Search Results

Discover the ICC Netherlands Arbitrator and ADR Database, a comprehensive resource connecting you with expert arbitrators and mediators. Explore profiles, qualifications, and find the right professional for your dispute resolution needs. ICC Netherlands Arbitrator & ADR Database Category Language Specialization Jurisdiction Marieke Witkamp Marieke Witkamp LLC Arbitrator Specialisation: Construction, Engineering, Arts,Leisure, Entertainment, Tourism, Sales, Purchases, Transport, Maritime, Pharmaceutical, Joint Ventures, Consortia, Cooperation, Insurance, Energy and Natural Resources, Distribution, Franchising, Corporate Law / M&A, Real Estate Languages: English, Dutch Bart Neervoort NEERVOORT Mediation Arbitrage (handelsnaam Nirwa Werk) Mediator Specialisation: Transport, Real Estate, Maritime, Joint Ventures, Insurance, Finance and Banking, Energy and Natural Resources, Distribution, Corporate Law / M&A, Consultancy Services (Other than Legal), Construction, Competition, Agency (Representation), Employment, Information and Communication Technologies, Sales, Pharmaceutical, Insolvency, Mass Claims, Personal Injury Languages: English, Dutch, French Irène Léger Staunch Arbitrator Specialisation: Corporate Law / M&A, Employment, Energy and Natural Resources Languages: English, French Bas Van Zelst Enhance Arbitration B.V. Arbitrator, Mediator Specialisation: Construction, Engineering, Distribution, Franchising, Investment / Public International Law, Corporate Law / M&A, Energy and Natural Resources Languages: English, Dutch Marc Krestin Fieldfisher Arbitrator Specialisation: Construction, Corporate Law / M&A, Finance and Banking, Information and Communication Technologies, Investment / Public International Law, Pharmaceutical, Sales, Sports, Transport, Environment, Agriculture, Distribution, Joint Ventures, Maritime, Real Estate, Renewable Energy, ESG, Retail, Technology/AI, Employment, Energy and Natural Resources Languages: German, English, Dutch, French Martje de Vries Lentsch De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek Arbitrator Specialisation: Joint Ventures, Energy, Commercial, Collaboration Agreements, Enforcement and Annulment of Arbitral Awards Languages: Dutch, English Manon Schonewille Proactive Mediators Mediator Specialisation: Consultancy Services (Other than Legal), Business Mediation, Employment Mediation Languages: Dutch, English, German Jeremy LACK LAWTECH Mediator Specialisation: Competition, Consultancy Services (Other than Legal), Corporate Law / M&A, Distribution, Information and Communication Technologies, Intellectual Property, Investment / Public International Law, Joint Ventures, Pharmaceutical, Sales, Sports, Arts, Employment, Energy and Natural Resources Languages: English, French, Spanish, Hebrew Marieke van Hooijdonk Independent Arbitrator Arbitrator Specialisation: Corporate Law / M&A, Investment / Public International Law, Financial Services, Biotech, Pharmaceutical, Technology, Media, Life Sciences and Healthcare Languages: Dutch, English 1 2 3 1 ... 1 2 3 ... 3

< Back < Previous | Next > Dispute Resolution Preventing Disputes Before They Arise: Strategic Tools in Investment and Commercial Arbitration Agata Zwolankiewicz, Yulia Levashova 6 May 2026 Preventing Disputes Before They Arise: Strategic Tools in Investment and Commercial Arbitration On 23 March 2026, during Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Dr. Yulia Levashova (Nyenrode Business University) organized a panel discussion “Preventing Disputes Before They Arise: Strategic Tools in Investment and Commercial Arbitration” at White&Case in Paris. The event brought together leading practitioners, academics, and institutional representatives to explore the growing importance of dispute prevention across both commercial and investment arbitration. The session opened with welcome remarks by Ms. Nataliia Tuzheliak (Associate, White&Case), who highlighted the historical roots of dispute prevention within arbitral practice and e mphasized its renewed relevance in today’s climate of geopolitical uncertainty. Dr. Yulia Levashova (Associate Professor, Nyenrode University) introduced the event, noting a persistent gap between the expanding toolkit for dispute prevention and its relatively limited use in practice – a theme that framed both panels. Panel I: Innovative Approaches to Dispute Prevention The first panel moderated by Dr. Yulia Levashova examined emerging tools and strategies designed to prevent disputes before escalation. A central focus was the evolving role of mediation. Ms. Agata Zwolankiewicz (Associate, Addleshaw Goddard / Researcher, KU Leuven) described investment mediation as an underutilized but increasingly recognized mechanism, supported by developments such as the Singapore Convention and new institutional frameworks. While unlikely to replace arbitration, mediation is gaining traction as a complementary tool, particularly for early–stage dispute resolution. Building on this, Mr. Marc Krestin (Partner, Fieldfisher) emphasized the importance of well-drafted multi-tier dispute resolution clauses. He noted that mediation clauses are generally enforceable across European jurisdictions when clearly formulated, and that effective clause design – ensuring structured engagement and clarity – can transform ADR mechanisms from procedural hurdles into genuine dispute prevention tools. From a construction perspective, Nataliia Tuzheliak highlighted the success of dispute adjudication boards (DABs). Drawing on empirical data, she noted that a significant majority of disputes are resolved at the DAB stage, with only a small fraction escalating to arbitration. The presence of technically qualified, standing adjudicators was identified as a key factor in fostering early resolution and maintaining project continuity. Turning to investment arbitration, Prof. Kamalia Mehtiyeva (Professor of Law at the University of Paris-Est Créteil (France), Arbitrator and Counsel) explored the emerging role of counterclaims as a potential dispute prevention mechanism. Although empirical evidence remains limited, she argued that the growing acceptance of counterclaims – particularly in treaty–based arbitration, may influence investor behaviour and encourage earlier settlements by recalibrating risk assessments. Institutional perspectives were provided by Dr. Hélène van Lith (Secretary to the ICC Commission on Arbitration & ADR, ICC Dispute Resolution Services and Associate Professor, University Paris Dauphine), who outlined the International Chamber of Commerce’s expanding suite of ADR services. She noted a clear trend towards combining mechanisms, such as mediation, expert determination, and dispute boards – in flexible, hybrid processes tailored to parties’ needs. Increased user awareness and demand for “dispute avoidance” tools were identified as key drivers of this shift. Panel II: Regional Perspectives on Dispute Prevention in Investment and Commercial Arbitration The second panel, moderated by Ms. Anna Guillard Sazhko (Independent Counsel and Arbitrator, Turkic Arbitration Association), examined how dispute prevention mechanisms are being developed and implemented across different regions, highlighting both common trends and jurisdiction – specific approaches. Focusing on Latin America, Mr. Eric Franco (Partner, Legal Delta) emphasized that most disagreements are in fact resolved amicably, and that effective dispute prevention requires keeping parties actively engaged and in control of their disputes, rather than delegating entirely to external counsel. He further highlighted that disputes stem from uncertainty, and can often be prevented through early clarification of risks and issues -particularly via tools such as risk management, proactive dispute boards, and fostering trust and open communication between the parties. Providing an institutional perspective from Kazakhstan, Mr. Christopher Campbell-Holt (Registrar and Chief Executive of the AIFC Court and IAC, AIFC Court and IAC) presented the model of the AIFC Court and IAC as an example of integrated dispute prevention and resolution. He highlighted how accessible procedures, proactive case management, and transparency contribute to building user trust. Addressing Central Asia more broadly, Dr. Saltanat Imanova (American University of Central Asia) outlined ongoing institutional innovations and a gradual shift toward formalized ADR frameworks aligned with international standards. She emphasized the importance of capacity building, legal education, and regional cooperation in strengthening dispute prevention practices. Finally, Ms. Diana Bayzakova (Director, Tashkent International Arbitration Centre) shared insights from Uzbekistan’s Tashkent International Arbitration Centre, highlighting recent legal reforms and institutional efforts aimed at improving the investment climate. She stressed that effective dispute prevention depends not only on modern legal frameworks but also on sustained governmental support and institutional credibility. The event concluded with reflections by Ms. Laure Jacquier (Director of ICC Netherlands), who underscored the importance of continued innovation and collaboration between practitioners, institutions, and states to ensure that dispute prevention becomes an integral part of arbitration practice.

