Search Results

< Back Sophia Elisabeth von Dewall DERAINS & GHARAVI Arbitrator Biography Sophia von Dewall is partner at Derains & Gharavi and has acted in numerous international arbitration proceedings, as well as in legal proceedings before Netherlands state courts. She has handled arbitrations conducted under the arbitration rules of the NAI, CEPINA, ICC, HKIAC and ICSID. Her areas of practice include international investment disputes and international commercial disputes arising out of international contracts, joint-venture and shareholder relationships and large infrastructural projects. She also acts as arbitrator, including in arbitrations administered by the ICC Rules (further information, see firm website). In addition, she is Member of the Executive Board of the Dutch Arbitration Association and Member of the ICC Task Force on Corruption. Sophia is admitted to the Amsterdam Bar and registered in the Paris Bar. She obtained an LL.M. in Public International & European Law (cum laude) and an LL.M. in Dutch Law (cum laude) from the University of Amsterdam. Contact Details Netherlands, France 00 33 (0)1 40 55 51 00 svondewall@derainsgharavi.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, French Specialisation Energy, Construction, Contracts, Distribution, Information and Communication Technologies Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV

< Back < Previous | Next > “How Europe can stay economically strong in an age of geopolitical rivalry”: A conversation with Arend Jan Boekestijn Jasper van Schaik 2 Mar 2026 As geopolitical rivalry increasingly shapes technology leadership, supply chains and energy security, European competitiveness depends on strategic coherence and institutional reform. We explore what this shift means for growth, resilience and long-term investment planning. “How Europe Can Stay Economically Strong in an Age of Geopolitical Rivalry”: A Conversation with Arend Jan Boekestijn January 2026 As geopolitical tensions intensify and economic security moves to the center of political debate, European businesses are confronted with a more volatile and fragmented global environment. Jasper van Schaik, Board Member of ICC Netherlands, speaks with Arend Jan Boekestijn, historian, former Member of Parliament and prominent geopolitical commentator. Known for his sharp analysis of power politics and transatlantic relations, he reflects on how the European Union should prepare itself to safeguard growth and prosperity in an increasingly competitive world. Geopolitics seems to be reshaping the global economy at an unprecedented pace. How fundamentally has the world changed? The world has changed far more profoundly than many Europeans realize. We are witnessing a structural shift from a relatively stable, US led liberal order to a world of hard power competition. China has made enormous technological advances. According to an Australian think tank, China now leads in 66 of 74 critical technologies, including artificial intelligence, grid integration, synthetic biology and advanced manufacturing. The United States leads in only a handful, such as quantum computing and geo engineering. There’s no mentioning of Europe. At the same time, China dominates the processing of critical raw materials, often because it has been willing to accept environmental costs that we in Europe would never tolerate. So the geopolitical contest is not abstract. It is about technological dominance, supply chains and ultimately economic power. Europe must understand that economic growth today is inseparable from geopolitical positioning. The era in which trade and geopolitics were largely separate domains is over. China’s strategic ambitions, particularly regarding Taiwan, are often mentioned. How serious is that risk for Europe? China’s long term strategic objective remains Taiwan. It has invested heavily in military capabilities, including low cost missile systems that are designed specifically to threaten high value US assets such as aircraft carriers. It has expanded its naval capacity and increased shipbuilding tonnage, capacity that would be relevant in a blockade scenario. Importantly, China has already conducted large scale military exercises simulating encirclement and blockade conditions around Taiwan, at least twice in recent years. These were not symbolic gestures. They were operational rehearsals. For Europe, the stakes are enormous. Taiwan is central to the global semiconductor supply chain. A blockade would have immediate consequences for European industry. So while this may appear as a regional conflict, its economic impact would be global and immediate. Can Europe still rely on the United States as its primary security and economic partner? This is the central question. Over the past year it has become increasingly clear that Europe cannot assume automatic American support under all circumstances. The strategic shift in Washington did not begin with one president. It already started under Obama. Project 2025 and other policy documents make very clear that parts of the American political establishment want to reduce overseas commitments. That said, we should not underestimate Europe’s leverage. The European Union remains one of the largest trading blocs and consumer markets in the world. When the United States considered aggressive measures regarding Greenland, financial markets reacted sharply. Rising bond yields and falling stock markets had an immediate disciplining effect. Ultimately, no political leader can ignore economic reality. Nobody wins against the economy. Moreover, even leaders like Trump are aware of the EU’s so called “trade bazooka.” Europe is not irrelevant. It has economic weight. The problem is not lack of power. It is lack of strategic coherence. Europe still depends heavily on the United States for defense, particularly regarding Ukraine. Where are the vulnerabilities? The dependence is real. In Ukraine, European countries have stepped up support and increased production capacity. But key elements still rely on American systems. Patriot air defense systems are a good example. They are essential for intercepting advanced Russian missiles. European countries operate them, but the technological backbone, integration and production capacity remain largely American. Even more important is what we call Command and Control. That is the integrated system of intelligence, communication, targeting and operational coordination. It is the nervous system of modern warfare. Without American satellite intelligence, data integration and operational planning capacity, European systems function far less effectively. This means that if Europe wants to become more strategically autonomous, it must invest not only in weapons but in its own defense industrial base, its own command structures and its own technological backbone. How should Europe think about energy security and economic resilience? We have replaced Russian pipeline gas with American LNG shipments. That was necessary, but it also creates new dependencies. Europe must think more pragmatically. For example, relations with Qatar present dilemmas, especially concerning human rights. But geopolitics is a world of dilemmas. You must make choices. At the same time, Europe should accelerate investment in renewable energy. Spain, for instance, has enormous solar potential. Wind energy