Search Results

Latest News Filter by Category Select Category Stay up to date with the latest developments from the International Chamber of Commerce. From policy updates and international trade insights to new model contracts, global business initiatives, and event highlights — this section brings you timely and trusted information from the world’s largest business organization. Explore how ICC is shaping global commerce, supporting sustainable growth, and championing ethical business practices worldwide.

< Back < Previous | Next > DRS ICC arbitration tops global survey 12 Jun 2025 The Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) have been named the world’s preferred arbitration rules in a global survey investigating current trends in user preferences and perceptions. Conducted by Queen Mary University in partnership with White & Case, the 2025 International Arbitration Survey results state: “The ICC Arbitration Rules are highly regarded, with many interviewees highlighting their established reputation and ease of use for arbitrators and counsel, as well as the support of the Secretariat.” The survey revealed a strong preference among arbitration communities on every continent for the ICC Arbitration Rules , from a choice of more than 60 sets of rules. The ICC Rules took top position in Africa (53%), the Caribbean and Latin America (74%), Europe (60%), the Middle East (59%) and North America (55%), underlining the global character and adaptability of the regulations. In 2024, 831 new cases were filed under the ICC Arbitration Rules, with a total of 2,392 parties from 136 jurisdictions. Claudia Salomon, President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, said: “We’re delighted that the ICC Court again tops the list of the Queen Mary Study as the most-preferred arbitral institution globally. Our services are built on over 100 years of experience, combined with our continued focus on meeting the evolving needs of the parties. We take this opportunity to thank those who entrust the resolution of their disputes to ICC. Our ranking would not be possible without the exemplary leadership and dedication of the ICC Court members and the Secretariat”. The 2025 International Arbitration Survey investigates current trends in user preferences and perceptions, as well as opportunities to shape the future of international arbitration practice. The 2025 edition is the result of 2,402 questionnaire responses and 117 interviews with a diverse pool of participants. Full survey findings are available on the Queen Mary University London website .

< Back Bart Neervoort NEERVOORT Mediation Arbitrage (handelsnaam Nirwa Werk) Mediator Biography Former attorney with 30 year experience in international litigation and arbitration and former judge with the Amsterdam appeal court. Trained as a mediator in the UK (CEDR) and the US (Harvard). International corporate and commercial mediator since 2002. Over 400 mediations since then. Described by parties as a no nonsense dealmaker. Regular mediation appoinments by ICC. Contact Details Netherlands 0031653202437 neervoort@med-arb.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 English, Dutch, French 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 Bar Admission(s) Credentials IMI, MfN, CEDR, Other CV

< Back < Previous | Next > Trade & Investment Why services can’t realistically be tariffed and shouldn’t be 4 Jun 2025 New ICC brief outlines why tariffs on cross-border services are unworkable and what policymakers should do instead. In today’s digital economy, cross-border services are essential to how businesses operate, grow and compete. But while goods have long been subject to customs tariffs, applying tariffs to services would be both impractical and create significant legal, operational, and economic risks. This is because services are fundamentally different from goods, making them virtually unworkable to tax at borders. Unlike physical products that customs agents can see and inspect, services are intangible—think of things like consulting, software, or design work—that often cross borders digitally or through the movement of people, rather than in shipping containers. This creates multiple challenges: there is no clear moment when a service ‘enters’ a country, no global classification system comparable to the Harmonized System for goods, and no consistent method to assess what should be taxed. Even when governments try to tax cross-border services – such as digital services taxes (DSTs) or withholding regimes – they face legal challenges, high enforcement costs, and risks of international retaliation, as these approaches often violate established rules or conflict with trade and tax agreements. In contrast, some countries have opted for a more neutral approach by applying VAT to cross-border services —treating domestic and foreign providers equally. Beyond feasibility, there is also a strong economic argument to be made against tariffs on services. Services account for more than half of global trade on a value-added basis and are vital enablers of productivity, innovation, and inclusion. Imposing tariffs would raise costs, fragment global supply chains, and disproportionately harm MSMEs and developing economies that rely on affordable cross-border services to grow and compete, including legal advice, design, IT support and marketing. Tariffs on services would also increase compliance burdens and administrative costs for governments, requiring entirely new systems to monitor digital transactions, register providers, and audit contracts. Exporters would not be spared either: many countries are net exporters of services in areas like finance, education, and media. Tariff measures could trigger retaliation and reduce market access for these firms. In short: services can’t realistically be tariffed – and they shouldn’t be. Instead, policymakers should: Reaffirm multilateral norms by supporting the continuation of the WTO E-Commerce Moratorium and rejecting tariffs on services. Avoid unilateral tariff-like measures — such as DSTs or withholding regimes —that risk legal conflict, trade retaliation, and fragmentation. Pursue multilateral cooperation through appropriate multilateral and regional bodies to develop common rules for the taxation of the digital economy. Download