< Back < Previous | Next > Highlights from the Week of Integrity 2025 1 Nov 2025 The Week of Integrity 2025 brought together organizations across sectors to explore how integrity strengthens culture, trust, and sustainable growth. From the launch of the new Book of Integrity to inspiring partner initiatives and thought-provoking dialogues, the week proved that integrity is a year-round capability, not just a one-week commitment. Integrity & Culture: Highlights from the Week of Integrity 2025 From 27 to 31 October, organizations across the Netherlands and beyond came together for the Week of Integrity 2025 , a week dedicated to reflection, dialogue, and action on how integrity strengthens culture, trust, and long-term business resilience. Opening: Integrity as a cultural foundation The week opened with a clear message: integrity is the cultural foundation for resilient institutions. Speakers Mirjam Bakker-Vergouw and Lousewies van der Laan highlighted the urgency of restoring trust in a polarized world. Prof. Dr. Muel Kaptein delivered an interactive keynote introducing a practical framework for measuring and managing ethical culture, setting the tone for a week focused on how integrity sustains open, just, and sustainable societies. The week also marked the launch of the seventh edition of the Book of Integrity , “Culture of Integrity” , featuring essays from business leaders and experts on how ethical culture underpins sustainable growth. The book set the tone for the discussions that followed: integrity is not just a principle, but a practice that defines how organizations lead, decide, and grow responsibly. Partner Spotlight The Week of Integrity thrives thanks to its many partners, whose creativity and engagement brought the theme to life across sectors and industries: KPMG published a five-part blog series inspired by Prof. Kaptein’s keynote, each day exploring a dimension of ethical culture—from the value of integrity and the balance between hard and soft controls, to preventing ethical complacency. Forvis Mazars launched a daily blog series analyzing corruption risks through 99 FCPA cases , covering topics like kickbacks, nepotism, shell companies, and self-reporting—concluding with a practical self-scan for organizations. Kickbacks en fictieve facturatie: zo herkent u het in de praktijk - Forvis Mazars - Nederland NIBC Bank released its updated Code of Conduct , hosted an engaging internal event with CEO Nick Jue and guest speaker Prof. Marjan Olfers , and reinforced its Speak Up culture with interactive role-plays and manager-led initiatives. Damen , in collaboration with Van Oord and SBM Offshore , organized a Compliance Champion spotlight, an open Compliance Café , and an Industry Roundtable on Culture , encouraging open dialogue and peer learning. On October 27, Geert Vermeulen from De Integriteitscoördinator and Lucianne Verweij , Business Integrity Specialist, hosted a session inviting experts to discuss Whistleblowing Management Systems and related topics such as the benefits of a speak-up culture, the value of effective speak-up mechanisms, and the associated challenges. Marijntje Zweegers , Research and Prevention Coordinator at the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority , provided insights into the role of the Huis voor Klokkenluiders, while Wim Vandekerckhove guided participants through the Speak-Up Self-Assessment (SUSA) online tool. Triple Jump encouraged employees to engage in informal lunch discussions about integrity and sustainability, helping colleagues reflect on how everyday choices shape ethical behavior. They complemented this with an Integrity Quiz and an invitation to read the Book of Integrity , featuring a contribution from their Compliance Manager, Margherita Noto . These initiatives demonstrated how integrity can be embedded across sectors, from finance and infrastructure to professional services and compliance. Seminar: Culture and Integrity in a Shifting World At the seminar “Culture and Integrity in a Shifting World” , participants explored how organizations can uphold integrity amid growing geopolitical and regulatory uncertainty. The session opened with Casper Roerade (Evofenedex) , who outlined how global trade fragmentation and political pressures are reshaping corporate governance and ethical expectations. A panel featuring Christiene Everaars , Tekla Surguladze (Magnum) , Alessandro Fontana (Saipem do Brasil) , and Angeliki Mitropoulou (SBM Offshore) — moderated by Suzanne Kröner-Rosmalen (NautaDutilh) — examined integrity challenges across global supply chains and ESG compliance. Sonia Garcia delivered a compelling keynote on the role of organizational culture and psychological safety, while Mariet de Boer and Twan Hol from the Dutch Whistleblower Authority shared practical tools to foster open, speak-up environments. Closing: Integrity as a capability The week concluded with an inspiring message from global thought leader Brett Hudson : integrity must be more than a value — it must be a capability. Hudson emphasized that ethical failures often result from structural weaknesses rather than individual flaws. He called on leaders to intentionally design systems that enable integrity under pressure and to use technology, including AI, responsibly, as a support for human judgment and values. The Week of Integrity 2025 once again proved that integrity is not only about compliance but about culture, leadership, and courage. Across industries, partners showed how principles can be turned into practice, strengthening trust, resilience, and purpose in an increasingly complex world. Keep the conversation going Integrity is not a one-week theme — it’s a year-round commitment. There are 52 weeks of integrity , and organizations are encouraged to keep the momentum going. If you’re inspired to take action, explore the Week of Integrity Toolbox — a collection of free resources, case studies, and interactive tools that can be used any time of the year to strengthen integrity, spark dialogue, and build ethical cultures within your organization.