in the North Sea can be expanded significantly. But this requires solving one key bottleneck: the European grid. Without integrated infrastructure, renewable capacity cannot be fully utilized. Energy independence is not just about climate policy. It is about economic sovereignty. Critical raw materials are increasingly described as strategic assets. What should Europe do? Critical raw materials are indispensable for wind turbines, electric vehicles, defense technologies and advanced electronics. Europe must diversify. That means pragmatic engagement with China where necessary, but also deeper partnerships with countries like Brazil and Australia. At the same time, we should recognize a hard truth. Economic success is ultimately tied to the rule of law. You can grow quickly without it for a period of time, as China demonstrates. But sustainable economic leadership requires legal certainty, property rights and institutional stability. That remains Europe’s structural advantage. Internal EU challenges often slow down decision making. What institutional reforms are necessary to safeguard growth? Europe has three clear priorities. First, complete the single market. Fragmentation within Europe undermines scale and competitiveness. Second, consolidate the European defense industry. National duplication is inefficient and costly. Third, abolish the veto right in key policy areas. As long as a single member state can block strategic decisions, Europe will struggle to act decisively. Populist movements complicate this process. Some anti European parties resist trade agreements such as Mercosur. Yet in a world of power politics, trade agreements are not ideological luxuries. They are instruments of economic security. If Europe finds itself squeezed between China and the United States, what is the guiding principle? Execute the Draghi report. Europe knows what it must do. Invest in innovation, deepen capital markets, complete the internal market, strengthen industrial capacity. The real challenge is not intellectual. It is political will. We are entering a world where economics and geopolitics are fused. Europe has the market size, technological base and institutional depth to remain prosperous. But it must act with greater unity, pragmatism and strategic clarity.

< 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 > Will the UN Tax Framework reinforce certainty or create new fragmentations? 25 Feb 2026 UN negotiations on a new tax framework are entering a decisive drafting phase, with potential implications for treaty networks, service taxation and dispute resolution. These developments could have a substantial impact on internationally active Dutch businesses. Will the UN Tax Framework reinforce certainty or create new fragmentations? Negotiations at the United Nations on a Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation are moving into a technically decisive phase. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), established in early 2025, is drafting both a Framework Convention and two early protocols, with the aim of submitting final texts to the UN General Assembly in 2027. While international tax reform is not new, the current discussions at UN level go beyond incremental adjustment. They revisit core principles: where taxing rights arise, how cross-border services are taxed, and how disputes are prevented and resolved . For an economy such as the Netherlands, highly integrated into global value chains and deeply dependent on cross-border investment, these discussions are not theoretical. They concern legal certainty, cost structures and risk management for internationally active businesses. Three Areas of Direct Exposure for Business 1. Allocation of Taxing Rights (Article 5) The draft Convention addresses the “fair allocation of taxing rights.” Proposals under discussion would recognize taxing rights in jurisdictions where value is created, markets are located or revenues are generated. Some versions have also referenced the possible renegotiation of existing tax treaties. For Dutch-headquartered groups and multinational subsidiaries operating in the Netherlands, this raises several practical questions: How will new nexus concepts interact with existing permanent establishment standards? Could multiple jurisdictions assert taxing rights over the same income? Would existing bilateral treaty protections remain intact? At present, the draft does not yet contain an explicit, enforceable safeguard against double or multiple taxation. Without such clarity, overlapping claims could increase disputes and affect effective tax rates, transfer pricing models and cross-border structuring decisions. For businesses managing long-term investments, financing structures or intellectual property platforms, predictability in treaty application remains a fundamental element of risk assessment. 2. Taxation of Cross-Border Services Under the draft Protocol on cross-border services, there is growing discussion of applying gross-basis withholding taxation, potentially as a default model, with a net-basis option in certain circumstances. For service-intensive sectors, including engineering, consultancy, digital services, logistics and financial services, this has immediate operational implications: Gross taxation disregards underlying costs and margins. Relief from double taxation may not always be fully available or timely. Cash flow exposure may increase if taxes are withheld before profit realization. An independent economic study commissioned by ICC from Oxford Economics has indicated that gross-basis withholding could affect trade and investment flows, particularly where taxes are not fully creditable. For smaller firms and scale-ups operating on thin margins, the impact could be proportionally greater. 2026_ICC_The_revenue_mirage_of_taxing_cross-border_services_EN .pdf Download PDF • 201KB 3. Dispute Prevention and Resolution A second protocol addresses dispute prevention and resolution. Discussions include advance pricing agreements (APAs), joint audits and whether mandatory binding arbitration should be included as a backstop. From a business perspective, the effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms is not procedural detail, it directly affects: Duration of tax uncertainty Provisioning and balance sheet treatment Access to capital Investor confidence Experience shows that where arbitration exists as a credible mechanism, cases are often resolved earlier in the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) process. If dispute mechanisms remain optional or weakly structured, unresolved double taxation risks may persist for years. Interaction with Existing Treaty Networks A structural question remains unresolved: how will the Framework Convention and its protocols interact with the existing network of bilateral tax treaties? This issue is expected to be addressed in a future article of the Convention, but no draft text has yet been shared. For Dutch business, clarity on this point is central. The Netherlands has one of the world’s most extensive treaty networks. If new UN standards operate alongside, or potentially override, treaty provisions, companies could face parallel nexus tests, competing interpretations and increased compliance complexity. ICC has consistently emphasized that compatibility with existing treaty frameworks and