Search Results

< 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

< Back < Previous | Next > Paperless Trade Pilot Handbook – Road to a broader Digital Trade Eriáne Marsera 3 Nov 2025 Paperless trade is no longer a distant aspiration; It is today’s most practical lever for cutting cost, time, and risk in cross-border commerce. Paperless Trade Pilot Handbook – Road to a broader Digital Trade “Paperless trade is no longer a distant aspiration; It is today’s most practical lever for cutting cost, time, and risk in cross-border commerce.” In October 2025, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Digital Standards Initiative (DSI) released the P aperless Trade Pilot Handbook , a practical guide designed to help governments and businesses implement paperless trade systems. The handbook arrives at a critical time for global trade, marked by geopolitical uncertainty, disrupted supply chains, and growing pressure to improve efficiency and resilience in cross-border commerce. The handbook outlines six essential steps for designing and executing effective pilot projects: Define vision and objectives – Set a clear, measurable purpose aligned with stakeholder priorities. Recruit key stakeholders – Build a balanced team of core experts and support roles. Map the current trade process – Identify inefficiencies and assess digital readiness. Develop the pilot framework – Define scope, milestones, and roles. Assemble metrics for success – Use KPIs and OKRs to measure impact and align contributions. Pilot and iterate – Launch, monitor, refine, and scale based on feedback. The playbook emphasizes starting small , focusing on one corridor, process, or document and scaling based on results. It is designed for a broad community of digital trade advocates, including public agencies, banks, logistics providers, and technology platforms. Connecting to Global Digital Trade Developments The handbook is deeply connected to international efforts to modernize trade, particularly through the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) . MLETR provides a legal framework that gives electronic trade documents such as bills of lading and warehouse receipts, the same legal status as paper ones. This removes legal barriers to paperless trade and enables faster, more secure, and more efficient transactions. Another key enabler is interoperability , the ability of legal, technical, and organizational systems to work together across borders. Interoperability ensures that electronic documents and data can be exchanged and recognized internationally, legal frameworks are aligned, and systems like customs and finance platforms can integrate seamlessly. Without it, digital trade remains fragmented and inefficient. Together, MLETR and interoperability form the foundation for a globally harmonized digital trade environment. The ICC DSI’s mission is to turn these principles into practical implementation, and the handbook is a key tool in that effort. Why This Matters for Dutch Businesses and Policymakers The Netherlands, a major global trading hub, stands to gain significantly from adopting paperless trade. However, as of October 2025, the country has not yet fully incorporated digital trade into its Civil Code ( Burgerlijk Wetboek ) . A draft bill, Bill No. 36 743 , has been introduced to recognize electronic bills of lading (eBLs) , aligning with MLETR. While this is a positive step, broader adoption is needed to cover other key trade documents. The ICC Netherlands, along with a coalition of banks, businesses, and trade associations, has called on Parliament to accelerate MLETR adoption . The September 2025 white paper outlines the practical benefits and urges swift legislative action. You can access the white paper here: ICC Netherlands | September White Paper Key benefits for the Netherlands include: Efficiency and Speed : A pilot between Rotterdam and Singapore showed that using eBLs can reduce document processing time from 6–10 days to under 24 hours. Cost Reduction and Trade Growth : SMEs could see up to a 35% drop in administrative costs and a 13% boost in trade, based on UK findings. Competitiveness : With countries like the UK and France already implementing MLETR, the Netherlands risks falling behind if it delays. Trade Finance Acceleration : Digital documents speed up financing processes, saving days in transaction time. Sustainability and Logistics Optimization : Digitalization reduces delays, lowers CO₂ emissions, and improves supply chain efficiency. Legal Certainty : Recognizing electronic documents gives businesses clarity and flexibility, allowing them to choose between paper and digital formats. Call to Action for Dutch Policymakers To fully realize the benefits of paperless trade, Dutch policymakers must act decisively. The introduction of Bill No. 36 743 is a promising start, but broader legislative reform is urgently needed to align the Civil Code with international standards like MLETR. Parliament should prioritize the recognition of all key electronic trade documents and ensure legal interoperability with global partners. By accelerating digital trade legislation, the Netherlands can: · Cement its role as a leader in global commerce. · Empower SMEs with faster, cheaper, and more secure trade processes. · Enhance sustainability and supply chain resilience. · Ensure Dutch businesses remain competitive in a rapidly digitizing world. Now is the time to move from pilot to policy.