< Back < Previous | Next > What Businesses Really Want to Know About Arbitration: Top Questions from Last Week’s ICC Workshop 27 Nov 2025 What questions do businesses really ask about arbitration? From sanctions and enforcement to confidentiality and clause drafting, discover the top questions businesses raised during our latest ICC arbitration workshop. What Businesses Really Want to Know About Arbitration: Top Questions from Last Week’s ICC Workshop When businesses, engineers, in-house counsel, and lawyers gathered last week for ICC Netherlands’ workshop Managing Risk in Cross-Border Transactions , one thing quickly became clear: organisations may face similar legal risks, but the questions they bring to the table come from very different day-to-day realities. Led by arbitration specialist Ulrich Kopetzki , the session evolved into a highly interactive conversation shaped almost entirely by participant questions: practical, specific, and grounded in real operational dilemmas. Below are the key themes that emerged, the questions businesses are actually asking when it comes to international contracts and ICC arbitration, and what they reveal about the challenges companies face today. 1. “What happens with enforcement if the counterparty is based in a sanctioned country but they have assets are located elsewhere?” The most-asked question of the day was also the most fundamental: enforcement . Participants described scenarios where the counterparty was registered in a sanctioned or high-risk jurisdiction, the contract was governed by a different law, and the only practical assets were located in yet another country. The takeaway was clear: enforcement follows the assets , not the counterparty’s nationality, registered seat, or the governing law. In the example discussed, a Dutch company contracting with a Libyan entity whose assets were in France, enforcement in Libya would have been impossible, but an ICC arbitration award could still be enforced in France under the New York Convention. 2. “Has Brexit made English courts harder to rely on?” Brexit continues to create confusion, and participants openly questioned whether English court judgments have become riskier than arbitration awards. The workshop confirmed a reality many suspected: enforcement of UK court judgments in the EU has indeed become more complicated. Arbitration, however, has remained stable. London continues to be one of the world’s top seats, and English law among the most frequently chosen for international contracts, a testament to its predictability and global reputation. 3. “Why are so many ICC cases in construction, engineering and energy?” Participants from offshore construction, infrastructure and energy immediately recognised themselves in this question. These industries were strongly represented in the room, and for good reason. These sectors rely on complex, high-value projects, international standard forms such as FIDIC, and tight timelines. Delays, variations, and unexpected conditions are common, and the technical nature of disputes means parties prefer arbitrators with sector expertise. Naturally, ICC statistics reflect this: construction, engineering and energy disputes consistently form the largest share of the caseload. In other words, the industries that build the world also generate many of its disputes and arbitration remains the preferred tool for resolving them. 4. “Is the finality of arbitration a benefit or a risk?” This question divided the room. Some participants saw finality as a major advantage: no years of appeals, no long-term uncertainty on the books, and no draining internal resources on prolonged litigation. They valued the ability to “close the file” and focus on business continuity. Others worried: What if the tribunal gets it wrong? Without an appeal route, there is no second chance. The discussion crystallised an important insight: parties’ comfort with finality depends heavily on their ability to select qualified arbitrators who understand their industry. As several practitioners noted, this is often a greater safeguard than an appeal mechanism itself. 5. “How do we avoid reputational damage?” For companies in regulated or high-visibility sectors, confidentiality was a key concern and an area where many assumptions do not match how ICC arbitration actually works. Contrary to popular belief, ICC arbitration is private but not automatically confidential . Unless parties include a confidentiality clause in their contract, they cannot rely on secrecy. While tribunals may issue confidentiality orders, there is no inherent guarantee. Participants were therefore strongly encouraged to address confidentiality explicitly when drafting their dispute-resolution clauses. 6. “Are we drafting arbitration clauses correctly?” The final set of questions went straight to the heart of contractual risk management: drafting. Lawyers in the room shared stories of “creative” clauses that ended up causing more disputes than they resolved. From unclear multi-tier clauses to mismatches between chosen law and the arbitration framework, poorly drafted clauses can create procedural traps, delays, or even unenforceable awards. The workshop advice was unambiguous: Use the ICC Model Clause . Specify seat, law, and language clearly. Be cautious with bespoke additions. Do not over-engineer multi-tier clauses. Clarify whether confidentiality and expedited procedures apply. A good clause won’t guarantee a smooth project, but a bad clause can guarantee a difficult dispute. Businesses Want Practical Answers, Not Theory What made the session unique was the openness of the participants. They did not ask abstract legal questions; they asked business questions: Where will we actually get paid? How do we protect our reputation? Which process gives us the least disruption? Which mechanism can we explain to our board? How do we prevent disputes instead of fuelling them? The workshop showed that arbitration is not only a legal tool, it is a strategic business choice. The ability to manage enforcement risk, maintain neutrality, select experts, and resolve disputes efficiently is at the core of cross-border commerce. For many companies in the room, the greatest insight was that dispute resolution begins long before a conflict arises. It begins with drafting the right clause. Want to join our next ICC NL training? Let us know: more sessions are on the way! info@icc.nl

< Back < Previous | Next > Integrity & Culture “I Thought It Couldn’t Happen Here” 7 Apr 2025 In this candid interview, a regional director in France reflects on the lasting impact of a workplace harassment case, which challenged her views on leadership and integrity. Two years later, she sees integrity not as a fixed ideal, but as a daily commitment to psychological safety, accountability, and readiness. In conversation with a regional agency director in the construction sector, two years after a workplace harassment incident challenged her assumptions about trust, leadership and vulnerability in a tight-knit company. This article, challenging the idea that integrity is ever black and white, is part of ICC Netherlands’ monthly series leading up to the Week of Integrity 2025, where we spotlight real-world experiences and dilemmas at the intersection of culture and integrity. “We had built a culture together” Can you tell us a bit about your company and your role? We are a small public works company based in a town in southern France, with about thirty employees. I’m the agency director and have been with the company for more than twelve years. How would you have described the culture of your company before the incident? The company had gone through tough times before — high employee turnover, lack of shared values — but in recent years we had worked hard to build a more cohesive environment. We brought in an external coach, developed a sense of collective identity, and shaped a family-like atmosphere. We weren’t just colleagues; we’d grown together. That’s why what happened was such a shock. “The atmosphere was heavy — something had happened” How did you first learn about the incident? It was right after the Christmas break. Typically, our administrative team returns a bit earlier than the field staff, so it was a quiet Monday. We all had lunch together, as we usually do — but I felt something was off. There was a heavy, almost oppressive atmosphere. The next day, our accountant came to see me and told me she was the victim of harassment. What was your first reaction? I was deeply shaken — on several levels. First, I had absolutely no idea it had been going on, and apparently it had been happening for months. I always thought my team knew they could talk to me. It was hard to accept that something so serious had happened right under my nose and no one had come forward. Second, the person accused of harassment was someone I trusted completely. He had been with the company for 15 years — one of the pillars of the business. He was someone I worked with daily, someone who had even driven my daughter home when she did a summer internship with us. “No one told me and that was devastating” You mentioned no one came forward. Why do you think that was? That’s something I’ve reflected on a lot. Two colleagues were aware of the situation, including our retired accountant, who’s still someone I