a corporate compliance programme, as described in Article 11 of the 2023 ICC Rules on Combating Corruption. A party who fails to comply with the incorporated anti-corruption provisions will be given a chance to remedy the non-compliance and to raise the fact that it has put in place adequate anti-corruption preventive measures as a defense.   If the non-complying party doesn’t or can’t take remedial action and doesn’t raise a defence, the other party can choose to suspend or terminate the contract.  

< Back < Previous | Next > DRS ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics: 2024 24 Jun 2025 The annual ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics offer a comprehensive overview of disputes submitted to the ICC International Court of Arbitration and the ICC International Centre for ADR. They provide an in-depth breakdown of the numbers and global reach of ICC Arbitration and other ICC Dispute Resolution Services worldwide. 2024 key statistics The full 2024 statistical report reflects ICC’s standing as the preferred institution for international commercial and investment dispute resolution. The amount in dispute in cases registered in 2024 varied from just below US$10,000 to US$53 billion, with over a third of the cases not exceeding US$3 million. Alexander G. Fessas, Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration and Director of ICC Dispute Resolution services said: “ICC Arbitration remains a preferred dispute resolution method globally, attracting high-value, high-impact disputes as well as lower-value disputes. The 2024 statistical report reflects the trust placed in our services, from businesses and states in need of fair, efficient and forward-looking dispute resolution.” Distribution of parties by region Place of arbitration ICC arbitrations were seated in 107 cities across 62 countries or independent territories. Representation of arbitrators In addition to a wide geographic reach, diversity and inclusion are at the core of our service. In 2024, 577 draft awards were approved in Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Arabic, Italian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Turkish. and bilingually in Chinese/English, demonstrating the adaptability of ICC Dispute Resolution Services in tailoring arbitration services to assist businesses and state entities worldwide. Sectors and industries Cases filed in 2024 covered a wide range of sectors. Top 10 sectors included construction/ engineering; energy; transportation; financing and insurance; telecoms and specialised technologies; health, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics; business services; general trade and distribution; leisure and entertainment and industrial equipment and services. Mediation and other forms of amicable dispute settlement The ICC International Centre for ADR administered 61 new cases in 2024 across its range of services which include mediation, expert proceedings, dispute boards and DOCDEX cases relating to trade finance instruments. Expert proceedings accounted for 20 new filings , with the majority of proceedings from the construction and energy sectors. Parties and neutrals represented a broad geographic span including Africa, the Middle East, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific, reflecting the continuing adoption globally of ICC’s ADR services. For an ICC DRS data overview, download our one-pager in English , Arabic , Chinese , French , Portuguese and Spanish . Access statistical reports from previous years via the ICC Dispute Resolution Library . Download

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture 2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum and ICC side event on business and government as partners for integrity to the OECD 6 Apr 2025 At the 2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum, ICC hosted a side event to boost business-government collaboration on integrity, highlighting tools like updated anti-corruption clauses. Forum discussions focused on bribery solicitation, tech-driven anti-corruption efforts, integrity in the green transition, and public-private cooperation for fairer global markets. On the sidelines of the OECD -OCDE Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum on March 24 in Paris, the ICC Global Commission on Business Integrity connected government and business leaders in encourage strong ethical standards that drive trust, investment, and strong-success for all. Key Takeaways • Companies need to sharpen their capacity to detect and assess geopolitical dynamics to do global business. • Harnessing trade facilitation to bolster integrity at border crossings. There are key risks at borders. Public and private partnerships are recommended to mitigate the risks. • Tools to drive integrity through contracts-update of ICC Anti-Corruption Clause. • ICC Guidance on Responsible Business for Challenging Contexts is an essential tool to support companies in anticipating crisis situations • Stronger together. Businesses and governments unite to drive integrity forward. The OECD Forum on Wednesday 26th started after the opening remarks by Mathias Cormann, Secretary-General, OECD, with launching the global dialogue; insights form leaders. The OECD forum was attended by representatives of the Public and Private sector, Universities and Civil Society. Key Topics • Galvanising the private sector for integrity: from policy to practice. Concrete solutions emerging from public-private cooperation such as peer-to-peer learning and the use of technology for integrity were topic of conversation. • Tackling the demand side: Innovative approaches to combat foreign solicitation. Bribery solicitation remains a pervasive challenge in global markets, undermining fair competition and public trust. The 2021OECDAnti-Bribery Recommendation introduced new provisions to address bribery solicitation, to move a step forward. Participants discussed how to enhance cross-border collaboration and enforcement can help disrupt solicitation schemes while fostering greater accountability and fairness in international business. The proactive role of companies in resisting solicitation, strengthening compliance programmes, and reporting corrupt practices were also highlighted. Tackling both the demand and supply sides of bribery is crucial to building a balance and effective approach, ensuring systemic change and promoting integrity in global markets. • Harnessing cutting-edge technologies and collaboration for a holistic fight against corruption. Cutting-edge technologies – such as data analytics, digital forensics, and artificial intelligenceare driving transformation in enforcement, compliance and oversight efforts. The collaboration between enforcements authorities , the private sector, and civil society, multistakeholder approaches and data-sharing framework, can strengthen the global response to corruption. • Addressing de-risking and illicit financial flows to unlock sustainable development financing. Panellists examined how cooperation, public-private partnerships, and strong political commitments can help mitigate de-risking and mobilise finance for sustainable development. • On Thursday March 27th focused a session on the OECD Public Integrity Indicators (Plls): From evidence to reform. The panellists, including Gonzalo Guzman, Chair of the ICC Global Commission on Business Integrity, shared insights on how the Plls can drive action, build resilience to risks, and support innovation. The Plls can help to a structured approach. The session also awarded the winners of the OECD Anti-Corruption Research Challenge, researchers who used the OECD Public Integrity Indicators to propose novel insights for anticorruption policies across OECD member and non-member countries. The winners didn’t really find significant results referring to the indicators. However transparency is quite important. The mentioned the Netherlands as one of the countries which can set more goals. • Greening with integrity: Tackling corruption in the green transition. The green transition offers immense opportunities for sustainable development but also presents significant corruption risks that could undermine its potential. How we can make sure that the green transition is with integrity. A panellist from the World Bank stated that corruption is everywhere. Insights were shared into how anti-corruption measures can strengthen trust and transparency, ensuring that the race toward a greener future remains both sustainable and equitable. Make the data available, use a multistakeholder approach and invest in transparency to make the difference. Not only the technical solutions are important, but also the political will. A challenge is how to show that a fair green transition is not slower, will cost no more. • Addressing strategic corruption: How to leverage the anti-corruption toolbox. • Bridging the data gap: Leveraging technology to strengthen the fight against corruption. In addition there were a lot of side events during the conference and the rest of the week.

< Back < Previous | Next > Global Response Pronounced spike in low-level crimes in Singapore Straits 15 Apr 2025 The ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) has revealed a rise in global piracy and armed robbery incidents in the first quarter of 2025 – driven by a spike of incidents in the Singapore Straits. A total of 45 cases of piracy and armed robbery against ships were recorded in the first three months of 2025 – an almost 35 percent increase compared to the same period in 2024. Of the incidents reported, 37 vessels were boarded, four were hijacked and four had attempted attacks. The threat to crew safety remains high with 37 crew members taken hostage, 13 kidnapped, two threatened and one injured. Rise of incidents in Singapore Straits The Q1 report highlights a spike in recorded incidents in the Singapore Straits as 27 incidents were reported from vessels transiting these waters compared to seven for the same period in 2024. While most incidents were considered low-level opportunistic crimes, crew members were at great risk with guns reported in 14 incidents. For the whole of 2024, guns were reported in 26 incidents globally. Ten crew members were taken hostage in six separate incidents, two were threatened and one was reported injured. Ninety-two percent of all vessels targeted in the Singapore Straits were successfully boarded, including nine bulk carriers and tankers over 100,000 deadweight tonnage in size. IMB Director Michael Howlett said: “The reported rise of incidents in the Singapore Straits is concerning, highlighting the urgent need to protect the safety of seafarers navigating these waters. Ensuring the security of these vital routes is essential and all necessary measures must be taken to safeguard crew members.” Caution advised in the Gulf of Guinea Although the number of reported incidents within the Gulf of Guinea waters and adjoining littoral states continues to be at its lowest in nearly two decades, the IMB urges continued caution as crew members remain at risk. All 13 kidnapped crew were reported in these waters in two separate attacks – with a total of six incidents reported in the first quarter of the year. In March, pirates hijacked a bitumen tanker southeast of Santo Antonio, in Sao Tome and Principe, kidnapping 10 crew members – while a fishing vessel south of Accra, Ghana, was boarded by armed pirates who kidnapped three crew members. “While we welcome the reduction of incidents, the safety of crew members in the Gulf of Guinea remains at greater risk. It is essential to maintain a strong regional and international naval presence to address these incidents and ensure the protection of seafarers,” Mr Howlett said. Somali piracy threat remains Between 7 February and 16 March 2025, two fishing vessels and a dhow were hijacked off the coast of Somalia. In these incidents, 26 crew members were taken hostage, demonstrating the continued capabilities of Somali pirates. Reports indicate all crew have been released along with the vessels. The IMB advises ships navigating these waters to exercise caution and to strictly follow the latest version of the Industry Best Management Practice (BMP). Download your copy of the 2025 Jan – Mar Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships report here . About the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre Since its founding in 1991, IMB’s Piracy Reporting Centre has served as a crucial, 24-hour point of contact to report crimes of piracy and lend support to ships under threat. Quick reactions and a focus on coordinating with response agencies, sending out warning broadcasts and email alerts to ships have all helped bolster security on the high seas. The data gathered by the Centre also provides key insights on the nature and state of modern piracy. IMB encourages all shipmasters and owners to report all actual, attempted and suspected global piracy and armed robbery incidents to the Piracy Reporting Centre as a vital first step to ensuring adequate resources are allocated by authorities to tackle maritime piracy.