explicit mechanisms for relief from double taxation are essential for legal certainty. Beyond Policy: Operational and Governance Risks Beyond allocation and withholding debates, other elements under negotiation, including definitions of illicit financial flows and harmful tax practices, require precise drafting. Ambiguity in terminology can create divergent national interpretations, reputational exposure and administrative duplication. Alignment with established international standards reduces such risk. For multinational groups, tax governance is increasingly intertwined with ESG reporting, board oversight and stakeholder scrutiny. Legal clarity and procedural safeguards are therefore not only technical concerns; they are governance issues. How Dutch Business Is Represented ICC is the only business organization with UN Permanent Observer Status in these negotiations, representing companies across more than 170 countries. ICC Netherlands ensures that Dutch perspectives are fed into the global drafting process through: Structured input into ICC’s Global Tax Commission Contributions to submissions on all three workstreams Dialogue with Dutch authorities and international counterparts Technical drafting language matters. Many negotiations now concern wording choices that will determine how principles are interpreted in practice. The intersessional period leading up to the August 2026 session, when further draft texts are expected, is therefore a critical window for input. A Window for Technical Influence The objective of the Convention is enhanced international tax cooperation. For business, the key question is how cooperation is designed: whether it reinforces predictability or increases fragmentation. A workable outcome requires: Clear allocation principles Explicit safeguards against double taxation Administrable service taxation rules Effective dispute resolution backstops Coherence with existing treaty law The negotiation process remains open, and many Member States recognize the importance of legal certainty and administrability. For Dutch companies with cross-border exposure, engagement at this stage, through ICC tax commission and consultations, ensures that practical operational perspectives are reflected before texts are finalized. International tax architecture is being recalibrated. The technical drafting phase now underway will shape how that architecture functions in practice. Through ICC Netherlands, Dutch business has a direct channel into the global negotiations. Members who wish to contribute to this process are encouraged to engage with our Global Tax Commission as we prepare our next submissions.

< Back Marieke van Hooijdonk Independent Arbitrator Arbitrator Biography Marieke is a renowned international arbitration counsel. She handles complex and high-stake disputes across various sectors and jurisdictions, involving joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, trade, contracts and more. She also represents clients in arbitration related court proceedings. Marieke is recently elected as new Vice-President to the ICC International Court of Arbitration for 2024-2027. In addition, she is a member of the ICC Dutch Nominations Commission and the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. She has served as the Dutch member on the ICC Court in Paris from 2014 until 2021. She often acts as arbitrator, including as chair and emergency arbitrator. Marieke also has a long standing role as deputy judge at the Court of Appeal in Arnhem-Leeuwarden. Marieke regularly speaks and writes on arbitration related issues. Her book "Litigation in the Netherlands" published by Kluwer, is still widely used. Marieke is ranked as Band 1 – Arbitration Counsel (Chambers Europe, Netherlands, 2024-2014), appears in the "Hall of Fame" in Legal 500 and is named Thought Leader in Who's Who Legal Arbitration. Clients praise Marieke for her knowledge, strategy, advocacy and teamwork. Some of her recent testimonials include: “Marieke van Hooijdonk is an absolute force of nature in arbitration in the Netherlands. A fearless advocate for her client and completely on top of the detail. ” “Marieke van Hooijdonk is top-notch and has been the best arbitration lawyer in the industry for many years, if not decades – very strong and confident advocacy, razor sharp and very committed to reaching the client’s goals and needs, creative and persuasive, drawing on extensive arbitration experience and expertise .” (Legal 500 2024 Dispute Resolution). "She is a highly esteemed lawyer for ICC and NAI arbitrations. " (Chambers Global 2024 Dispute Resolution: Arbitration Counsel). “Marieke van Hooijdonk is the grand lady of the Dutch arbitration scene, brilliant sharp mind and excellent analytical and tactical skills. A pleasure to work with. ” (Legal 500 2023 Dispute Resolution). “She is absolutely brilliant. ” (Chambers Global 2023 Dispute Resolution. Contact Details Netherlands +31 20 674 1123 arbitration@mariekevanhooijdonk.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 Corporate Law / M&A, Investment / Public International Law, Financial Services, Biotech, Pharmaceutical, Technology, Media, Life Sciences and Healthcare Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV

< Back < Previous | Next > Electrification, raw materials and Europe’s (lack of) competitiveness Norbert Both 1 Jun 2026 A conversation with Norbert Both, Senior Advisor at Publieke Zaken Electrification, raw materials and Europe’s (lack of) competitiveness A conversation with Norbert Both, Senior Advisor at Publieke Zaken Few people bring Norbert Both’s combination of diplomatic, corporate and public affairs experience to the energy transition debate. After a decade in the Dutch foreign ministry, he spent 17 years at Shell working in government and external relations roles, navigating some of the most politically charged dossiers of recent decades: the Groningen earthquakes, the dividend withholding tax saga, and the climate accord negotiations. Now a Senior Advisor and Partner at public affairs agency Publieke Zaken, he advises companies on the challenges of energy and industry transitions. In this interview, he reflects on what Europe can learn from China and the United States, how Europe has become bogged down in a swamp of bureaucracy, and what public-private cooperation on the energy transition should really look like. Let’s start with a definition to kick-off our conversation. What does good public-private collaboration on the energy transition actually look like? Whenever I talk about this, I compare the three major models. First of all China, which is directing itself from the top through the energy transition. It has a centrally formulated, carefully crafted national strategy, giving a clear view on where the country needs to go. This has given China a leadership position in some of the most advanced technologies and control over processing of critical raw materials. Then look at the United States, which invests itself through the energy transition. My memories of driving in Texas are symbolic of this: on one side you see a huge four-wheel drive pickup truck, on the other is a Tesla. Indeed, Texas is not only the oil state, but it is also the leading onshore wind state. Like it or not, the US is the centre of gravity of data centre construction, followed by China, with Europe