by Antonii Dubeu

On March 26, 2025, the report of the Working Group on the reform of French arbitration law was published[1]. This update provides a preliminary review of the report, which is subject to change.

This report is the fruit of a working group launched on November 11, 2024, dedicated to the reform of French arbitration law with the aim of “evaluating the development needs and possible methods of revision of French arbitration law, which contributes to the influence and attractiveness of French law”[2].

Chaired by François Ancel, member of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), and Thomas Clay, member of the Paris Bar, arbitrator and professor at the Sorbonne, the working group includes fifteen arbitration professionals in addition to its two chairs[3].

Together they formulated 40 proposals to reform French arbitration law[4].

A FRENCH ARBITRATION CODE

Whereas the main body of French arbitration law is currently (though not exclusively) contained in articles 1442 to 1527 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this new instrument, composed of 146 articles, pursues three objectives: 

• Unification: The substance of arbitration law will be concentrated in a single code, in order to make it more accessible.

• Recognition: The new instrument will seek to ensure greater knowledge and recognize the importance of the arbitration practice.

• Exteriorization: The code facilitates the worldwide diffusion of French arbitration law. Bringing the substance of arbitration together in a single official instrument facilitates its communication, notably through its subsequent translations.

REORGANIZING FRENCH ARBITRATION LAW UNDER UNIFORM RULES

The working group proposes to make a rapprochement between the two regimes of arbitration in France - domestic arbitration on the one hand and international arbitration on the other - by introducing “uniform rules for international and domestic arbitration through the absorption of the latter by the former”[5].

However, the distinction between the two regimes will remains in place but invisibly, notably because of the difference between domestic and international public order, and the desire to preserve the substantive rules specific to international arbitration[6]. Indeed, this rapprochement must not undermine the flexibility and liberalism of the international arbitration system by weakening it with the more rigid rules of domestic arbitration.

The current Code of Civil Procedure, with its multiple cross-references, complicates access to the rules, particularly for foreign practitioners. The project proposes to simplify this approach by introducing general rules applicable to both types of arbitration, while retaining a few special rules for certain fields, such as family, labor or consumer arbitration. 

This will make arbitration law easier to understand, while maintaining distinctions where they are needed.

KEY PRINCIPLES OF FRENCH ARBITRATION LAW

In Proposal No. 5, the working group proposes the establishment of 19 key arbitration principles which will appear in the first 19 articles of the Arbitration Code.

These principles include the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal (art. 6), respect for the adversarial principle and the equality of the parties (art. 11), good faith (art. 4), confidentiality (art. 12), choice of rules applicable to the merits and to procedure (art. 9 and art. 11), and the arbitral tribunal's competence to rule on its own jurisdiction (art. 7).

These key principles aim to find a balance between the efficiency of arbitration and the quality of this form of alternative dispute resolution[7].

SUBSTANTIAL INNOVATIONS

Thirty proposals relate to substantial changes in French arbitration law and can be grouped into three categories[8]: 

• More flexible arbitration law: The proposed rules aim to simplify arbitration procedure by, for example, eliminating unnecessary formalities such as requirements for the arbitration clause, and facilitating the signing and transmission of the award, including permitting recognition of the award electronically.

• More protective arbitration law: The rules include guarantees on the independence and impartiality of arbitrators, the introduction of a mechanism to provide funding for a party to an arbitration lacking sufficient funds, and the protection of third-party rights by the admission of their accessory intervention before the court of appeal and the possibility of filing a third party objection against the court decision ruling on the award.

• Improving the efficiency of arbitration: These proposals aim to improve the conduct of arbitration, such as the possibility of consolidating disputes, removing appeals in domestic matters, and strengthening the arbitrators' powers to compel the parties to present all their defenses or else risk waiver.

[1] https://www.justice.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2025-03/rapport_2025_arbitrage.pdf

[2] Chloé Lassel, Le droit français de l’arbitrage en route vers une modernisation https://www.decideurs-juridiques.com/regulation-juridiques/59951-le-droit-francais-de-l-arbitrage-en-route-vers-une-modernisation.html

[3] full list on page 2 of the report.

[4] Réforme du droit français de l’arbitrage : 40 propositions https://www.lemondedudroit.fr/publications/248-etudes-et-documents/97937-reforme-droit-francais-arbitrage-40-propositions.html

[5] https://www.justice.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2025-03/rapport_2025_arbitrage.pdf

[6] Jérémy Jourdan-Marques, Chronique d’arbitrage : vers une réforme du droit français de l’arbitrage ?, Dalloz Actualité https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/chronique-d-arbitrage-vers-une-reforme-du-droit-francais-de-l-arbitrage

[7] Jérémy Jourdan-Marques, Chronique d’arbitrage : vers une réforme du droit français de l’arbitrage ?, Dalloz Actualité https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/chronique-d-arbitrage-vers-une-reforme-du-droit-francais-de-l-arbitrage

[8] Quarante propositions pour réformer le droit de l'arbitrage, Lexis Veille, https://www.lexisveille.fr/quarante-propositions-pour-reformer-le-droit-de-larbitrage

by Keyur Vishal Jaju

1. In October 2024, The Indian Government released the draft of the proposed Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (Draft Amendment Bill) (read here). The Draft Amendment Bill proposes to amend the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) which is currently in force in India. The aim and purpose of the proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act is to provide further boost to institutional arbitration, reduce court intervention in arbitrations and ensure the timely conclusion of arbitration proceedings. The key amendments are aimed to address the scope of judicial intervention, procedural delays, and seat/venue distinction, amongst others. The Draft Amendment Bill also seeks to modernise arbitration processes through clearer rules, stricter timelines, and increased reliance on arbitration institutions.