< Back < Previous | Next > Sanctions and export controls in 2026: where Dutch business is most exposed 26 Jun 2026 The Dutch FIOD has set up a dedicated sanctions team, and the catch-all controls now reach into common consumer goods. At our second Digital Business Lunch, Floor Koops and Ruud Altena set out where Dutch business is most exposed. Sanctions and export controls in 2026: where Dutch business is most exposed For Dutch exporters, the trade-compliance landscape has shifted under foot. The Fiscal and Economic Investigation Service (FIOD) set up a dedicated sanctions enforcement team in 2025. Investigations and site visits are on the rise. The 20th EU sanctions package has landed, and the catch-all goods list has widened to a point where common consumer goods sit alongside the obvious dual-use items. At the second ICC Netherlands Digital Business Lunch on 26 June, more than 40 trade and compliance professionals joined Floor Koops, partner at Bennink Dunin-Wasowicz, and Ruud Altena, corporate compliance leader most recently at Braskem, for a practical conversation on where the risks now sit and what business should do about them. The session was moderated by Andrea Cardoso. A widening net The most striking trend, Koops said, is the steady tightening of the EU sanctions framework. Recent measures include new contractual clauses to prevent tankers being resold to Russian buyers, port infrastructure bans (including in Indonesia), restrictions on Russian crypto-asset providers, and an EU activation of its anti-circumvention tool with a full ban on certain exports to Kyrgyzstan. The number of exemptions and derogation options is shrinking. For an audience broadly familiar with sanctions, the most surprising element is how broadly the catch-all goods list now reaches. Typewriter ribbons, used clothes and seats for motor vehicles are now among the items restricted from export to Russia. A common reaction in the audience: we assumed our products were too ordinary to be caught. On Iran, Koops flagged the recent EU framework allowing further restrictive measures in response to actions threatening the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, on top of restrictions tied to UAV manufacture, technical assistance, brokering and intellectual property. The under-prepared side Companies focus heavily on the export side and miss the import restrictions, Koops said. Since January 2026, the EU has restricted the import of petroleum products bought from other countries when they contain Russian-origin oil. Cigars, pebbles, refrigerators and dishwashers are also caught. Services are the other blind spot. EU restrictions cover two categories: outright bans on providing certain services to Russia (engineering, technical, IT and others), and services tied to goods that were previously restricted from export. Koops described seeing cases where a Dutch company owns goods already inside Russia from before 2022, and is now still prohibited from servicing them because of the underlying restriction. “If you do business in Russia or you have a subsidiary in Russia, there is almost no chance that you don’t also provide a service,” she said. Is a ship just a ship? Altena brought a case to the room. A USD 550 million shipbuilding project, financed in part by a Norwegian pension fund, sourced eight vessels from a Chinese shipyard. Due diligence revealed that the shipyard also built military vessels. The vessels were destined for Asia and South America, never the United States, but the team could not fully eliminate the risk that, somewhere in the operating life of the ship, US sanctions would touch the crew, the maintenance, the bunker fuel or the flag. “Is a ship just a ship? It’s much more. It’s by itself a legal entity. It’s a floating village requiring a crew, requiring maintenance of the ship itself, of the equipment on board,” Altena said. Each layer carries its own sanctions exposure. Sanctioned parties can supply bunker fuel, provide maintenance, or sit in the crew roster. The flag adds a diplomatic angle. Asked what he would do differently with the benefit of hindsight, Altena was direct: he would have pushed harder for South Korea over China. More expensive, politically safer, and the project sponsor would have slept better. The spare-parts trap Where Koops sees classification go wrong most often is in the treatment of spare parts. Companies routinely classify spare parts under the same HS code as the main good. The main good ships under its own export licence, but the spare part, taken on its own, may require a separate licence under the EU dual-use regime. A maintenance contract triggers a shipment of spare parts months later, customs treats it as classified, and the company has unwittingly breached. Even within the EU, certain dual-use items require a licence. A common mistake is to assume that intra-EU shipments are out of scope. They are not. Tone from the top On compliance programmes, Koops and Altena converged on the same message: trade compliance can no longer sit only with legal or the compliance function. A workable programme starts with a thorough risk assessment covering sector, goods exported and imported, counterparties (direct and indirect), geographies and modes of transport. From that assessment, a company can design a tailored programme with concrete steps, clear escalation paths, and workflows tailored to sales, procurement and supply chain. “Compliance should not be something that is a legal or compliance thing, but it should really be owned by the business,” Koops said. Sales, procurement and supply chain are the face of the company to the world. They have to own the risk. A clear, communicated risk appetite (what countries, what sectors will we not touch) is, in her view, the single most effective control