trailing behind. And then you get to Europe, which has prided itself in being a regulatory superpower, and true enough, its frameworks on carbon pricing and sustainability standards are the most advanced in the world. But we see that other jurisdictions – China in particular – are quicker to capitalise technologically. This is because we have bureaucratised ourselves into a swamp where, as the Draghi and Letta reports have shown, Europe’s competitiveness is at stake. There’s a fourth model worth watching: India. Using its people power of 1.5 billion, average age 28, I believe that India is going to grab a leadership role in high-tech sectors. In achieving the energy transition, the Netherlands will need a huge amount of new infrastructure, space and skilled workers. What lessons can Europe learn from China and the United States to accomplish this? In my work at Publieke Zaken, every company I speak to, small, medium or large, complains about the same thing: the nightmare of rules, regulations and bureaucracy stifling entrepreneurship and investment, and the fragmentation of permitting processes that cause huge delays for projects. So from China, I think we can learn to centralise the choreography at the macro-level while creating space for competition. From America, the lesson is optimism and unleashing the investment power of capital markets. And who is actually responsible for delivering this – the government, grid operators or the private sector? The government sets the basic rules, protects the level playing field, at least within Europe. Critically reviewing (and simplifying) rules and regulations should be a permanent feature of efficient government. We should also consider reinstating something resembling the old Ministry of VROM – combining infrastructure, spatial planning and environment – with stronger regulatory powers for central government to overcome what is essentially a chaotic landscape of local decisions and non-decisions. So who’s responsible? It’s all of them. Tennet and the grid operators are essentially in the lead, but it’s also worth mentioning the cable manufacturers. Europe is still a world leader in high-voltage cabling, and that should be cherished. The copper required for further electrification requires building strategic relationships with countries like Chile, Peru, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Australia. We have to have a plan for the raw materials. What is the timeframe for implementing those lessons learned? There is no time to waste. We are still very dependent on raw materials; if we don’t get our act together, then we risk the de-industrialisation of Europe; or artificially keeping industry alive through extremely high costs and high trade barriers. We need to understand where our strategic relevance lies and allow those areas to blossom. Following on from your mention of copper as a key resource: China dominates the critical minerals and processing capacity that the electrified system depends on. Is securing that supply chain a job for governments or for businesses? China secured its position in critical minerals decades ago – not just by controlling resources within its own territory, but by making itself the indispensable processing hub for minerals mined elsewhere. Even North American resources have flowed to China for processing. For Europe to be serious about its electrification agenda, it has to be willing to get its hands dirty – literally. That means mining the lithium reserves found in Germany and Portugal, building processing capacity, and accepting that this is not a clean business. It’s not all about China though: it is interesting to see that the Trump administration took the initiative for a transatlantic critical minerals trade framework – the Plurilateral Trade Agreement on Critical Minerals. This demonstrates that the Americans have understood what matters in the world in the next 20 to 30 years. They’re not single-mindedly obsessed with oil and gas; they are thinking about the future, and they do realise they need partners and friends. Private investment follows predictability. How do you create the conditions that make long-term capital feel safe to commit? I can give you a concrete example of where predictability has paid out. Shell is building a green hydrogen plant in the Rotterdam area called Holland Hydrogen 1 – a billion-dollar investment, the first of its kind in the Netherlands. A key reason Shell was able to take on such a project was regulatory predictability and a policy that created demand. However, halfway through the project’s construction, the Dutch government changed the rules and suddenly the economics of the project changed. It took enormous effort to return the government to its original position. The lesson is simple: government must never move the goalposts when a company has made investment decisions based on a particular set of policies. It not only jeopardises the project in question, the regulatory unpredictability also jeopardises potential future projects. The energy transition is almost always framed in green terms. Where does nuclear fit in? France has benefited enormously from its nuclear capacity – in terms of both CO2-footprint and security of supply. Germany, on the other hand, said goodbye to nuclear and has had to compensate with more coal and gas. That’s because wind and solar doesn’t provide the baseload. I think nuclear has a role to play, but who is going to take the risk of building a nuclear power station in the Netherlands, knowing what we know about permitting challenges and governments moving the goalposts? That said, in the United States, nuclear is experiencing a revival. Let’s finish our conversation with a ‘big picture’ question about the energy transition. How much electrification should we be aiming for? A robust and resilient energy system doesn’t put all its eggs in one basket – so I believe that electrification in moderation is the way forward for Europe. But we have to be realistic: for example, how are we going to get all that copper? Our future energy system will still consist of electrons and molecules. Some green molecules will be home-made, most will be imported. Beyond 2050, remaining fossil fuel use will need to be mitigated through CO2 capture and storage, or through carbon credits generated through reforestation / forest protection. We will remain import dependent: the idea that if only we shed fossil fuel dependency, we become independent is a falsehood, given our import-dependency on critical minerals. Looking forward, there is one more subject that Europe needs to make progress on urgently: recycling. It’s important to remember that once you have imported the critical minerals you need, you can recycle and reuse them. This is the fundamental difference with oil and gas, which you must continuously replace with fresh supply. However, we have not matured our recycling sector, and our regulatory system actively punishes companies that try. If you build a pyrolysis plant to recycle hard-to-recycle plastics, your scope one CO2-emissions go up, for which you pay under the EU ETS, but you get no credits for the circular economy contribution you make. At the European level, we need to get much better at rewarding the recycling of critical materials. Let’s hope this gets reflected in the EU’s upcoming Circular Economy Act.