hold in high regard, and a trusted site manager. They knew, but they didn’t tell me. The victim had convinced them that she would handle it on her own. She didn’t want any trouble. She was still in her probationary period at the time and probably felt vulnerable. The accused, on the other hand, was seen as irreplaceable; a highly skilled, longstanding team member. In the end, the two colleagues who stayed silent suffered enormously. It was a form of torture for them to hold it in. They felt they had failed to act. And I… I felt betrayed and deeply questioned my leadership. Why hadn’t anyone felt safe enough to come to me? “There were no warning signs” Had you seen any signs or had concerns about the accused employee’s behaviour before this? None. Not a single red flag. He was respectful, kind, professional. I never heard a sexist remark from him — nothing inappropriate, not even close. Honestly, I had colleagues who were a bit rough around the edges, but not him. That’s what made it all so incomprehensible. What about mechanisms for reporting? Were there anonymous channels available?No, we don’t have anonymous reporting in place. We’re a small company, under 50 employees, so it’s not required by law. But we do have elected staff representatives trained as harassment contacts. When we initiated the internal investigation, confidentiality was strictly respected — to this day, very few people in the company know what really happened. Do you think an anonymous channel would have made a difference? Honestly? I’m not sure I would have acted on an anonymous letter. I’ve received anonymous complaints in the past — about things like drinking on worksites — and felt powerless to investigate without knowing who was involved. Also, in this particular case, I had so much trust in the accused that I might not have believed it without seeing the victim’s distress firsthand. “It unravelled everything” What was the impact on your business? Operationally, it was hell for several months. The internal atmosphere was incredibly tense. The investigation was emotionally draining for everyone involved — especially the victim, the accused, and the two colleagues who knew. And me. I had to face the fact that something serious had happened on my watch. The inquiry itself concluded that it wasn’t legally harassment in the strictest sense —but I classified it as such anyway. There were repeated inappropriate actions. Regardless of intent, the behaviour was unacceptable. We brought in a lawyer and imposed disciplinary measures, but ultimately, the accused left the company. So did the victim, after a mental health breakdown. A breakdown? Yes. The situation spiralled. She had initially insisted it was “all sorted” and didn’t want us to act. I tried to support her — encouraged her to take time off, offered psychological help, reassured her about her job. But things got worse. One day, I walked into the office and saw her shouting at our former accountant, who had returned temporarily to help with year-end finances. She was gripping her arm, screaming. It was frightening. That’s when I realized there were deeper psychological issues at play. “I tried to do everything right — and still, it wasn’t enough” How did it end? She went on medical leave, came back briefly, then left again. Eventually, we received a letter through her union representative — claiming I had known for months, had silenced her, even intimidated her. It was crushing. I had done everything in my power to protect her. We settled with a mutual termination agreement and a significant payout — for someone who had been with the company for less than a year. Meanwhile, I lost the trust of our head office. We’re still feeling the operational impact. Looking back, is there anything you would do differently? Yes. I would have taken the time to truly educate myself about harassment before it happened. I thought I was doing enough by sending two staff to get trained. I thought this couldn’t happen in a small company where everyone knows each other, where we have lunch together every day. I was wrong. Were there any signs you missed? No clear ones. She was always cheerful, always brought cakes, lit up the room. But later we learned she had recently lost 50 kilos, gone through a divorce… there were emotional wounds beneath the surface. Still, no one saw it coming. She kept it all inside. And the accused? He had a history of burnout. In hindsight, both of them were probably in a fragile mental state. And yet, the dynamic between them became unhealthy. Even when we tried to separate them, she would go into his office — lock the door. It was messy, blurred, toxic. “I used to think harassment only happened elsewhere” What would you say to other business leaders? Prepare yourselves. Really prepare. Don’t just tick boxes. Understand what harassment is, how it starts, and how to respond. Get trained yourself — not just your team. Don’t assume that being small or close-knit makes you immune. It doesn’t. Make sure people know the procedures. Put them on the wall if you have to. Talk about it — not just when something goes wrong, but regularly. Make it normal. Make it part of your culture. Because when it happens — and it might — you don’t want to be figuring things out in the middle of the storm. You want to be ready. And what does integrity mean to you, today? Initially, I only thought of integrity in financial terms — being honest in business dealings. But now I see it’s broader. It’s about doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. In terms of safety — including psychological safety — that’s where we’ve still got work to do. Is there anything else you’d like to share? Only this: two years later, I’m still learning. Doing this interview made me realize how much I haven’t yet done — especially in terms of prevention. I managed the crisis. But I haven’t finished the job. Now, my responsibility is to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

< Back < Previous | Next > Dispute Resolution The role of mediation in dispute resolution 1 Feb 2025 The ICC Arbitration and ADR Commission plays a pivotal role in shaping global dispute resolution standards, ensuring businesses have access to efficient, fair, and enforceable solutions. As international trade grows increasingly complex, ICC’s dispute resolution services—including arbitration, mediation, expert determination, and dispute boards—help companies navigate conflicts without resorting to lengthy court proceedings. Jeremy Lack One of the fastest-growing areas in dispute resolution is mediation , offering businesses a cost-effective, time-efficient, and collaborative approach to resolving disputes. To explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in mediation, we spoke with Jeremy Lack , a leading expert in the field. The role of mediation in dispute resolution In the arena of dispute resolution, there are several ways to resolve commercial disputes. The three most commonly discussed are litigation, arbitration and mediation. [1] Of these three methods, litigation in national courts is the most common and most traditional method. Arbitration is next. This method is popular in international disputes due to its flexibility and enforceability since the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards has been signed by 173 countries. Mediation is the least used, even though it is considered by many as being considerably more effective in resolving cross-border disputes due to three crucial factors: it is faster, cheaper, and allows for better control over key drivers. In order to better understand the subject of mediation, we contacted dispute resolution expert Jeremy Lack. Jeremy works closely with disputing parties to create tailor-made dispute resolution processes. Besides operating his law firm Lawtech, he is a door tenant with Quadrant Chambers in London, counsel to the Swiss law form Helvetica Avocats, and the founder of InnovADR, a company that offers bespoke Appropriate Dispute Resolution services. Reflecting the complexity of the subject, we have divided the interview into two parts. So watch out for part two in next month’s newsletter. Can we start with a broad definition of mediation? A mediation is a facilitated negotiation conducted by a trusted person, who is neutral, impartial and independent. If we go into more detail, I think there are a lot of cultural differences regarding questions such as: does the mediation process have to be confidential or not? Do you have to have joint sessions or can you meet separately with the disputants? And what is the precise role of the mediator: can they be evaluative and provide an opinion or make a settlement proposal? The answers to these questions vary surprisingly from country to country, and depending on the school of mediation a mediator was first trained in. What’s the definition of a successful mediation? The success of a mediation depends on the parties’ primary goals, which once again can be a moving target culturally. The Anglo-Saxon definition of a successful mediation is often: did you get a deal done? An Asian approach is often: did you manage to maintain or create harmony? This may or may not require an agreement; it looks more to social impact. The Germanic approach to mediation is often to focus on: did the disputants have a meaningful