a business can put in place. Altena added the operational piece. A regular survey of middle management, scoring the compliance posture on tariff classification, valuation, customs management and other dimensions on a one-to-five scale, lets a company track which weak points are improving and which are not. Annual full reviews, quarterly check-ins on the weaknesses. Document everything, train staff, audit at intervals. When the bank calls A significant share of unintentional breaches surface through bank payment screening. Koops urged companies to cooperate fully and document their answers carefully. Reluctance to share creates a worse problem than disclosure does. Banks that do not get clear answers will not process transactions, and over time they will close the account. Reopening an account elsewhere is materially harder than most companies expect. What Dutch businesses can start doing now Asked to close with five practical priorities, both speakers landed on overlapping but complementary lists. From Floor Koops : first, make sanctions and export-controls compliance a tone-from-the-top priority. It is a competitive advantage. Second, run a risk assessment and design a tailor-made compliance programme around it. Third, classify all of your goods, including spare parts. Fourth, set clear escalation paths, with business units owning the risk. Fifth, embed the culture: trade compliance as a strategic capability, not a backstop. From Ruud Altena : first, keep classification up to date, and aim not just for “correct” but for “optimised” for your supply chain. Second, validate your export tools and have a real conversation with your customs broker. Third, go beyond tier-one screening into the supply chain, on both supplier and customer sides. Fourth, take services seriously. They can be sanctioned, and the sovereignty discussion is widening the scope. Fifth, leverage tariff and free-trade agreements. They are also opportunities, and the Finance Director will thank you. The road ahead Through its Business Integrity Commission, ICC Netherlands continues to develop practical guidance across five working groups. The first deliverable, a set of minimum standards and plain-language one-pagers on sanctions compliance, is expected to be published after the summer, with further work underway on anti-corruption, integrated due diligence, and boardroom ethics. ICC Netherlands shares this work openly, and welcomes new organisations to join. The Digital Business Lunch is a monthly online series discussing the issues that move international trade, covering a range of subjects from tariffs and customs reform to AI in trade compliance, sustainability and IFRS. For more information about upcoming Digital Business Lunches: Events & Trainings | ICC WBO Netherlands or our LinkedIn page.

< Back < Previous | Next > Mediation Draft Smart, Resolve Smarter: How to Use Mediation Clauses Effectively 4 May 2025 Amid rising geopolitical tension, mediation is gaining traction in international contracts—but its effectiveness depends on clear wording and local legal interpretation. In an era of heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty, international businesses are under increasing pressure to manage disputes swiftly and strategically. One of the most promising tools? Mediation. Often embedded in multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses, mediation is lauded for its confidentiality, flexibility, and cost-efficiency. But how enforceable is that mediation clause you tucked into your last international contract? A Dutch Turning Point In July 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between two professional parties over whether their contractual mediation clause was enforceable (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1078). The Court confirmed that such clauses can be binding in B2B contexts—but crucially, whether they are enforced will depend on the exact wording and the tribunal or judge’s discretion. As summed up in a recent Houthoff article, this leaves room for uncertainty: “The Dutch Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that mediation clauses can be binding upon professional parties, yet it leaves the enforcement of such clauses largely to the discretion of arbitral tribunals, potentially undermining their effectiveness.” In short: your mediation clause might only be as strong as the words used—and the hands interpreting them. It’s Not Just the Netherlands The recent Dutch Supreme Court ruling adds to a growing body of international jurisprudence confirming that mediation clauses—when properly drafted—can be binding and enforceable. While some jurisdictions have long upheld such clauses, others are only more recently aligning with this approach. Together, these developments underscore that if businesses want their mediation clause to bite, it must be clear, operational, and deliberate. Here are some illustrative cases from different jurisdictions: Some illustrative cases: These cases reflect a broader trend: well-crafted mediation clauses are being taken seriously, even by the highest courts and tribunals. Ignore them at your peril. What Should Businesses Do? As the ICC’s recent guidance makes clear, dispute resolution clauses are no longer boilerplate. They’re strategic. Here’s how to make them work: Why It Matters for ICC Arbitration Users ICC Arbitration embraces efficiency and procedural integrity—but real efficiency starts with the contract. Mediation clauses, when done right, can de-escalate conflict before it becomes legal war. When ignored or drafted poorly, they can become yet another source of friction. And as the Dutch case illustrates, even when mediation clauses are valid, enforcement may hinge on interpretation—raising the stakes for precision and consistency.