< Back Willem van Baren Independent Arbitrator Arbitrator Biography Willem van Baren practices since 2016 as independent international arbitrator. He has been actively involved in more than 100 arbitration cases as party-appointed arbitrator, chairman, sole arbitrator, emergency arbitrator and expert under the major arbitral institutions and arbitration rules (CEPANI, ICC, LCIA, NAI, SIAC, UNUM, WIPO) and governed by various procedural and substantive laws. Until his retirement, he was a partner in Allen & Overy’s dispute resolution practice. In 2009, he became a CEDR accredited mediator. Willem has been involved in arbitrations concerning State-entities and private entities, often multi-party, and spanning a multitude of sectors, such as banking, corporate transactions, finance, energy, construction, infrastructure, insurance, shipbuilding, offshore, oil & gas, industrial manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, transportation (aviation, marine), solar power plants and wind parks and relating to diverse legal issues, such as investment, distributorship, joint ventures, partnerships, contract termination, post-M&A, sales of goods and shareholdings. He conducts arbitrations in English and Dutch and has working knowledge of German. Contact Details Netherlands +31 20 737 3403 willem.vanbaren@arbitration.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, German Specialisation Corporate Law / M&A, Joint Ventures, Investment / Public International Law, Finance and Banking, Insurance, Pharmaceutical, Sales, Distribution, Construction, Shipbuilding, Offshore, Aviation, Energy and Natural Resources Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV

Unlock professional growth with ICC Academy, offering industry-recognized qualifications and expert-led training. Choose from flexible online courses or immersive in-house sessions tailored to your needs. Benefit from knowledge-based training and customized workshops designed to enhance skills and drive innovation in your organization. ICC Academy The educational arm of the International Chamber of Commerce with industry-recognised professional qualifications, authored by ICC experts. Learnings by ICC Expertise Flexibility Relevance Recognition Variety ICC members enjoy 15% off on all trainings. Contact your national committee for the discount code Request Code Professional Certificates Learn More Professional certificates Internationally accredited by: Incoterms® 2020 Certificate The online ICC's professional certification for the Incoterms® 2020 rules Learn More Certified Trade Finance Professional (CTFP) Increase your career options or your team's capabilities with the ICC’s advanced, wide-ranging trade finance certification Learn More Export/Import Certificate (EIC) Learn how to do business across borders with the ICC's international trade certification. Learn More Free Trade Agreement Certificate (FTAC) Learn to simplify complex free trade agreements so you can access new markets and reduce costs. Learn More Certificate on the Common Reporting Standard (CCRS) Understand the key elements of the Common Reporting Standard so you can incorporate them as part of a holistic compliance operating model. Learn More Global Trade Certificate (GTC) Introductory, online trade finance training from the ICC Learn More Browse all certificates Short courses Introduction To Trade Finance Develop a foundational understanding of global trade and how companies settle their cross border commercial activities Learn More Introduction to Documentary Credits This letter of credit course will teach you the importance of LCs in enabling trade, and their versatility in addressing a range of client needs Learn More Advanced Documentary Credits This letter of credit training course provides a detailed review of documentary credits, from structuring and issuance to document verification to financing and settlement Learn More Introduction to Supply Chain Finance Get a practical overview of the high-growth area of supply chain finance (SCF)—an emerging proposition which covers the majority of global trade flows. Learn More Introduction To Islamic Banking and Finance Understanding of the core principles, the various norms and prohibitions that govern activities and contracts in the Islamic financial system. Learn More Advanced Standby Letters of Credit An in-depth look at how standby letters of credit work, the purposes for which they can be used and the rules and regulations governing them Learn More Introduction to Trade Finance Sales Learn the practices and processes necessary to be a successful trade finance sales person, including the key steps to identify, select and prioritize customers. Learn More Digital Trade Finance & Fintechs Get to grips with the digital trade ecosystem including the advent of fintechs, the legal, regulatory and commercialisation challenges involved. Learn More Advanced Guarantees Learn more about the issuance of a bank guarantee, the use of counter guarantees and more complex transactions. Learn More Browse all courses In-house learnings by ICC Discover the best of both worlds with ICC's comprehensive training solutions. While online learning offers flexibility and convenience for your employees to study at their own pace, in-house training provides a tailored and immersive learning experience. Participants can engage in group discussions, receive peer feedback, and interact with instructors during Q&A sessions. ICC offers two types of in-house trainings: Knowledge-Based Training: Our expert-led sessions aim to enhance practitioners' capabilities by imparting essential knowledge and know-how for successful entry into and navigating international markets. Delivered either face-to-face or via live webinar by ICC's international experts, these sessions ensure participants gain invaluable insights and skills. Customized Round Tables and Workshops: Leveraging our unique position, ICC organizes in-house round table discussions and workshops tailored to address your organization's specific needs. Whether it's dilemma sessions, speak-up trainings, or diversity and inclusion workshops, we facilitate critical conversations and foster new perspectives to empower your organization's growth. Contact us today to explore how ICC's in-house trainings can drive meaningful transformation and innovation within your organization . Get in touch with our training team Why choose us? Looking to train your team? Combine E-learning with our customised face-to-face training or online workshops. Innovative and flexible online learning for global trade professionals Market-leading professional certifications Tailored livecasts and webinars on in- demand topics Relevant curriculum developed by renowned specialists Industry-recognised credentials Access to ICC’s extensive global network Expert Trainers: Learn and interact with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC’s) unrivalled roster of international experts either face-to-face or via live webinar. Small Groups: Deepen your knowledge with small ‘Working Groups’ which facilitate enriching, inspiring and interactive classes. Improve Effectiveness: Self-paced online learning, with concepts being reinforced in a face-to face/ live classroom setting. Personalised Sessions: Tailor-made programme to equip participants with the know-how to manage multi-dimensional aspects of the subject matter in a supportive environment. Interactive Learning: Our sessions include quizzes, scenario discussions with other students and lectures are followed by Q&As with the trainer. Industry Standard: Earn an internationally recognised ICC certificate signed by the ICC Secretary General. Use it to signal your expertise to clients. Get in touch with our training team

