Mastering the Art of Arbitration: Strategies for Effective Dispute Resolution

We are pleased to invite you to a panel discussion on “Mastering the Art of Arbitration: Strategies for Effective Dispute Resolution.”

During this session, representatives from state agencies, leading companies, arbitral institutions, and law firms will share successful strategies for preventing and resolving international disputes, as well as discuss best practices in conducting arbitral proceedings.

The discussion will feature experts involved in major international commercial and investment arbitrations:

• Mukhit Yeleuov (ADL Disputes)

• Al-Farabi Satbayev (Kazakhtelecom)

• Adilbek Kaziyev (Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan)

• Aidana Rassova (AIFC Court and IAC)

• Shirin Gurdova (Wordstone)

• Adilbek Tussupov (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer)

• Nikita Kondrashov (Attorney)

• Ansar Ismagulov (ADL Disputes)

   

The panel will be moderated by Dmitry Gusev (White & Case).

Following the session, participants will be invited to continue the discussion in a networking format.

This event is organized with the support of the international law firm White & Case, Maqsut Narikbayev University, AIFC Court and International Arbitration Centre, and Kazakhstan Bar Association.

Venue and time: the event will take place on 30 June 2025 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at Maqsut Narikbayev University (8 Korgalzhyn Highway, Astana).

Partner and Supporting Organisation:

Sponsoring Firm:

Supporting Organisations:

Post event report

Prepared by Adina Lekerova (Maqsut Narikbayev University), Ansar Ismagulov (ADL Disputes), and Madiyar Akhmetov (Maqsut Narikbayev University).

The Young ICCA panel session “Mastering the Art of Arbitration: Strategies for Effective Dispute Resolution” took place on 30 June 2025 at Maqsut Narikbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan. The event was aimed at equipping in‑house counsel, arbitrators, and dispute‑resolution practitioners with both preventive and winning strategies. 

The event commenced with a welcome speech by Olga Bektibayeva, the Dean of MNU Law School, Christopher Campbell-Holt OBE, the Registrar and Chief Executive of the AIFC Court and Shirin Gurdova, a member of the Young ICCA Advisory Board. Subsequently, Ansar Ismagulov, the Young ICCA Regional Representative for Kazakhstan, delivered a presentation about Young ICCA. 

The session continued with a keynote speech by Mukhit Yeleuov (ADL Disputes) focused on the use of behavioral science in arbitration. He explored how cognitive biases and heuristics, such as anchoring, hindsight, and confirmation biases, can influence arbitrators’ decision-making. For instance, the damages figure initially claimed by the claimant may serve as an anchor for the arbitral tribunal and significantly shape the final amount awarded. Mukhit encouraged delegates to remain mindful of such biases and, where appropriate, to gently remind arbitrators of their potential influence. 

The keynote was followed by a panel discussion led by the following panelists: Adilbek Kaziyev (Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan), Aidana Rassova (AIFC Court and International Arbitration Centre), Al-Farabi Satbayev (Kazakhtelecom), Dr. Adilbek Tussupov (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer), Mukhit Yeleuov (ADL Disputes), and Shirin Gurdova (Wordstone Dispute Resolution).  Dmitry Gusev (White & Case LLP) moderated the discussion.

During the discussion, the attention was drawn to the underlying causes of disputes in international arbitration. According to the panelists, the primary drivers of such disputes typically include contractual and factual risks related to timeframes, costs, scope, and quality of work, often exacerbated by human error and shifting political or economic circumstances. It was noted that disputes rarely arise from a single misstep, but rather from a combination of structural ambiguities and interpersonal dynamics. Panelists particularly stressed that disputes tend to escalate when early-stage disagreements are inadequately addressed, especially in projects involving complex stakeholder arrangements and high visibility. In this regard, panelists highlighted that practitioners must not only interpret contracts but also navigate human behavior, which is often shaped by cognitive biases and group polarization.

When asked to identify the stages of a project where decisions are most likely to influence the trajectory of a potential dispute, the speakers agreed that the greatest leverage lies in the earliest phases – during counterparty selection, contract drafting, and internal review. Preventive diligence is of utmost importance, particularly in ensuring that both parties share the same understanding of the contract. This should be supported by compliance-led procedures and legal involvement at the operational level. As a project progresses, it becomes essential to respond to emerging disputes with a strategy tailored to the opponent’s risk appetite and media sensitivity. In some cases, the use of reputational leverage, such as the threat of negative publicity, was highlighted as an effective extrajudicial settlement tool, particularly where the dispute is driven more by perception than principle.

