Abstract
International arbitration, which was once earlier considered as an impartial, apolitical method for the settlement of cross-border disputes, is currently at a pivotal juncture in current time of growing geopolitical instability. In light of growing international power struggles, economic penalties, and legal fragmentation, this research explores the changing nature of arbitration. Enforcing arbitral rulings has grown politically charged due to sovereign nations’ growing use of public policy defences, which calls into question fundamental ideas like arbitrator neutrality, party autonomy, and arbitral award enforceability. Further, itfocuses at the ways that nations like Singapore, China, India, and the UK are changing their arbitration systems in order to balance investor confidence with state sovereignty.
The research continues by examining how Global Northdominated arbitrator appointments, and geopolitical “lawfare” have exacerbated the erosion of arbitrator neutrality in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) while exploring the disruptive power of mass arbitration, especially in the consumer and employment sectors, as demonstrated by the high-value settlements. This strategy empowers claimants, but in order to maintain consistency and justice, it necessitates procedural recalibration using hybrid models and AI integration.This research makes a significant contribution by integrating legal analysis with geopolitical reality and demonstrating how mass claims, legal nationalism, and sovereign agendas are reshaping arbitration. It distinguishes itself by putting up a workable “Global Arbitration Resilience Framework,” which gives practitioners, institutions, and governments useful instruments to protect enforceability and neutrality in a becoming more divisive global dispute settlement environment.
Keywords: dispute resolution, arbitration, international, enforceability, jurisdiction, settlement.
Introduction
It is usually preferred that international arbitration be used to make cross border dispute settlement fair enough. It has become the center of international conflict resolution during a period of rising geopolitical tensions, shifting loyalties and the weaponisation of economic and legal instruments. The process of arbitration has traditionally been acclaimed as an unbiased, operative, as well as legally binding process of resolving international business and investment disputes. However, the present atmosphere can be described as unprecedented volatility. At this moment, international dispute settlement was complicated due to trade wars, world sanctions, territorial debates, and nationalism as it raised the alarming questions about the feasibility and impartiality of arbitration in the presence of “geopolitical factors”. These underlying provisions of Arbitration, i.e. party autonomy, impartiality of the arbitrators, as well as the enforceability of the arbitral awards, are now being tested as never before. States affected by geopolitical crisis very often overrule the sanctity of arbitration agreement and the applicability of arbitral rulings by the use of unilateral measures that impact on the private parties. This has even further blurred the boundary between politics and law in the adjustment of the arrival of the so-called lawfare whereby governments see the legal institutions as the ones to attain their strategic ambitions. Such an environment is like a minefield of competing interests, ambiguous regulations, and a risk of politicized outcomes of arbitral institutions. This research analyses the changing function of arbitration in a world shattered by geopolitical crossfires in light of this. The research analyses how arbitration, a fundamental component of international dispute settlement, is responding to the geopolitical crossfires brought on by governmental interference, fragmented regulations, and the politicization of the legal system along with adopting measures to curb the changing nature of the arbitration.