< Back < Previous | Next > The WTO’s hidden value 26 Nov 2025 Every time a product clears a border, every time a services firm invests abroad, or every time an innovator protects a patent overseas, they are relying on WTO rules, committees and monitoring systems designed to reduce risk and increase predictability. The WTO’s Hidden Infrastructure: Why Businesses Rely on It More Than They Realise In a year where geopolitical tensions, supply-chain vulnerabilities and regulatory divergence dominate headlines, one institution continues to underpin the stability of global trade, often without being noticed. The World Trade Organization may be criticised for slow negotiations or headline-grabbing disputes, but as the latest ICC paper reminds us, its greatest value lies in the quiet, technical machinery that keeps the global economy running every single day. For most companies, whether multinational corporations or ambitious SMEs, the WTO is not a theoretical institution in Geneva but the invisible operating system of global trade. Every time a product clears a border, every time a services firm invests abroad, or every time an innovator protects a patent overseas, they are relying on WTO rules, committees and monitoring systems designed to reduce risk and increase predictability. Beyond Tariffs: The Unseen Framework That Holds Global Trade Together The WTO is best known for negotiating tariff reductions, but tariffs are only a small part of its impact. Its real power lies in creating a single, coherent legal framework that connects thousands of national regulations, standards and procedures. This transforms what could be a chaotic, politically driven landscape into a predictable environment where businesses can plan, invest and scale. Before the WTO, tariffs could be raised overnight, technical standards could change without warning, and customs policies varied arbitrarily from country to country. Today, bound tariff rates, transparency rules and internationally aligned procedures give exporters stability that no bilateral deal can replicate . This rules-based system is not static. It is constantly updated through WTO Councils and Committees, which quietly issue decisions that update tariff schedules, promote good regulatory practices and ensure alignment with global technical standards. Without this daily work, trade would slow, costs would rise and supply chains would fragment. The Daily Benefits: What the WTO Does for Business The paper highlights how WTO agreements translate into very concrete business advantages across the entire trade journey, from pre-shipment compliance to in-market protection. 1. Cutting Through Regulatory Complexity Technical regulations, testing requirements and food safety rules are among the biggest barriers to trade today. The WTO’s Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) require governments to notify proposed regulations early, giving businesses time to adapt and comment. Tools like the ePing alert system can be the difference between a shipment clearing customs or being rejected, a lifeline especially for SMEs. 2. Making Borders Faster and Cheaper The Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) has modernised customs procedures across the world. Publishing rules, enabling advance rulings, and using risk-based controls have reduced trade costs by up to 5% globally , a significant boost to competitiveness. For time-sensitive goods from vaccines to agri-food products, this can mean fewer delays, less spoilage and greater resilience. 3. Securing Services and Digital Trade Two-thirds of global GDP comes from services, yet services trade is shaped by opaque licensing rules, residency requirements and sector-specific restrictions. The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) brings transparency and predictability, giving firms confidence that market access rules will not change arbitrarily. The moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions reinforces this stability in the digital economy. 4. Protecting Innovation Worldwide With intangible assets now representing most of a company’s value, IP protection is essential. The TRIPS Agreement ensures that patents, trademarks and copyrights receive minimum standards of protection in all WTO Members, enabling global commercialisation and cross-border collaboration. 5. Opening Public Procurement Markets The WTO’s plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) grants companies access to public contracts worth an estimated US$1.7 trillion annually, under fair and non-discriminatory conditions. This creates significant opportunities for specialists and SMEs seeking to grow internationally. 6. Turning Transparency Into Market Intelligence WTO tools such as the Tariff and Trade Data Platform, the Rules of Origin Facilitator, and the Trade Concerns Database transform raw government notifications into actionable insights. They allow businesses, especially those without large compliance departments, to understand market conditions, avoid regulatory risks and identify growth opportunities. What Is at Stake? The ICC paper underscores that the stability provided by the WTO is not diplomatic symbolism; it is an economic necessity. According to Oxford Economics modelling for ICC, the collapse of the multilateral trading system would cause developing countries’ non-fuel goods trade to drop by 33% and lead to a permanent GDP loss of 5%. In concrete terms, this would mean: more fragmented regulations longer delays and higher compliance costs destabilised global supply chains reduced incentives for innovation fewer opportunities for SMEs to internationalise In a world where resilience is a strategic priority, weakening the WTO would have direct and damaging consequences for competitiveness. Reform With a Clear Purpose Reforming and updating the WTO remains essential, particularly to address digital trade, sustainability and new technological frontiers. The paper makes clear that some challenges, such as subsidies or cross-border data governance, cannot be solved through bilateral deals alone. Multilateral disciplines remain the only way to create fair, predictable and future-proof global rules. But as members pursue reform, they must not lose sight of the system’s hidden value: t he quiet, technical infrastructure that keeps global trade stable. Preserving and strengthening this foundation is essential for businesses, governments and the global economy. 2025-ICC-The-WTOs-Hidden-Value-1 .pdf Download PDF • 432KB