< Back < Previous | Next > The Eight Key Benefits of ICC Arbitration for Business Disputes Tom Scott 2 Jan 2026 The Eight Key Benefits of ICC Arbitration for Business Disputes When settling business disputes, choosing ICC arbitration over regular court systems offers businesses a wealth of advantages. We spoke to ICC Netherlands’ Secretary General Laure Jacquier to find out more. Here’s what we discovered: the eight key benefits of ICC arbitration. It’s hard to rank the advantages of ICC arbitration in order of importance. That’s because every dispute is different. That said, the key advantages below help explain why so many businesses turn to arbitration as a dispute resolution method. 1. Confidentiality: the foundation of trust Confidentiality is often the first benefit businesses mention when discussing arbitration. Unlike court proceedings, which are usually public, arbitration takes place behind closed doors. For companies dealing with sensitive commercial data, trade secrets or reputational risks, privacy is crucial. By keeping disputes out of the public eye, ICC arbitration allows parties to focus on finding solutions rather than managing unwanted exposure. “This level of privacy can be critical for maintaining a competitive edge and protecting a company’s reputation,” Laure explains. “ICC arbitration gives businesses peace of mind, knowing their interests are safeguarded.” 2. Efficiency instead of prolonged litigation Another major advantage is efficiency. Court cases can drag on for years, often involving appeals that add more time, cost and uncertainty (the very three things that are not included in a company’s strategic plan). In fast-moving industries, in particular, any time that can be saved makes a real difference. “In contrast, ICC arbitration is designed to move cases forward efficiently,” says Laure. “The ICC applies strict timelines, offers discounted fees if arbitrators are late in issuing awards, and provides expedited procedures where appropriate. This allows companies to resolve disputes faster and return their focus to running the business.” 3. Flexibility built around business needs Companies like to set their own agendas. As such, ICC arbitration offers a level of flexibility that court systems rarely match. Instead of rigid procedural rules, parties can tailor the process to fit the unique needs of their own dispute. This includes choosing arbitrators with relevant expertise and shaping how and where proceedings are held. “Parties can agree on the language, location, and procedural timetable,” Laure notes. “The process is designed with business realities in mind.” 4. Global enforceability under the New York Convention For companies operating across borders, enforceability is a massive concern. However, thanks to the New York Convention, ICC arbitration awards are recognized and enforceable in more than 170 countries. This means national courts in contracting states are generally required to enforce arbitral awards, subject to limited exceptions. “International enforceability is a major advantage,” says Laure. “It offers a level of certainty that court judgments don’t always provide, particularly when recognition across jurisdictions is uncertain.” What does this means in practical terms? “It ensures that an award carries real weight; it’s not just symbolic.” 5. A cost-effective option in the long run Although arbitration is sometimes seen as expensive, ICC arbitration often proves more cost-effective than lengthy court litigation. Prolonged lawsuits can generate high legal fees, court costs, and indirect business disruption. With its streamlined procedures, ICC arbitration “often results in lower overall costs,” Laure explains. “That allows businesses to focus on growth instead of mounting legal expenses.” 6. Impartiality and strong institutional oversight Neutrality is essential in international disputes. ICC arbitration addresses this through strict standards governing arbitrator independence and expertise. “Arbitrators are selected based on their independence and qualifications, ensuring decisions are made solely on the merits of the case,” Laure says. “Combined with oversight by the ICC International Court of Arbitration, this provides businesses with confidence in a fair and objective process.” 7. Predictability and procedural control Unlike congested court systems, ICC arbitration gives parties greater control over timelines and procedures. “Parties can agree on deadlines and structure the process to suit their needs,” Laure explains. “That predictability helps businesses manage disputes without unnecessary disruption. For ongoing operations, that level of control can be invaluable.” 8. Expert-driven decision-making Finally, ICC arbitration allows disputes to be decided by arbitrators with industry-specific expertise. The flipside to this is that court judges may not always have specialized knowledge of complex commercial or technical issues. “This expertise leads to more informed and commercially sensible decisions,” Laure concludes. “Businesses benefit from the insight of professionals who truly understand their industry.”