The discussion turned to the availability and effectiveness of pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanisms. Various models were reviewed, including expert determination, dispute adjudication boards (DAB), and dispute review boards (DRB). It was noted that these systems work best when clearly embedded in the original contract and supported by precise language, procedural rules, and timelines. Institutional frameworks within companies should reinforce these tools through robust internal regulations, systematic correspondence protocols, and early-warning mechanisms such as discrepancy logs or claim reviews. When such processes are well documented and adhered to, companies are less likely to encounter unexpected arbitration. At the end, panelists concurred that “the best dispute is the one that never happened in the first place”.

When arbitration is inevitable, “exhaustive pre‑filing work” can make the difference between victory and setback. Panelists urged delegates to use pre‑claim correspondence not only to crystallise their client’s position but also to assess the counterparty’s behavioural tendencies, sometimes advising clients to refrain from filing when reputational or evidentiary risks loom large. Participants were also guided through the IAC registration process – from correctly completing the request for arbitration form to case‑management conferences and arbitrator appointment with thorough conflict checks, highlighting the Secretariat’s vital role in facilitating e‑filings, scheduling, and post‑award enforcement. 

The choice of external counsel was discussed in the context of pre-arbitral strategy. Counsel selection must balance field‑specific expertise, professional standing, conflict‑of‑interest checks, and budget constraints. Knowing the laws, norms, and institutions of the arbitral seat is essential, especially when strategy depends on procedural timing or enforcement. Panelists highlighted the strategic value of studying the opposing counsel’s history and prior behaviour, as this can inform expectations and guide tactical responses. Ultimately, success depends on how well the consultant’s work is integrated into the broader case strategy: through clear task allocation, ongoing supervision, and a mutual understanding of the desired outcomes. 

When discussing witness evidence, the panel focused on the importance of careful selection and preparation. Effective witnesses should be credible, clear, and limited in scope to what they directly observed. Early identification within the transaction team helps ensure continuity of narrative and familiarity with the case. The importance of witness “familiarization”, as opposed to “coaching”, was repeatedly stressed. Familiarization refers to preparing witnesses for the hearing process and ensuring they understand what is expected of them without scripting their testimony. It was noted that optimal witnesses are aware of their own party’s case, but not the strategy or arguments of the opposing side. Personality profiling and stress resilience were also suggested as factors in determining who is best suited to appear before a tribunal. This is a highly significant step since witnesses are the ones who “breathe life” into the case, especially in common-law traditions.

The panel addressed the rise of “guerrilla tactics” in arbitration, describing them as deliberate procedural disruptions aimed at undermining the efficiency of the process. Such tactics may include obstructing arbitrator appointments, filing baseless challenges, delaying submissions, refusing to pay costs, or pursuing parallel court proceedings. More aggressive forms can involve manipulating witnesses, abusing disclosure obligations, or displaying disruptive behavior during hearings. While these actions can place considerable strain on the proceedings, tribunals are increasingly aware of such strategies, and counsel should be prepared to respond swiftly with documented evidence and appropriate procedural measures.

The panel also examined creative, non-traditional approaches to dispute settlement. Several speakers shared experiences of disputes that were resolved in unconventional ways, well before litigation or arbitration commenced. One speaker recounted a situation involving reputational leverage tied to a physical altercation, which led to an unexpected but effective out-of-court settlement. Panelists agreed that successful outcomes are often the result of lateral thinking rather than doctrinal rigidity. In some instances, symbolic gestures, such as offering alternative concessions, helped diffuse tensions that legal approaches could not resolve. Thus, legal advisors must remain attuned to social, behavioral, and emotional dynamics, not merely procedural rules.

To conclude the event, the panelists reflected on the evolving landscape of international arbitration and the demands it places on today’s practitioners. They underscored the growing need for strategic foresight, adaptability, and procedural discipline in a field that calls for both subtle judgment and firm control. As arbitration continues to evolve amidst increasing procedural challenges, the session served as a timely reminder that effective dispute resolution hinges not only on legal expertise but also on integrity, preparation, and a deep understanding of human behavior.