dialogue? That’s another metric of success, which often directs away from separate meetings in caucus. And then if I look at a French Cartesian approach: this is often about following a four-step process. In that philosophy, whether or not there is harmony, whether or not there is an outcome, whether or not you were able to discuss things in depth, it was a successful mediation as long as you struck to the process. The truth is that disputants often have a mix of different objectives, including all of the ones mentioned above, so how you measure success really needs to be decided in terms of their primary goals, which can vary case-by-case. So what happens when you are mediating between two different cultures? It’s not always a ‘simple’ two-party case; I recently had a case with at least five parties in it, involving different cultures from around the world. Mediation is not viewed or practised the same in every country. For example, a comparative analysis of how 60 different countries defined mediation written in a book by Manon Schonewille and Fred Schonewille in 2014, soon after the EU directive on cross-border commercial mediation took effect, showed that no two of those 60 countries shared a common practice of mediation. Even within the EU, where the directive was intended to harmonize practices, it turned out to be very differently defined, taught and regulated country-by-country. Therefore, when dealing with cultural differences, it is crucial to understand the parties’ assumptions, expectations and procedural needs before starting a mediation, including those of the mediator. This is why I believe appropriate process design is a crucial first step for any international dispute. How do you design a mediation process that ensures that all the parties are on the same wavelength? Often you have to mediate procedural issues first, focusing on what the parties’ primary goals are, realising that it may be a combination of getting a deal done, creating social harmony, improving personal relationships and ensuring a mutually acceptable process was conducted. This often requires a diagnostic step first. I have seven key drivers that I discuss with parties to do so. The first is the timing : what’s the deadline; are there any time pressures? The second is costs : it’s important to stay within the parties’ budgets and what is cost-effective. Relationships is the third driver. To what extent do certain relationships need to be preserved or improved? Will the parties continue working together in the future? Are they interested in working collaboratively or competitively to resolve the matter? Is there a risk of the conflict escalating if certain personal issues are not addressed? Another issue is control on procedural matters : to what extent do the parties want to keep or give control on procedural issues to the mediator. For example, what discovery or evidence needs to be provided? Who will get to speak and when? Will lawyers be required? Will there be a need to provide written submissions, interrogatories, position papers or a summary of concerns, needs and interests that need to be resolved? Some mediators have very specific requirements that others don’t. Some require copies of contracts, pleadings and witness statements, whereas others don’t wish to receive anything at all in advance. The fifth driver is control of outcome : to what extent to the parties want to give or keep control over the outcome? Do they want the mediator to give an opinion, make a proposal or work with another dispute resolution professional (e.g., an arbitrator or an expert) to provide a binding decision? For some professionals, this creates the difference between a competitive negotiation and a collaborative negotiation. Confidentiality is the sixth driver. This determines to what extent that the existence of the dispute, the mediation process itself, or any information exchanged should be confidential. Does confidentiality apply to the external world, or even to other people within each party who may not be attending mediation meetings? Should everything said in caucus be kept confidential and not repeated to another party or does the mediator have discretion to use what they think could be helpful? Does the settlement agreement reached need to be kept confidential? Enforceability is the seventh driver. This is especially important for international disputes: parties sometimes need to have formal reassurances that the solution they have reached is going to be respected and applied, and that there can be ways of ensuring specific performance or certain obligations. Would you say that mediation is more flexible than litigation? Mediation is incredibly flexible, which can be viewed as both a weakness and a strength. It’s a strength because you can design a process to exactly meet the parties’ needs. But it’s a weakness insofar as you cannot assume that mediation has got to mean one thing, and that the mediator’s approach will be the one you want (e.g., facilitative as opposed to evaluative). This is different to litigation, where each court has its own formalities and rules of procedure. Lawyers are usually the only ones to speak, and there is a rigid series of events that have to take place, which the judges will rule on and decide. In litigation the parties have usually given up all control over the process and the outcome. Where does arbitration fit into the dispute resolution mix? It is particularly popular for cross-border commercial disputes. In recent years, there have been concerns regarding its costs and speed. An important point to remember, however, is that mediation and arbitration can be combined for more cost-effective, faster and optimal results. Such ‘mixed mode’ dispute resolution processes are particularly appropriate for complex (e.g., investor-state) or multi-party disputes. Depending on the number of parties, the complexity of the case, the disputants’ future business needs and objectives, the cultural needs of the parties, their budgets and deadlines, you can combine mediation and arbitration to provide highly tailored results that fit all these requirements, also providing greater enforceability through the combined application of the New York Convention and the Singapore Convention. Keeping in mind the potential benefits of mediation – being faster, cheaper, and allowing for better control over key drivers – how is it viewed by the traditional legal system? There is still a long way to go. Despite mediation being increasingly considered by commercial lawyers in the last two decades, it is seldom used and if so, only very late in litigation or arbitration proceedings (e.g., on the eve of a trial), when the parties’ positions have become entrenched and relationships have already deteriorated. It only seems to be taking off in jurisdictions where courts have actively promoted it or even sanctioned parties for not trying it. A few years ago I coordinated the Global Pound Conference series. This involved collecting data from a broad range of dispute resolution experts – judges, lawyers, in-house counsel, business executives, people from ministries of justice and academics – approximately 5,000 people in 28 cities from 24 countries. In addition to discovering that not only are there huge differences in attitudes to mediation country by country (and sometimes within countries), the fascinating thing was that, in all countries and cities, all of these experts (judges and lawyers included) were unhappy with access to justice in their country. They felt it is often too expensive, takes too long, too restrictive, destructive in terms of relationships, or a combination of these problems. That is why there has been increased interest in mediation by judges, calls for mediation as a compulsory first step prior to proceeding to litigation, and significant shifts in forum shopping. While mediation will become more common, it is unlikely to surpass arbitration or litigation, even if technically it ought to. This is due to cultural and psychological differences that are difficult to overcome. A willingness to mediate is often misinterpreted as a sign of weakness if made by a party, whereas it is a different thing if it comes at the request (or even as an order, subject to cost sanctions) from a judge or arbitrator. Lawyers often believe that if they could not settle a dispute through negotiation, a mediator is unlikely to be of additional value and is only likely to delay and create additional costs for the parties. They are unaware that all international commercial mediation centres report settlement rates higher than 70%, within less than 6 months. This is a complex and challenging paradox – but one that offers huge benefits for lawyers and disputants willing to use it much earlier on, and more strategically in combination with litigation or arbitration. Part two of this interview will cover subjects such as: How to deal with confidentiality in mediation? How to create an environment of trust and collaboration in mediation? Psychological barriers in mediation Where does conciliation fit into this? How can findings from neuroscience help mediators and mediation lawyers? How to select mediators and what makes a good mediator? [1] Conciliation is a fourth, distinct form of dispute resolution, but is not discussed in this paper.