< 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 > Trade & Investment Reimagining WTO Dispute Settlement: a business case for mediation 14 May 2025 Mediation under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding can help governments resolve trade frictions faster, cheaper and more constructively – if they’re willing to use it. ICC is making the case. Most trade frictions never reach WTO dispute settlement. Many business concerns – licensing delays, technical barriers or opaque procedures – disrupt trade but are too small, sensitive or costly to escalate to formal dispute settlement. That’s where alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and more specifically mediation, comes in. WTO rules already allow for it, but the tool has not been used, among other things, due to a lack of clear procedures. That’s changing. As part of the WTO reform process, WTO Members are discussing procedural rules to make mediation a workable option – and we can help accelerate this process by supporting governments willing to pilot mediation in practice. Why it matters For business Companies face real costs from unresolved trade frictions. Mediation offers a practical and quicker way to resolve issues – and businesses can help identify where it’s needed. For governments Mediation gives WTO Members a lower-risk, lower-cost path to resolve trade issues early. It is especially important for developing countries that may lack resources for litigation. The benefits of WTO mediation Enables early, informal resolution of trade concerns Reduces time, cost, and legal burden Promotes cooperation—not confrontation Offers a flexible and confidential process No imposed ruling —outcomes are mutually agreed What we are doing ICC is advocating for the use of ADR, and in particular mediation within the WTO dispute settlement system as part of broader reform efforts. Drawing on ICC’s extensive experience as the world’s leading institution in cross-border dispute resolution, we’re supporting efforts to make mediation a practical option for resolving trade frictions more effectively. How you can get involved We are actively seeking companies with unresolved trade concerns who are willing to engage their governments in pilot mediation cases. These cases can help demonstrate how WTO mediation can deliver fast, practical outcomes and strengthen trust in the rules-based system. Contact Valerie Picard, Head of Trade, ICC, Valerie.Picard@iccwbo.org to learn more or explore a pilot case.

< Back < Previous | Next > CBAM enters a definitive phase: what businesses need to know Nina Wildemast 25 Feb 2026 With CBAM now in its definitive phase, carbon exposure has become a financial and operational reality for importers. What does this mean for margins, customs compliance and supply chain strategy in 2026 and beyond? CBAM enters a definitive phase: what businesses need to know As of 1 January 2026, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) entered its definitive phase. After two years of transitional reporting, the system is now moving to a stage in which financial consequences will occur over time for importers of CBAM-covered goods. During the transitional period, companies were mainly required to report the embedded emissions of certain imported products. From 2026 onwards, CBAM shifts from simply reporting to a financial mechanism. Importers will ultimately need to purchase and turn in CBAM certificates that correspond to the embedded emissions of their goods. The price of these certificates is linked to the EU Emissions Trading System. CBAM currently applies to iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, hydrogen and electricity. In the first week of the definitive phase, more than 10,000 customs declarations containing CBAM goods were recorded, with iron and steel accounting for the majority. This means that CBAM is no longer theoretical. It is operational and already affecting trade flows. In mid-December, the European Commission published a large package of implementing rules to make the system operational. These rules cover verification, the CBAM Registry, authorised declarant status, default values and the calculation of embedded emissions. This provides more clarity, but it also adds significant technical detail for companies to consider. A key requirement is about Authorised CBAM Declarant status. From March 2026 onwards, importers above the applicable threshold must hold this status in order to import CBAM goods into the EU. Obtaining the authorisation is not simply a formality. It requires companies to demonstrate compliance capacity and financial guarantees in certain cases. For businesses that rely on indirect customs representatives, liability allocation and contractual arrangements may require careful review. The calculation of embedded emissions is essential for the mechanism. Companies can use actual emissions data from producers or rely on default values given by the Commission. However, default values are set up to become increasingly strict over time. In 2026, default values will already include a mark-up, and this will increase in the following years. As a result, relying on default values can significantly raise carbon costs compared to using verified actual data. At the same time, the use of actual emissions requires verification by a verifier accredited by the EU. This may cause practical problems, especially in the first year of implementation. The full list of accredited verifiers is expected later in 2026, which raises questions about verification capacity and the timing. Companies will need to carefully assess the readiness of their data and verification planning in order to avoid last minute issues. CBAM certificates work as digital tools that represent one tonne of embedded CO2. Their price will reflect the average EU ETS price. In 2026, pricing will be based on quarterly averages, while