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment The world order is changing from a ‘rules-based’ to a more ‘power-based’ setup 1 Mar 2025 The previous two issues of our newsletter have looked closer at the current geopolitical situation: the challenges and solutions thereof. These have covered the subject from the perspective of the trans-Atlantic thinktank German Marshall Fund (Dr. Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer) and ICC Global (Deputy Secretary General for Policy Andrew Wilson). Now it’s time to hear from one of the largest business associations in the Netherlands – evofenedex – which represents its 10,000+ members active in supply chain logistics and/or international trade. Evofenedex Managing Director Bart Jan Koopman answers some of our most pressing questions covering risks, opportunities and how to build resilience. What is your take on the increasing international trade tensions that we have seen in the media so much over the previous couple of months? For a long time, international trade has been managed and regulated by international institutions implementing a variety of rules and agreements. However, a large number of countries and groups of countries are stepping out of this way of working. So instead of the world becoming more globalised, we are seeing more and more fragmentation. However, this goes back longer than the recent developments we are seeing in the media at the moment; this has been happening for a number of years. As for the timing of the coverage, it’s important to note that this is not a story that is driven by Trump. For example, the WTO started becoming a lame duck organisation in the Obama years. However, the situation has been worsened by Trump. To understand the underlying mechanisms as to why this is happening, we need to look at the fact that the world order is changing from a ‘rules-based’ to a more ‘power-based’ setup. And how does this affect international businesses? This has a significant impact on the business community with substantial economic and trade consequences. It is very challenging for companies to make decisions in this fragmented world with different rules and standards. Experience has taught us that protectionism comes with more rules and regulations and makes it harder to be compliant. And at the same time another reality is true. If things were complex with regulations, then without them, it is even more complex. You also now have to take all these geopolitical developments into account! Let’s talk about risks and opportunities. How should companies tackle the seemingly constant stream of risks? If you are in business, there have always been risks and there will always be risks: the Suez Canal blockage, the Middle East situation, and the coronavirus pandemic are all relevant examples. When looking at how to deal with such uncertainty – this unpredictability – if you only look at situations from a risk perspective, then you often don’t get a chance to see the opportunities. So rather than only looking at – and reacting to – the risks, companies need to act more strategically. This is the challenge of moving from a risk-based to a more resilient way of working. How can companies build resilience? Reconfiguration of supply chains is a good example. A large company working in the semiconductor sector, for instance, knows that the USA will have big problems with companies delivering certain chips to China but also chips made in China and shipped to the US will be a problem. In this case, reconfiguring the supply chain to relocate this part production outside China – to Malaysia or Vietnam – could be a solution. Another option rethinks the ‘just in time’ supply chain method. Companies can build resilience by increasing the number of their suppliers; having three or four instead of one or two. This would involve different supply chains operating in parallel, possibly at different production sites. Of course, this is more expensive, but it is more resilient. Other examples could be to set up production in the USA, or to focus more on internal European markets. Reconfiguration of supply chains can offer new possibilities for every company in every sector. Last but not least, cooperation in the value chain and supply chain helps to build resilience as well. What is the role of organisations like ICC and evofenedex? Companies need to concentrate on their business rather than sitting around analysing trends. On the other hand, they need to stay up-to-date with both the short and long-term trends so that they don’t make decisions that they could regret later. This is where organisations like ICC and evofenedex can help companies find their way through the complexity. At evofenedex, the trio of actions that we like to offer our members is ‘interpret, learn and influence’. This is not only useful for small and medium-sized companies, but large ones too. Look at the complexity that everyone is operating in: regulations are only increasing, but at the same time we are living in a world where regulations are getting less and less important. This is a challenge but also an opportunity. And how does this translate to practical help to members? Externally, we work with organisations such as the ICC on the ‘big picture’ issues; promoting the push towards increased digitalisation of trade procedures, and during the Week of Integrity, for instance. And then internally, we look at long-term trends and themes affecting our members, and try to give advice and increase members’ knowledge level on those subjects. Significant trends at the moment include compliance, working with trade restrictions, and sustainability. Rather than one-on-one transactions, we bring our members together in what we call communities to share experiences and knowledge with each other. Despite all of this do not forget international business is still very much alive and needed and I am convinced that together we can do business also in these turbulent times!