< Back < Previous | Next > Business integrity Five working groups, one mission: ICC Netherlands puts business integrity into practice 17 Jun 2026 From sanctions to boardroom ethics, the ICC Netherlands Business Integrity Commission is turning hard questions into practical tools that companies can actually use. Here is what its five working groups are building, and how you can take part. Five working groups, one mission: ICC Netherlands puts business integrity into practice Doing business with integrity has rarely been more complicated, or more important. Sanctions regimes shift from one week to the next, enforcement priorities are changing across the globe, due-diligence rules keep expanding, and boards are asked to make difficult calls under real pressure. At the same time, smaller companies and supply-chain partners often lack the resources of large multinationals to keep up. Bringing together compliance officers, in-house and external lawyers, bankers, auditors and corporates from across the Dutch business community, the Commission works through five focused working groups, each tackling a concrete challenge and producing practical, shareable guidance. At its meeting on 16 June 2026, all five reported real progress, with the first deliverables due to be published in the months ahead. The approach is deliberately collaborative. Rather than producing theory, the groups draw on the day-to-day experience of leading Dutch and international companies and advisers, and aim to deliver tools that any organization, from a multinational to an SME, can pick up and apply. What the working groups are building Sanctions: managing complexity, risk and responsibility This group is developing a set of minimum standards together with plain-language one-pagers that explain sanctions to non-specialists, supported by simple visual guides. Because sanctions law changes so rapidly, the materials are designed to build awareness, helping any employee recognise the warning signs and know when to involve a specialist, rather than to replace expert advice. The documents will be published under ICC Netherlands and shared with ICC's Global Commission, with a launch planned for the autumn. Anti-corruption, bribery and conflicts of interest As enforcement priorities shift in some parts of the world, this group is making the case that high standards should not. It is preparing “The Integrity Advantage”, an accessible toolkit for SMEs covering red flags, a script for handling pressure, gifts and hospitality, and dilemma navigation, alongside a business-integrity statement for larger corporates and their supply chains. The message is simple: whatever the political climate, the commitment to do business honestly stays firm. The deliverables are targeted for completion in October 2026. Integrated integrity & sustainability due diligence: “breaking silos” Many companies run separate checks for compliance, sustainability, cyber and data privacy, etc, often asking the same supplier to complete several questionnaires. This group is building a practical guide, including model contract clauses, to help organisations join these processes up into a single, more efficient approach to due diligence. The result combines the legal framework with real-world best practice and a clear business case. Boardroom ethics, governance and decision-making under pressure This group has nearly completed a comparative legal benchmark on the personal liability of board members across European jurisdictions, covering criminal, civil and administrative law. Building on that foundation, it is developing a board-level masterclass, using real-life crisis and pressure scenarios, to help directors navigate the grey-zone decisions that rules alone cannot resolve. The aim is to make ethics a practical, everyday part of how boards lead. Corporate benchmarking of compliance programmes How should a compliance function actually be organized? centralised, decentralised, and who should it report to? This group runs a candid, corporate-only forum under the Chatham House Rule, where companies compare how their programmes work and share best practices. Its first exchange looked at the governance of the compliance function, with the clear conclusion that there is no single blueprint, which is precisely why sharing and learning directly from peers is so valuable. Building towards the Week of Integrity The Commission's work feeds directly into the Week of Integrity 2026, which this year celebrates its 10th edition under the theme “Leading with Integrity in a Digital Age.” The main week runs from 26 to 30 October in The Hague, part of a year-round programme involving more than 110 partners, from a July webinar with Microsoft to the central seminar on 29 October and a closing event to follow. It is a trusted platform for the conversations that have no easy answers, and a chance for organisations to show that integrity is something they act on, not just talk about. Get involved The strength of the Commission comes from the people around the table. Whether your organisation can contribute expertise to a working group, share a good practice, host an event, or simply wants to stay close to the latest thinking on business integrity, there is a place for you. Interested in joining a working group or becoming a partner? Get in touch with the ICC Netherlands team via info@icc.nl , we would be glad to tell you more and help you find the right fit.

< Back < Previous | Next > Intelligence-driven responses to geopolitical risk, espionage threats and cyber-attacks Tom Scott 6 Jan 2026 Geopolitical shocks, cyber-physical attacks and insider threats aren’t “emerging risks” anymore – they’re hitting companies now, and faster than leaders can update their plans. For our latest ICC Netherlands newsletter, we interviewed Tim Bosch (co-founder of the Birdwatcher Group) on why traditional scenario planning is collapsing, why every company is already a target, and why resilience can no longer be a project – it must embedded into your operating system. If your organisation isn’t preparing to pivot in days rather than quarters, it’s already behind Intelligence-driven responses to geopolitical risk, espionage threats and cyber-attacks An interview with Tim Bosch , CEO of the Birdwatcher Group After more than two decades with the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), Tim Bosch co-founded the Birdwatcher Group, an intelligence-driven security firm supporting governments and companies in addressing geopolitical risk, espionage threats and cyber-physical vulnerabilities. We spoke with him about what keeps CEOs awake, how businesses should adapt to the ‘weaponised’ world of trade, and why resilience has become the new operating system for business. What keeps business leaders awake at night? Have these fears changed since a few years ago? Something has definitely changed. There are currently three dominant issues. The first is what we call the geopolitical whiplash. Sanctions, export restrictions, supply chain disruptions: it’s coming from all sides. Geopolitically, the world is on fire. The second is the cyber-physical convergence. Attacks start with IT, Information Technology, but end with the OT, Operational Technology that is at the heart of many systems such as factories, ports and networks. This is a very new model whereby the threat is substantially increased. A well-known example is the incident at the Bremanger dam in Norway in April this year; Russian hackers opened a flood gate that discharged 500 litres of water a second for four hours before the attack was detected. The third point is about talent and trust, in particular the insider threat that comes from within companies. This involves leaks of company secrets, or simply hostile states that are deliberately trying to access people inside the company. What has changed compared to five years ago is the sheer speed and volatility of events. In 2020 we had well-established scenario thinking. But in 2025, it’s more a question of positioning options in advance. In fact, I dare to say that ‘scenario thinking’ is almost no longer possible. Things are moving so fast that your scenario is almost no longer valid before you start. If the scenario thinking is no longer possible, can businesses anticipate shifts before they become crises? In the past, supply chains were busy lobbying tariffs. At the moment, however, where trade is being used as a weapon, you won’t out-lobby geopolitics; you can only out-prepare for it. So how do you do that? Here are a few pointers. 1. Map your exposure to risks every quarter. This includes markets, regimes, sanctions, export controls. 2. Identify what is strategically irreplaceable. Components, logistical routes, cloud regions, routing channels: you have to assume that at least part of your operating model will fail. 3. Build licensing muscle. Have dossiers pre-prepared for export-control or sanctions-related applications. Treat licensing as a continuous process. 4. Establish external intelligence loops. Look beyond newspaper headlines, create an intelligence loop of everything that happens in the outside world. This is an iterative process of structured monitoring of policy signals, data handling, regulatory calendars and draft rules that you can constantly act on. Cybersecurity: how big a threat is it? Are Dutch businesses well protected? Cybersecurity is now – after liquidity – the biggest operational risk category for companies. This has shifted away from just the prevention of incidents to ensure continuity under an attack. Everyone is under attack – all the time. With cybersecurity, there are also cross-border implications. This is very important for the cloud: where is your data? Which jurisdiction has the keys? Companies also have to look at extraterritorial requirements and inspections. Minimum-necessary data per jurisdiction is crucial; you shouldn’t replicate everything everywhere. And crisis interoperability: systems and people must be able to work together internationally during an incident. This requires cross-border practices and rehearsals – not only focusing on the national crisis – to keep on testing the international incident response with partners and insurers. Are Dutch businesses doing enough? Most are still catching up, but I don’t blame them – this is a new phenomenon. What is the one blind spot most organisations underestimate? There are many blind spots, I’m afraid. But the one I want to highlight is the insider and the near-insider risk. Think of contractors with excessive privileges, or the joint-venture partner system administrator. System admins in particular are an excellent insider threat because they have the ability to manipulate, to harm the company. There are ways to mitigate the risk: awareness programs, ‘least-privileged-by-design’, constant reviews of access rights, focused screening for sensitive roles, and continuous monitoring of security events and credentials. ICC works to keep trade open and predictable through the WTO, standard-setting and digitalisation. With declining trust in global institutions, is there still a role for ICC? I firmly believe in strong public-private cooperation. In this period of hybrid warfare, companies are on the front line. They may not wear uniforms, but they are under attack every day. The ICC certainly has a role, not only for the practical predictability, but by creating effective soft-law frameworks and depoliticization. The ICC can align sectors on baselines, like cyber due diligence for trade finance or supply chain integrity attestations. ICC is uniquely placed to align sectors globally: it keeps markets functioning while politics recalibrates. If you could give one piece of advice to business leaders in 2026, what would it be? Institutionalise the option value. Design your company so it can pivot in days and not in quarters – whether changing suppliers, cloud regions, banks or legal options. And remember: resilience is no longer a project. It is an operating system. Make somebody at the highest level responsible for not only risk but also the geopolitical thinking throughout your organisation. Looking back at the recent Dutch elections – and the upcoming coalition formation – does the Dutch political system give enough attention to the challenges facing businesses nowadays, specifically on these issues? Sadly, my answer would be no. I think it’s safe to say that there’s not a single political party that really goes into great depth on Ukraine, the hybrid attacks on Europe, supply chain risks, China’s ambitions as a world power. In general, my goal is to help companies with these dilemmas – and to be a constructive, realistic sparring partner in an unpredictable world.