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics How businesses can tackle isolationism and protectionism Tom Scott 3 Feb 2025 Andrew Wilson As Deputy Secretary General for Policy at ICC Global, Andrew Wilson ’s job focuses on any public policy relevant to business. That’s everything from trade to tax, from climate to financial regulation. He carries out this work at a range of different levels: national, EU, but mainly various United Nations bodies such as the WTO. He describes ICC’s role as being “the voice of business in international policymaking, ensuring that what is agreed at the UN or WTO really meets the needs of local private sectors across the world”. We caught up with Andrew to talk to him about the challenges of geopolitics today: how it affects international trade, the global shift towards isolationism, the impact (if any) of Trump’s second term in the White House. In addition to ICC’s response to these issues, we also discussed the various options open to businesses to tackle the trend of increasing unilateralism and protectionism. What is ICC’s view of the current state of geopolitics? We are living in an increasingly fragmented and uncertain world. We’ve got hot conflict in Ukraine and, until recently, the Middle East. And we have severe tension between the largest two economies in the world: the USA and China. In addition to this, there is also a steadily growing mindset of unilateralism and protectionism within many economies. Looking closer at unilateralism and protectionism, how does this affect international trade? The trade environment is far more complex and certainly less stable than it was, say, before the pandemic. In 2023, for example, there were 3,000 new trade barriers erected by governments across the world. This represents a five-fold increase over the previous five years. This steady drift, almost unnoticed by much of the media, towards greater isolationism is certainly not conducive to high levels of trade growth, which powers long-term job creation and GDP growth. Indeed, the USA is currently getting a lot of media attention about tariffs. Surely this huge increase in trade barriers is not originating only from the White House? This is an important point of clarification that we want to bring to the debate. The USA is certainly not alone in its protectionist policies. This is part of a much broader trend towards unilateralism in trade: the steady erosion of the multilateral trading system. There are governments in other regions – Southeast Asia and, to a lesser extent, Latin America – that are introducing some forms of restrictions to trade. These aren’t necessarily tariffs; it could be distortionary subsidies or export restrictions. Just how much influence does the USA have? Another point of nuance that is sometimes missing is that the USA accounts for only ten per cent of global trade flows. Compared to the 1930s, for example, the USA just simply doesn’t have the same market power today. However, we are very conscious of how countries may respond to the ‘America First’ policy. What possible options do countries have? They could choose to negotiate. Or accept the imposition of tariffs. Or to retaliate. Our big concern from a systemic perspective is if other major economies start to retaliate – the European Union, China, Canada, for instance – then we could end up with tariff escalations within the G20 or even the G7. That would obviously be extraordinarily concerning. Our message is to see the bigger perspective and avoid retaliation: keep calm and negotiate. And what advice can ICC give businesses to deal with the trend of unilateralism and protectionism? Coming from discussions we’ve run together with the International Monetary Fund with a whole range of corporates, we have identified six best practises for how businesses can navigate this very uncertain environment. Maybe it sounds facile, but there’s no need to overreact or to essentially follow the media cycle. We think it’s important that businesses stay sanguine. We strongly recommend internal education by ensuring that relevant teams are properly educated about tariffs, currency fluctuations and other trade barriers. In some cases, companies will need to extend this education down their supply chains. Companies should have a contingency plan. So as soon as there is any indication of possible trade policy changes, companies know how they may be impacted by tariffs or any other import or export restriction. Then they can respond accordingly, for the short-term but also potentially for the mid-term and long-term. Invest in intelligence. We know that not every company can do this, so wherever possible, use advanced tech such as AI to develop intelligence on supply chain shifts, possible policy changes and uncertainties. Use this intelligence to manage supply chains and volumes. Clear communication with suppliers is vital. If you’re at the top of the supply chain, or near the top, make sure to maintain solid relationships with suppliers, particularly if those are of a strategic or long-standing nature. Create a joint plan of action throughout the supply chain. We recommend effective advocacy. Companies can use associations like ICC as a way to influence government policy in a constructive way. Considering ICC’s history, established in 1919 to promote open global trade and investment after Word War One – and consequently promoting peace – what is ICC’s position in today’s world? We see this as a key moment for ICC to step up. We are very well aware of the responsibility we have at this moment to respond to the needs of business in an effective way. This is using our position in the WTO system, in the UN, and with our global network of chambers. I think of ICC being a space where business can convene to openly and honestly discuss how they are approaching some of the challenges they’re facing. In practical terms, how will ICC achieve this? In terms of external focus, we have three main aims. Our objective number one is the preservation of the existing multilateral trading system which is absolutely vital for the global economy and for society as a whole. This includes maintaining the WTO. Although the WTO is not the ‘new thing in town’, it underpins a huge percentage of international trade and it is absolutely critical for developing and emerging economies. We published research last year that showed that if the WTO was to disappear overnight, the impact on trade would be enormously severe. Here’s just one example: trade flows in sub-Saharan Africa would decline within a five-year period by 40 per cent. The second point is how do we effectively remake the case for international trade? Twenty years ago, the mainstream consensus was that multilateral trade was a good thing. I fear that this opinion has been lost in many ways. Therefore, we want to look at how we can tangibly, realistically and creatively start to rebalance the discussion on trade. The third and final point is, as the world appears to be going in a protectionist direction, what practical solutions can business bring to government discussions to strengthen the system? Here’s one example. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism no longer functions because under the Obama administration, the USA refused to appoint new judges. That is hugely problematic for the WTO to provide discipline and order within the multilateral system. We accept that there is very little prospect of this being resolved in the new Trump administration. As an alternative to the classic model of WTO dispute resolution, one idea we’re working on is state-to-state arbitration to enable the resolution of trade disputes and thus avoid escalation. It’s this kind of practical, but potentially very valuable intervention that we need to pursue with greater vigour. These solutions would be informed very much by the needs of the business community – in our case, ICC members – to identify the problems, work together on practical solutions, and then use our position to advocate for those solutions.