< Back < Previous | Next > Turning Ambition into Action: ICC and Sage Release 2025 SME Climate Finance Stocktake 27 Oct 2025 A new ICC–Sage report reveals that while SMEs are leading on sustainability ambition, access to green finance remains critically low. The study calls for digital solutions, simpler reporting, and smarter policy to unlock the trillions needed for small businesses to drive the global net-zero transition. Turning Ambition into Action: ICC and Sage Release 2025 SME Climate Finance Stocktake As the world prepares for COP30 in Belém , a new global report by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and Sage delivers a clear message: small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are more ambitious than ever on sustainability, but access to finance is still lagging far behind. The 2025 SME Climate Finance Stocktake , the fifth in this global series, tracks progress from 2021 to 2025 and exposes a widening gap between SME ambition and the availability of green finance . While 70% of SMEs now say sustainability is central to their business, fewer than 3% have accessed a green finance product. Digital and AI: The missing link The study identifies a key factor separating leaders from laggards: digital capability . SMEs that use digital accounting, e-invoicing, or AI-powered carbon tracking are four times more likely to access green finance than their peers. Yet for most small firms, fragmented and complex reporting requirements continue to block progress, leaving billions in potential investment untapped. As ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO and Sage CEO Steve Hare note in their foreword, technology is not just a productivity tool but a gateway to green finance . Automating reporting, standardising data, and integrating trusted digital systems are essential to scaling sustainability for SMEs. Policy alignment and practical action The report calls for governments, financial institutions, and technology firms to work together to make sustainability reporting simpler, faster, and more affordable. It outlines five urgent actions to bridge the gap between ambition and finance, including: Developing consistent, streamlined SME reporting standards aligned with the new VSME framework and ISSB baseline ; Expanding sustainability-linked loans, transition finance, and blended finance mechanisms; Incentivising SME reporting and investment through fiscal support and digital tools; Leveraging AI and structured data to make sustainability reporting “report once, use many times”; Standardising data requests across banks and buyers to unlock scale and trust. From ambition to economic opportunity link With SMEs representing over 90% of global businesses and around 40% of emissions , their success is essential to the world’s net-zero transition. Enabling them to access climate finance is not just good policy, it’s an investment in inclusive, resilient economic growth. ICC and Sage will take these findings to COP30 , advocating for practical, collaborative solutions to empower SMEs as the driving force of a just and effective transition. Read further Full report: SME Climate Finance Stocktake 2021–2025 – Turning Ambition into Action (ICC & Sage, 2025) 🌱 ICC COP30 Climate Action page – Learn how ICC is mobilising business for climate ambition and adaptation finance.

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

< Back < Previous | Next > 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 > Sustainability FfD4 Opens in Seville: A Crucial Test for Financing the SDGs 30 Jun 2025 At the FfD4 conference in Seville, the ICC called for practical, private sector-led financing to achieve the SDGs, urging action beyond symbolic commitments. With the “Compromiso de Sevilla” agreed, ICC is pushing for greater business input on SME investment, tax reform, and climate finance. With a hard-won outcome document and key stakeholders on the ground, ICC urges pragmatic financing solutions for sustainable development. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) officially opens today in Seville, Spain—marking a critical milestone for global efforts to mobilize resources to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. With time running short and public finances under pressure, the role of private sector-led solutions has never been more vital. ICC Secretary General John W.H. Denton AO, in a message to the ICC network last week, emphasized the importance of the Seville conference in restoring momentum behind multilateral cooperation and identifying practical financing tools to drive development forward. “FfD4 must be a moment to bring business fully to the table—not just as a source of capital, but as a partner for innovation, implementation, and inclusive growth,” he stated. The “Compromiso de Sevilla” Following intense negotiations, the conference opens with a draft outcome document already agreed—symbolically titled the Compromiso de Sevilla by its co-facilitators. The text was adopted by consensus earlier this month, despite the withdrawal of the United States from both the negotiations and the conference itself. While this consensus is being hailed as a sign of multilateralism’s enduring strength, it comes with important caveats. Several countries have registered reservations on key sections of the text, particularly those relating to debt sustainability. Others expressed disappointment that the final language fell short of stronger commitments on climate finance and in some cases merely preserved previously agreed provisions from the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC. Nonetheless, the document is expected to be formally endorsed at FfD4 in Seville, and later adopted by the UN General Assembly—most likely through the existing FfD resolution via the Second Committee. Business Engagement: From Dialogue to Action ICC is playing a prominent role throughout the conference, particularly through its support to the International Business Forum , which will gather business leaders, development finance institutions, and policymakers to exchange concrete solutions. From blended finance and green bonds to innovative partnerships for SME inclusion, the Forum will explore ways to better align public and private finance with sustainable development priorities. In parallel, ICC members, national committees, and partners are contributing to a wide range of official side-events . These will tackle issues such as unlocking investment in emerging markets, enhancing financial inclusion, reforming international tax rules, and financing for climate adaptation. With the final outcome text largely settled, attention now turns to implementation. ICC’s engagement will focus on ensuring the Compromiso de Sevilla is more than symbolic—by pushing for action-oriented follow-up and greater private sector participation in shaping the financial architecture of the SDG decade. What to Watch Over the coming days, key sessions will focus on: Aligning global finance flows with the SDGs International tax cooperation and debt sustainability Scaling investment in sustainable infrastructure and SMEs Launch of the Seville Platform for Action Stay tuned for updates. ICC will be sharing key takeaways and developments from Seville throughout the week via our news and social media. Follow along as we help shape the global agenda for financing sustainable development.