< Back < Previous | Next > The bigger picture of arbitration Tom Scott 3 Mar 2026 A conversation with Marc Krestin, Partner at Fieldfisher The bigger picture of arbitration A conversation with Marc Krestin, Partner at Fieldfisher Marc Krestin is a dispute resolution lawyer at Fieldfisher with over 18 years of experience in international litigation and arbitration. Having worked in the Netherlands and France, his career path has focused on complex cross-border disputes, with a particular emphasis on arbitration. With an international upbringing spanning Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and France, Marc views arbitration as a natural extension of his background. “It is global by nature,” he explains, “and requires cultural awareness, as well as an understanding of international law, economics and geopolitics.” From your perspective, what role does arbitration play today in supporting trust and continuity in international business? Arbitration supports trust and continuity. And therefore it converts some of the uncertainty that businesses may encounter across their lifecycle into enforceable decisions. Arbitration gives companies security and finality about disputes, enabling them to move on with their core business. In cross-border commerce, businesses value predictability, neutrality and enforceability. Arbitration ticks those boxes. Predictability does not mean you can foresee the outcome, but you receive a final award that is, in principle, not subject to appeal. That gives parties closure. There is also perceived predictability in the fact that parties can generally influence the choice of the arbitrator(s). Neutrality is another cornerstone. Arbitration allows disputes to be resolved in a neutral forum, often with decision-makers who have no affiliation with either party’s home jurisdiction. And enforceability is perhaps arbitration’s greatest strength. Under the New York Convention, arbitral awards can be enforced in more than 170 countries. That global enforceability is far more extensive than what is typically available for court judgments outside regional frameworks such as the EU. Where do you see the biggest disconnect between business expectations and legal reality when it comes to arbitration? The largest gap lies between speed and cost expectations on the one hand, and due process requirements on the other. Businesses understandably want disputes resolved quickly and at the lowest possible cost. Arbitration, however, is built on principles of fairness and due process. That can sometimes make the process more complex, time-consuming and costly than parties initially expect. The flip side is that this thorough process leads to a well-reasoned decision that parties can live with and move on from, rather than a quick fix that leaves one side dissatisfied. There is also sometimes a misconception about ‘finality.’ While arbitral awards are final in principle, they can still be challenged on limited grounds. What do you see as the added value of ICC arbitration specifically? The ICC is widely regarded as the gold standard of institutional arbitration. It is one of the most recognised and frequently used arbitral institutions worldwide. A key differentiator is the scrutiny of awards by the ICC Court. Every award is reviewed before it is issued. That quality control mechanism is relatively unique and adds significant robustness to the process. The ICC also benefits from highly experienced administration and case management teams. Given the volume of cases handled, the institutional knowledge and expertise are substantial. Its global reach is another advantage. The ICC has access to arbitrators across jurisdictions and sectors, ensuring both diversity and the necessary local or technical expertise. In addition, the ICC Rules are regularly updated and include tools such as expedited proceedings and emergency arbitration, reflecting technological and sectoral developments. If you could give one piece of advice to Dutch companies entering international contracts in 2026, what would it be? Do not treat the dispute resolution clause as boilerplate. Draft it carefully, taking into account the specific business relationship and the geopolitical context. Think about enforcement risks, choice of seat, applicable law, procedural rules and unforeseen circumstances. Too often, dispute resolution clauses are copy-pasted at the last minute. Once a dispute arises, it is usually too late to find common ground on how to resolve it. It is far better to make thoughtful arrangements while the relationship is still healthy. Choosing a reputable institution, selecting a pro-arbitration seat and seeking proper legal advice can make a decisive difference. How can arbitrators, external counsel and in-house counsel work together more effectively? Although arbitration is adversarial, all stakeholders share a common objective: a fair, efficient and effective resolution of the dispute. We should perhaps approach arbitration more often with a project management mindset. That means adhering to timelines, focusing on issues that truly matter, avoiding unnecessary length in submissions and working collaboratively to shape an efficient process. Cultural differences can add complexity, but they also make arbitration an interesting and enjoyable field to work in. It is essential that arbitrators and counsel bridge those gaps and create a process that both parties can understand and accept. What trends and developments will shape arbitration practice in the next 5-10 years? Several developments are already here at our doorstep. First, disputes in sectors such as technology, life sciences, energy and financial services – particularly fintech and digital assets – will continue to grow. The rise of digital currencies, artificial intelligence and data-driven business models will generate new types of disputes. Second, arbitration will become increasingly digital and interdisciplinary. Cases will require technical expertise in engineering, data science or emerging technologies, alongside legal expertise. Third, ESG and climate-related disputes are likely to increase. While many such cases are currently brought before state courts, more contracts now include arbitration clauses, which means arbitration will increasingly deal with green finance, greenwashing and climate-related claims. Geopolitical fragmentation is another major driver. Sanctions, trade controls, tariffs and disputes involving state-owned entities will continue to shape the arbitration landscape. Finally, we will see more multi-tier dispute resolution clauses combining arbitration with mediation, expert determination or negotiation. Arbitration will increasingly be part of a broader dispute resolution toolkit. What advice would you give your younger self starting out in arbitration? Be deliberate and strategic about your career choices. Arbitration is highly competitive and internationally attractive. Seek out opportunities to gain hands-on experience. Learn from experienced practitioners. Master the facts; arbitration is fundamentally about understanding the record inside out. Networking is also crucial. Arbitration is a people’s business. Knowing the players – including arbitrators, counsel and institutional representatives – is important both for professional development and for staying up-to-date. Above all, never take the learning process for granted and immerse yourself fully in the craft. Marc Krestin Attorney-at-law specialising in international dispute resolution Partner at Fieldfisher Trace, Freeze and Collect – When the Forum Isn’t Your Friend: Enforcement across Eastern Europe and Asia - Paris Arbitration Week Beat the Clock: Essential Skills for Rising Arbitrators in Expedited Proceedings - Paris Arbitration Week