from 2027 onwards the prices will be published every week. The first annual CBAM declaration and receiving the certificates will be due by 30 September 2027. From 2027, authorised declarants will also be required to hold a minimum number of certificates during the year. This introduces additional cash flow considerations. The Commission is already considering whether CBAM should be extended to additional downstream products. If that happens, more types of goods could fall under the system in the coming years. At the same time, further clarification is still expected on how carbon prices that have already been paid in the country of production will be taken into account when calculating CBAM costs. For companies involved in international trade, CBAM is therefore not just another environmental rule. It changes how imports are handled in practice. It has an impact on purchasing decisions, supplier relationships, data collection and financial planning. Having reliable emissions data, clear insight into supply chains and early coordination with producers outside the EU will be increasingly important. Businesses should evaluate whether their current systems allow them to accurately track embedded emissions, whether agreements with suppliers clearly define responsibilities for data and verification, and how possible carbon costs can affect pricing and competitiveness. In sectors such as iron and steel in particular, the impact could be significant. CBAM aims to link climate policy more closely with trade. The system will continue to develop, and further changes can be expected. ICC will continue to follow these developments closely, engage with members and contribute to discussions on practical implementation. It remains important that the mechanism is workable, predictable and proportionate for internationally active businesses. What Remains Uncertain Several elements are still evolving: Final rules on carbon price paid outside the EU. Potential extension to downstream products. Practical experience with verifier capacity. Development of parallel CBAM regimes in other jurisdictions. For internationally active firms, multiple border carbon systems could emerge rather than convergence toward a single framework. That possibility should be considered in medium-term compliance planning. Practical Priorities for 2026 Confirm authorised declarant status and review contractual allocation of liability. Quantify financial exposure under both default and verified emissions scenarios. Strengthen supply chain data protocols , particularly for precursor products. Integrate CBAM into financial planning , rather than treating it as a reporting obligation. Early alignment reduces the risk of customs disruption and unexpected certificate costs.

< Back < Previous | Next > Climate change ICC joins Business Call to Action to accelerate global cooperation for our oceans 10 Jun 2025 In a joint Business Call to Action more than 80 businesses and supporting organisations from 25 countries, including 55 businesses representing over €600 billion in turnover and 2 million employees, urged both private and public decisions-makers to strengthen global cooperation and accelerate action to conserve and sustainably use the ocean. As the largest business association in the world, the International Chamber of Commerce is proud to be a convener of this important call to action, bringing the voice of the global business community to the United Nations Ocean Conference. Download The call is convened by an unprecedented coalition of business networks, supported by signatories, including 80 businesses with a combined turnover of over €$600 billion and 2 million employees. In anticipation of the upcoming 2025 United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France,the call builds on the experience of leading businesses and organisations already advancing a sustainable blue economy. It emphasises the intrinsic connection between land and sea, highlighting the contribution and interdependencies between coastal and marine environment and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This call is directed at all economic actors, whether directly or indirectly connected to the ocean, and includes: A call to action for businesses to expedite maintaining ocean health through business actions, such as contributions to ocean science, monitoring and reducing environmental impacts, incorporating ocean considerations into their climate and nature roadmaps and investing in blue solutions. A call to action for policy makers to pursue ambitious science-driven policies and measures that stimulate sustainable business action and to jointly address land and ocean for enhanced global resilience With this Business Call to Action, companies and business networks urge policymakers to: Agree to adopt and implement international agreements: champion strong, sustainable outcomes for existing and upcoming ocean-related agreements, Invest in ocean science and support strong science-policy interfaces, Acknowledge and embed into policies the links between ocean, nature and climate, Help all actors to collectively adapt to sea-level rise, Develop robust and innovative finance mechanisms, Raise awareness to encourage all actors to care for the ocean, even those based on land. This business declaration is still open to new signatories. For information on signing this declaration please contact: Daniel Grajales, Global Policy Manager - Environment daniel.grajales@iccwbo.org The Business Call to Action is convened by global and leading business networks including International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), World Economic Forum (WEF), We Mean Business Coalition (WMB), Business for Nature (BfN), Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF), UN Global Compact Network France and Association française des Entreprises pour l’Environnement (EpE).