< Back Irène Léger Staunch Arbitrator Biography • Over 13 years of practice in international arbitration and litigation in Amsterdam and Paris, with a focus on international commercial arbitration. • Experience of arbitrations conducted in English or in French under the ICC, NAI, ICSID, UNCITRAL and PCA rules on a wide range of commercial, energy, insurance, technology or post-M&A issues. • Particular areas of knowledge with respect to procedural issues, the energy market and French law Contact Details Netherlands +31622614760 irene.leger@staunchlaw.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 English, French Specialisation Corporate Law / M&A, Employment, Energy and Natural Resources Bar Admission(s) Credentials CV

< Back < Previous | Next > Geopolitics Navigating Uncertainty, Driving Solution 21 Mar 2025 Geopolitical tensions, trade barriers, and regulatory uncertainty continue to shape the international business landscape. Tariffs are increasing, supply chains are under pressure, and new EU regulations are redefining sustainability expectations. In this evolving environment, businesses must remain agile and proactive. At ICC, we see these challenges as a call to engage, not retreat. Whether through trade facilitation, arbitration, or sustainable trade finance, our mission is to help businesses navigate complexity and advocate for open markets. This was the key message of Philippe Varin, chair of the International Chamber of Commerce during his visit to the Netherlands last month. www.cityam.com International trade in the era of Trump 2.0 - how will the ICC adapt? Philippe Varin, chair of the International Chamber of Commerce, is stewarding the kind of globalist institution which Trump instinctively distrusts. He speaks to Eliot Wilson about championing free trade in an era of protectionism Key Themes This Month: Geopolitics & Trade Tensions : How will economic nationalism and tariffs impact global business? Read our interview with Bart Jan Koopman for insights into 2025 trade developments. Sustainability & Compliance : The EU Omnibus Proposal is redefining ESG reporting. Should businesses scale back compliance efforts or strengthen their sustainability strategies? The Future of Trade Rules : Despite regulatory uncertainty, progress is being made in trade digitalization. The long-overdue reform to recognize Digital Trade Documents in the Netherlands is finally moving forward Key Developments: • Trade finance is evolving to support sustainable supply chains. This month, Standard Chartered became the first international bank to fully align with ICC Principles for Sustainable Trade Finance, setting a precedent for greater transparency, due diligence, and accountability. More financial institutions are expected to follow. • Growing reliance on ICC dispute resolution – New 2024 figures show that businesses are turning to ICC arbitration and mediation more than ever, especially for B2G disputes. The 20th ICC International Commercial Mediation Competition also kicked off in Paris, highlighting the increasing role of mediation in resolving global business conflicts. Read our interview with Jeremy Lack on the evolving landscape of mediation. • ICC remains committed to free trade – As the G20 Presidency moves to South Africa, ICC sees new opportunities for international cooperation. John Denton, ICC-WBO Secretary General, emphasizes: “As the first African nation to hold the G20 Presidency, South Africa has a unique opportunity to build coalitions and revitalize the multilateral trading system.” Stay Engaged & Informed ICC Strategic Priorities 1. Tackling Trade Barriers 2. Promoting Access to Justice, Integrity, and Rule of Law 3. Advancing Climate Action and Sustainability 4. Accelerating Trade Digitalisation 5. Strengthening Multilateralism

< 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!