< Back < Previous | Next > ICC launches global policy paper on preventing online and ICT-enabled fraud ICC’s new policy paper highlights the growing scale of online and ICT-enabled fraud and calls for stronger international cooperation, aligned regulation and operational public–private partnerships to protect trust in the digital economy. 17 Mar 2026 ICC launches global policy paper on preventing online and ICT-enabled fraud The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published a new global policy paper on preventing online and ICT-enabled fraud, highlighting the growing scale of the threat and the urgent need for coordinated international action. As digital technologies continue to transform economies and business models, fraud has evolved in parallel. What were once isolated scams have developed into highly organised, industrial-scale operations run by transnational criminal networks. These groups exploit global connectivity, regulatory fragmentation and increasingly sophisticated technologies, including artificial intelligence, to operate across borders at speed and scale. The consequences extend far beyond financial losses. Online fraud undermines trust in digital services, disrupts legitimate business activity and weakens confidence in cross-border trade and innovation. A systemic and cross-sector challenge The policy paper highlights that online and ICT-enabled fraud is no longer confined to a single sector or type of activity. It spans financial services, telecommunications, digital platforms, e-commerce and cybersecurity, often combining elements of cybercrime, financial fraud and social engineering. At the same time, legitimate businesses are investing heavily in prevention, detection and disruption measures, including advanced authentication tools, AI-driven fraud detection and cross-sector intelligence sharing. However, the report makes clear that no single company, sector or government can address the challenge alone . Structural constraints continue to limit effective action. These include fragmented regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions, operational barriers to cross-border enforcement, unclear or misaligned accountability structures, and the rapid pace of technological change, which is outpacing existing policy approaches. From fragmented responses to coordinated action A central message of the ICC paper is the need to move from fragmented, reactive responses to a more coordinated and proactive global approach. Encouragingly, the paper identifies a growing number of successful initiatives, including cross-industry intelligence-sharing platforms, anti-scam taskforces and technical solutions enabling companies to share fraud indicators such as malicious domains, phone numbers or digital identities. These examples demonstrate the value of collaboration in improving detection and disruption capabilities. However, scaling these efforts requires stronger alignment between governments, industry and law enforcement. Key recommendations for governments and industry The policy paper sets out four priority areas to strengthen the global response: Strengthen cross-border cooperation : Fraud is inherently transnational, requiring more effective international legal frameworks, streamlined data access and joint enforcement efforts targeting organised criminal networks. Invest in prevention : Governments should elevate fraud prevention as a strategic priority, supported by dedicated resources, improved data capabilities and specialised expertise. Reduce regulatory fragmentation : Greater alignment and interoperability across legal frameworks, including consumer protection, cybersecurity and data governance, are essential to enable effective cooperation and reduce uncertainty. Operationalise public–private partnerships : Moving beyond dialogue towards real-time collaboration, including shared intelligence platforms, coordinated operations and joint awareness campaigns. Protecting trust in the digital economy The launch of this policy paper comes at a time when digitalisation is accelerating across all sectors of the economy. Ensuring that digital markets remain secure and trustworthy is therefore not only a matter of enforcement, but also a prerequisite for sustainable economic growth. For businesses, the implications are clear: fraud is no longer a peripheral risk, but a strategic challenge that directly affects operations, reputation and customer trust. ICC’s work in this area aims to ensure that business perspectives are reflected in global policy discussions and that solutions remain practical, scalable and internationally aligned. Ultimately, tackling online and ICT-enabled fraud will require sustained cooperation across borders and sectors, with a shared focus on preventing fraud at its source and strengthening trust in the digital economy.

< 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 > Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution Best Practices: Insights from Recent ICC Trainings in the Netherlands Ulrich Kopetzki 3 Apr 2025 The ICC recently conducted a two-day advanced dispute resolution training in the Netherlands, bringing together over 40 legal and business professionals to explore strategies for handling complex commercial disputes. Emphasizing early assessment, tailored approaches, and proactive use of ICC support services, the sessions highlighted ICC arbitration’s flexibility, global reach, and practical tools to streamline and enhance cross-border dispute resolution. Ulrich Kopetzki ICC Dispute Resolution Services recently delivered a specialized training program across major Dutch companies and law firms. Ulrich Kopetzki, Acting Director for Europe and Central Asia, shared insights into advanced dispute resolution strategies over two intensive days of sessions. The program brought together over 40 experienced legal and business professionals interested in expanding their dispute resolution toolkit. Through collaborative workshops and discussions, we explored nuanced approaches to complex commercial disagreements and exchanged perspectives on optimizing dispute management processes. This initiative supports our ongoing dialogue with the Dutch business community and highlights the evolving landscape of international dispute resolution. Frequently Asked Questions How can we draft more effective dispute resolution clauses? Arbitration offers flexibility to tailor proceedings to your specific needs. Starting with the ICC model clause, consider key strategic choices like seat of arbitration, expedited procedures, confidentiality requirements, and multi-tiered dispute resolution steps. Sometimes leaving certain issues undetermined maintains valuable flexibility. These customizations create a dispute resolution process aligned with your business relationship and industry needs, potentially saving significant time and costs if a dispute arises. What are the advantages of ICC arbitration specifically? ICC arbitration stands out for its global reach (operating in 140+ countries and multiple languages), institutional neutrality, and exceptional quality control through the Court’s award scrutiny process. Its century of experience, client-centric case management, and innovative rules create a level playing field for parties worldwide. This combination makes ICC particularly valuable for complex cross-border disputes requiring efficient, predictable, and enforceable outcomes. How can parties make best use of the ICC Court and Secretariat in an arbitration? The ICC Court and Secretariat offer comprehensive support beyond what’s explicitly stated in the Rules. Some valuable ways to leverage the Court and Secretariat include: 1. Seeking arbitrator selection assistance - When parties need help identifying potential arbitrators, the Secretariat or ICC Court can provide lists of candidates, initiate communication with potential arbitrators about their availability, or establish a list procedure where parties rank their preferences. 2. Requesting specific arbitrator criteria - Parties can jointly agree on criteria they want the ICC Court to consider when appointing an arbitrator, such as nationality, language proficiency, or particular industry expertise. 3. Understanding ICC Court decisions - Any party can request that the Court communicate its reasoning for decisions on jurisdiction, consolidation, arbitrator challenges, or replacements, enhancing transparency in the process. 4. Using the Secretariat as an intermediary - The Secretariat can facilitate communication between parties and the tribunal, especially for sensitive issues like concerns about fees, delays, or case management challenges. 5. Utilizing escrow services - Beyond holding the advance on costs, the Secretariat can provide escrow services for VAT payments, expert fees, or security for costs. 6. Document handling and confidentiality - The Secretariat can serve as a neutral depository for confidential documents, including sealed settlement offers, and ensure they’re only released at appropriate times. 7. Getting logistical support - Leverage the ICC Case Connect platform for document sharing, get help with hearing arrangements through the ICC Hearing Centre, or obtain assistance with visa applications for participants. 8. Requesting advance notice of awards - Parties can arrange to receive alerts when an award notification is imminent, or request specific timing for award delivery. 9. Post-award assistance - The Secretariat continues to provide support after the award is issued, including certified copies of documents, notarization, and letters reminding parties of compliance obligations.