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC Calls for Government Action and Business Expertise to Strengthen Global Cyber Resilience 21 Oct 2025 As the UN prepares to launch a new Global Mechanism on cybersecurity, ICC urges governments to pair decisive action with business expertise to strengthen global cyber resilience. The private sector, operating on the front lines of digital defense, must be meaningfully included to ensure policies are practical, inclusive, and future-proof. ICC Calls for Government Action and Business Expertise to Strengthen Global Cyber Resilience On 21 October 2025, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) released a statement urging urgent government action and stronger cooperation with business to build cyber resilience. The call comes as the United Nations establishes a new Global Mechanism to continue discussions on responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. Expected to hold its first meeting in March 2026 , the mechanism will determine how governments collaborate to prevent and respond to cyber threats; and how meaningfully non-governmental stakeholders, including business, will be able to participate. Why it matters The stakes could not be higher. Cyber incidents increasingly disrupt economies, critical infrastructure, and essential services worldwide. Yet uncertainty remains around how the private sector, which designs, operates, and defends the digital infrastructure underpinning the global economy, will be included in the new UN process. “Without stronger global cooperation and practical, inclusive approaches to cybersecurity, the digital foundations of growth and trust will remain at risk.” ICC Statement, October 2025 ICC’s position is clear: achieving cyber resilience requires both government leadership and business expertise . The private sector’s evidence-based input is essential to ensure that international policies reflect operational realities and deliver practical, implementable outcomes. The ICC statement: “Cyber resilience needs government action and business expertise” “Ransomware shutting down hospitals. Attacks on energy grids disrupting entire regions. Cyber operations spilling across borders in times of geopolitical tension. These are no longer distant hypotheticals – they are today’s headlines. The accelerating pace and scale of cyber threats is a stark reminder that the resilience of our economies and societies depends on decisions we make now. Without stronger global cooperation and practical, inclusive approaches to cybersecurity, the digital foundations of growth and trust will remain at risk. Over the past five years, the United Nations Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) has provided a valuable forum for dialogue among states on responsible behaviour in cyberspace. Its work has underscored the importance of consensus in such a sensitive area of international security, while also highlighting the complexity of building common ground in a rapidly evolving threat landscape. Crucially, the OEWG experience has shown that dialogue alone is insufficient. Operational resilience requires deeper engagement with those who build, defend, and innovate within the digital ecosystem every day. The establishment of a new ‘Global Mechanism’ to carry forward these discussions is a welcome step – but its success will depend on embedding inclusivity at its core. That means not only governments, but also meaningful participation from the private sector, civil society and academia. Global business has unique expertise and operational responsibility in this domain. Companies design, develop, build and operate the networks, defend against attacks, and innovate the technologies that power the digital economy. That is why the private sector’s voice is indispensable in shaping solutions that are practical, effective and future-proof. Governments can strengthen global cyber resilience by: Building strong national institutions to reinforce security in the use of ICTs; Developing legislation that supports international commitments while enabling digital trade and innovation; Enhancing resilience to mitigate cyber threats; Strengthening international cooperation and capacity-building, especially for developing economies; Protecting critical infrastructure and improving incident response; Improving supply-chain and product security; and Increasing transparency in the attribution of malicious activities. To realise this vision, we urge UN Member States to: Institutionalise meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design of the Global Mechanism; Leverage industry expertise in developing norms, confidence-building measures, and threat assessments; Prioritise transparency and accountability in negotiations and implementation; and Recognise the vital role of private actors in defending against cyber threats. The cyber domain cannot be secured by governments alone. The new Global Mechanism offers an opportunity to embed multistakeholder participation as a foundation for progress. Only through processes that fully integrate private-sector expertise can international frameworks achieve both legitimacy and operational impact. As global business, we stand ready to contribute constructively to the next chapter of cyber diplomacy. The threats are real, but so is our collective capacity to meet them – if we work together.” A call for Dutch engagement For the Netherlands the UN’s new Global Mechanism offers a critical opportunity to shape the international governance of cyberspace . ICC Netherlands invites its members and partners to help amplify this message by: Sharing ICC’s statement with relevant contacts in government Highlighting the importance of business expertise in cybersecurity and digital infrastructure resilience; Engaging with ICC Netherlands’ Digitalisation working group to explore how Dutch industry can contribute practical insights to global discussions.