< Back < Previous | Next > “Geopolitics is back in the boardroom”: a conversation with Marhijn Visser Tom Scott 3 Mar 2026 Ahead of WTO MC14, shifting trade dynamics and geopolitical pressures are directly affecting supply chain resilience, digital trade continuity and long-term planning; we discuss what Dutch business should anticipate and how engagement can strengthen predictability. “Geopolitics is back in the boardroom”: a conversation with Marhijn Visser As the World Trade Organization prepares for the next Ministerial Conference (MC14) later this month, questions about the future of multilateral trade have never been more pressing. Marhijn Visser, Deputy Director of International Affairs at VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland and Board Member of ICC Netherlands, will once again join the Dutch delegation. With experience from both inside government and at the WTO, he shares his perspective on reform, geopolitics and what Dutch business should prepare for next. Ahead of MC14, the WTO has been described as being ‘at a crossroads.’ Is that correct? And is it still fit for purpose? To put it diplomatically, people say this at every ministerial conference. For example, two years ago in Abu Dhabi, everyone was saying it was the ‘make or break summit’. However, the reality is more nuanced. On the one hand, the WTO is still very relevant. Around 75% of global trade still takes place under WTO rules, not under free trade agreements. Trade continues to flow, and the rulebook still provides the foundation for the global trading system. On the other hand, reform is clearly needed. One major issue is that the dispute settlement system is no longer fully functioning, because the United States has blocked the appointment of judges to the Appellate Body. It’s good to keep in mind that while President Trump started this in his first term, it was already underway during President Obama’s administration, then continued by President Biden. So this is not only a Republican issue. The second problem is that the rulebook itself is outdated. It has not been updated for over 30 years. Since then, we have seen the rise of e-commerce, the Internet, artificial intelligence – none of which are reflected in the current framework. Industrial subsidies are another major issue. China, but also the United States and Europe, have significant subsidy programmes. And finally, there is the issue of consensus. Formal WTO decisions require agreement from all 160-plus members. In today’s geopolitical climate, that is increasingly difficult to achieve. In representing Dutch business at MC14, what are your key priorities for the Ministerial Conference? Reform of the WTO is the first priority. Without reform, the system risks becoming less relevant over time. Second is maintaining the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. This is extremely important. The moratorium ensures that countries do not impose customs duties on electronic transactions. If customs duties were applied to electronic transmissions, it would seriously disrupt digital trade. Third, there needs to be a broader discussion on industrial policy. We are currently seeing something of a global subsidy rat race, with major programmes in the United States, Europe and China. This has significant implications for competitiveness, making it more difficult for developing countries to keep up. The WTO remains the natural platform to discuss these issues. Trade policy is increasingly shaped by geopolitics. How should Dutch businesses adapt? The most important message is simple: geopolitics is back in the boardroom. This is something we hear not only from multinationals, but also from SMEs. As a result, long-term planning has become more difficult. The key response is resilience. One of the most effective tools companies have is due diligence. By mapping their supply chains and understanding their dependencies, companies can reduce risks and become more resilient. Interestingly, this overlaps with ESG requirements. If you are already conducting supply chain due diligence for ESG purposes, you are also strengthening your geopolitical resilience. This is not just a compliance exercise – it can become a competitive advantage. We are also seeing the emergence of new roles within companies, such as geopolitical risk specialists. That reflects how fundamentally the business environment has changed. What are the key trade policy priorities of the new Dutch government? We are very pleased that trade policy has been given a more central place by the new government. Around 35% of our national income comes from trade so it is essential that trade policy reflects that reality. We also see a change regarding the importance of free trade agreements. For example, the political debate around the EU-Mercosur agreement shifted significantly; there is increasing awareness that trade agreements are essential for supply chain diversification and economic security. Another positive development is that trade will again have a dedicated minister, rather than a state secretary. Budget cuts for embassies have also been reversed, which is important for supporting Dutch businesses abroad. Overall, I think politics in the Netherlands is moving in the right direction. Are you optimistic about the future of multilateral trade? Or are we entering a more transactional, power-driven era? We are clearly entering a new era. After the Cold War, we experienced what you could call both a peace dividend and a globalisation dividend. Companies and societies benefited from stability and open markets. We are now finally waking up to the fact that era is over. We are entering a more unstable and uncertain global environment; we cannot simply go back to business as usual. At the same time, change is possible. For example, the EU recently concluded a trade agreement with India after more than 20 years of negotiations. This shows you that, once the political will was there, progress was made quickly. Change is possible, if we want it to happen. The same could happen at the WTO – but it will require leadership and engagement. What role should business play in shaping the future of the trading system? Business needs to be more vocal and more engaged. At the last Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi, there was an enormous business presence; hundreds, perhaps thousands of representatives. That shows how much is at stake. The International Chamber of Commerce has a particularly important role to play as a bridge between business communities around the world. In many countries, especially in the Global South, government positions do not always fully reflect the interests of their own business communities. By strengthening dialogue and cooperation between businesses globally, ICC can help ensure that the voice of business is heard more clearly. That's the main priority – and we’re happy to contribute to that.

< 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.