2. In the case of My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. (read here), a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court held that there is no wholesale exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) when calculating the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, it may be instituted on the day when the court re-opens. The Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The Court further held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act benefits a party only when the “prescribed period’’, i.e. the 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, expires on a court holiday. In such a situation, the application under Section 34 will be considered as having been filed within the limitation period if it is filed on the next working day of the court. Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not come to the aid of the party when the 3-month limitation period expires on a day when the court was working. The 30-day condonable period (an additional period allowed by the proviso clause of section 34 to file the application by showing sufficient cause for the delay) expiring during the court holidays will not survive and neither Section 4, nor any other provision of the Limitation Act, will inure to the benefit of the party to enable filing of the Section 34 application immediately after the court reopening.

3. In the case of Disotho S.A.S v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited (read here), a three-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court reaffirmed that the courts in India will exercise supervisory jurisdiction on an arbitration arising from a contract governed by Indian law when there is no choice of seat by the parties. Even if the parties have merely agreed on the venue of the arbitration, such a choice does not indicate a choice of seat. After referring to and analysing the leading authorities across jurisdictions on determination of the law governing the arbitration, the Court kicked off its three-step analysis for determining the governing law for the arbitration agreement. This analysis included enquiring into (a) express choice, (b) implied choice, and (c) closest and more real connection. The Court observed that if such a choice was made, it would need to be followed strictly. If there wasn’t a clear choice, the court then looked for an implied one, usually drawn from the law that governed the main contract. In case both the steps are negative, the closest and more real connection test is applied to determine the law governing the arbitration. Since the Court did not find an explicit choice of law governing the arbitration, the Court moved to identify the parties’ implied choice of law for the arbitration agreement. At this stage, the Court analysed that the lex contractus, i.e., the law governing the contract chosen by the parties, was Indian law, that choice raised a strong presumption that Indian law governs the arbitration agreement. Thus, the Court held that the lex contractus or law governing the main contract should govern the arbitration agreement when the arbitration agreement does not specify the seat of arbitration or the law governing the arbitration.  

4. In the case of Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries & Anr., (read here), the single judge of the Delhi High Court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract overrides the seat clause if the exclusive jurisdiction clause expressly covers proceedings concerning arbitration. The Court considered the settled position of law that when an agreement contains one clause designating the arbitral seat / arbitral venue, and another conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts located elsewhere over the agreement and disputes, then any legal or judicial proceeding in relation to the arbitration would lie only before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the designated seat / venue of arbitration. However, in deciding the instant case, the Court carved out an exception for a scenario where the exclusive jurisdiction clause also expressly covers the proceedings in relation to the arbitration. In such a scenario, the Court held that it must give due respect to such a contractual covenant. The Court held that since the exclusive jurisdiction clause agreed between the parties expressly covered proceedings in relation to arbitration, that clause will take precedence over the seat of arbitration clause. Hence, any application for interim relief, or appointment of arbitrators, etc. shall be made to the Court chosen by the parties to have exclusive jurisdiction.

by Veronica Connolly

On 23 December 2024, Uganda's Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act ('Act') commenced. The Act dissolved one of Uganda's primary arbitral institutions, the Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution ('CADER'). CADER had previously been established pursuant to Uganda's Arbitration and Conciliation Act in 2000, but had suffered from chronic underfunding and a lack of a governing council which precluded it from operating effectively as an arbitral institution. The Act re-established the arbitral institution as a department within the Ministry of Justice, aiming to improve accountability and administrative efficiency. Some concerns have been raised that this government-managed structure may risk an appearance of bias in favour of State-owned entities in any cases administered by the new centre. It remains to be seen whether alternative and arguably more autonomous centres will emerge as preferred options for non-State parties as a consequence. Alongside the Act, in February 2025, the Ugandan Government also approved the national Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Policy, designed to promote arbitration and alternative dispute resolution to reduce court delays. The coming years could see an expansion of arbitration use and capacity as a result. 

by Veronica Connolly

On 6 February 2025, the Japan – Zambia Bilateral Investment Treaty was signed. It is expected to come into force later this year. The BIT provides Investor State Dispute Settlement ('ISDS') protections allowing investors to bring arbitrations for breaches of the BIT under ICSID or UNCITRAL Rules. Interestingly, the BIT also allows investors to bring ISDS proceedings for any breaches of "separate investment agreements" between investors and governments. This is similar to the position under the Japan - Angola BIT, which came into force in 2024. Zambia's adoption of broad ISDS mechanisms is notable in the context of ongoing discussions regarding the African Continental Free Trade Area's ('AfCFTA') Protocol on Investment ('Protocol'), which Zambia signed in 2023. The Protocol is not yet in force, pending further review of the proposed procedures governing dispute resolution. The potential inclusion of ISDS in those Protocol procedures has been a high-profile and contentious element of negotiations so far. During 2025 it may become clear whether the willingness of Zambia, and other AfCFTA signatories, to enter into expansive ISDS provisions under BITs with non-African nations is indicative of their stance on the inclusion of ISDS in the Protocol.