< Back Michiel Coenraads DLA Piper Arbitrator Biography Michiel Coenraads handles disputes across the globe with a strong focus on the Energy & Natural Resources and Industrials sectors. His focus areas include international arbitration, shareholder and securities litigation, directors’ liability, joint venture disputes and contentious M&A. Michiel also assists clients in the rapidly changing ESG space, including climate change and Business and Human Rights issues. Michiel is the International Co-Chair of the firm’s ESG Disputes group. Michiel is a member of the ICC Committee on Arbitration and ADR, a board member of the Dutch chapter of the Business & Human Rights Lawyer’s association and a member of the Corporate Disputes Committee of the Dutch Arbitration Association. He is an editor of a leading corporate law journal in the Netherlands. He regularly publishes and speaks at conferences, and is a guest lecturer at executive training courses for supervisory directors. Contact Details Netherlands +31 (0)20 5419 949 Michiel.Coenraads@dlapiper.com Additional Links Link About ICC Netherlands We ensure that Dutch business interests are heard and represented in international policymaking. We deliver tools and standards that simplify cross-border business like model contracts or Incoterms®. We support fair and efficient dispute resolution . Become a member Upcoming events Learn more Check our latest news! News Languages Spoken Dutch, English Specialisation Joint Ventures, Corporate Law / M&A, ESG, Human Rights, Industrial, Employment, Energy and Natural Resources Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV

< Back < Previous | Next > A Deeper Dive into the Importance of Dispute-Resolution Clauses Tom Scott 3 Feb 2026 Dispute-resolution clauses are often treated as boilerplate — but they are anything but. In our latest interview, Marieke Schaink explains why getting them right is a core element of risk management in international contracts. A Deeper Dive into the Importance of Dispute-Resolution Clauses An interview with Marieke Schaink , Partner at Avizor advocates & arbitrators Marieke Schaink has worked primarily in international arbitration since beginning her legal career in 2011, save for a three-and-a-half-year stint at the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM). As a Partner at Avizor advocates & arbitrators, she specialises in commercial arbitration, with a particular focus on complex contractual disputes. In this interview, she explains why dispute-resolution clauses deserve far more attention than they often receive. Why is it so important for companies to think carefully about dispute-resolution clauses at the contracting stage? A dispute-resolution clause determines the framework of how a dispute will be resolved: who will decide the dispute, where it will be decided, under which rules, and how the outcome can ultimately be enforced. In that sense, it is much more than a technical clause: it’s actually a risk management tool. If it is not correctly formulated, there is a real risk that a dispute cannot be resolved efficiently, or that an award is rendered but cannot be enforced. Even though it may seem like a small issue, a well-written dispute-resolution clause makes sure that both parties know exactly what to expect and can resolve disputes through a clear, structured and efficient process. Why is the contracting stage the right moment to address this? At the contracting stage, parties’ interests are aligned in at least one aspect: everyone wants the transaction to succeed. There is usually a willingness to give and take in order to reach an agreement. Once a dispute arises, that willingness often disappears: the parties find themselves on opposing sides and, at a minimum, perceive each proposal from the other as disadvantaging them, which in turn makes them less engaged and less open-minded. So agreeing on procedural matters becomes much more difficult. Addressing dispute resolution early avoids that problem, at least to some extent. In cross-border contracts, is international enforceability the key advantage of arbitration? International enforceability is one of arbitration’s most important qualities, particularly due to the New York Convention. A large number of countries are party to it, which means arbitration awards can be recognised and enforced almost worldwide. That level of enforceability is difficult to achieve with court judgments. What elements should companies include to ensure an arbitration clause is effective and enforceable? There are several ‘must-haves’ in an arbitration clause; you have to include these otherwise things just don’t work. The most fundamental is an unequivocal submission to arbitration; it must be absolutely clear that the parties are opting out of the state court system. Another crucial element is the seat of arbitration, which determines the nationality of the award and the applicable arbitration law. Choosing a reputable, arbitration-friendly seat with an independent legal system is vital. That’s because non-reputable seats or non-arbitration-friendly jurisdictions certainly do exist. The third important element is whether to work with an arbitration institution. While parties can carry out arbitration without an institute – known as ad hoc arbitration – having an institute involved means that the arbitration process is taken care of. The institute provides rules, procedures, administrative support and safeguards against procedural deadlock. Beyond that, parties can include all kinds of add-ons such as language, number and qualifications of arbitrators. What are the most common mistakes you see in practice? I often see jurisdictional disputes caused by clauses that are unclear or imprecise. This frequently arises with split jurisdiction, where multiple dispute resolution mechanisms apply within the same contract. That choice can work, but the drafting must be extremely precise. If the language is unclear, a lot of time, effort and money may be lost on disputes about how the disputes should be resolved. That is not to say that more detail is the solution. In fact, another pitfall I see is overengineering. Being overly prescriptive, for example by stipulating narrow arbitrator qualifications, may sound sensible, but combined criteria (such as a specific language requirement plus expertise in the governing law) can severely shrink the arbitrator pool, slow appointments, and complicate the process. Why is Netherlands-seated ICC Arbitration particularly suitable for businesses? The ICC is an internationally renowned arbitral institution and ICC arbitration benefits from truly global input. The rules are shaped by contributions from local committees around the world, including the Netherlands, which makes them robust and well balanced. Combined with the Netherlands’ strong arbitration community, with experienced arbitrators, an independent, arbitration-literate judiciary, and an arbitration-friendly legal framework, this makes the Netherlands an attractive seat, even for disputes where neither party is Dutch. How can in-house counsel and commercial teams work better together on dispute-resolution strategies? It is important that in-house counsel understands commercial priorities, while commercial teams are aware of which legal points should not be conceded. That mutual understanding makes a real difference. I can imagine that in the heat of a transaction, achieving that mutual understanding can be difficult. A practical way to approach that can be to develop an internal playbook: a clear framework outlining preferred dispute-resolution options for different situations. Finally, what advice would you give to young practitioners starting out in arbitration? Get involved early. I waited quite long before actively participating in the arbitration community because it didn’t seem like something I’d truly enjoy or fit naturally into. But there are so many approachable events for young practitioners, and they offer real opportunities to learn, connect, and find mentors. My advice is to dive in: you’ll learn a great deal, build meaningful relationships, and, above all, it’s genuinely a lot of fun!

< Back Professor Dr Niek Peters Legaltree Arbitrator Biography Professor Dr Niek Peters is a partner at Legaltree and professor of international commercial arbitration at the University of Groningen. Niek sits as arbitrator (sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and chair) in commercial arbitrations, both ad hoc (including UNCITRAL) and institutional (e.g. , ICC, NAI, LCIA, UNUM). He also acts as counsel in commercial arbitrations and court litigation, including setting aside and enforcement proceedings. Niek‘s practice, both as counsel and arbitrator, focuses on the energy sector, the construction sector, the transport sector, the financial services sector and international trade. Many cases concern contractual disputes and damages claims. In this context, Niek also has experience with shareholder disputes, joint venture disputes, post M&A disputes and professional liability claims. Many of Niek’s cases have an international element and are governed by foreign law. Niek is a board member of the Royal Netherlands Association for International Law and the Dutch Arbitration Association. He is also a delegate to the ICC’s International Commission on Arbitration & ADR. During his career he has published many books and articles on arbitration, private international law and liability law. In Legal500 Niek has been recognized as a leading individual in the field of arbitration and he has been in included in Who’s Who Legal for many years. In Who‘s Who Legal he has been described as “a great attorney ”, “a clever practitioner ”, “quick minded and smart ”, “extremely thorough ”, “with a strong knowledge of arbitration law ”, and with “the ability to find practical and effective solutions to difficult issues ”. In Legal500 it was stated that Niek has “a strong legal knowledge ” and “a strong intellect ”, and that he “combines high-level academic knowledge with practical experience ” that “helps to solve the most difficult questions ” in “a low-key, can-do approach ”. "Nothing beats a well-prepared arbitrator" -Niek Peters Contact Details Netherlands +31 20 80 06 367 niek.peters@legaltree.nl Additional Links Link About ICC Netherlands We ensure that Dutch business interests are heard and represented in international policymaking. We deliver tools and standards that simplify cross-border business like model contracts or Incoterms®. We support fair and efficient dispute resolution . Become a member Upcoming events Learn more Check our latest news! News Languages Spoken Dutch, English Specialisation Commercial, Investment / Public International Law, Joint Ventures, Corporate Law / M&A, Mass Claims Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV