Dispute Resolution International (DRI)
About Dispute Resolution International (DRI)
Dispute Resolution International is the journal of the IBA's Dispute Resolution Section. It provides in-depth discussion of current developments and topical issues in all areas of dispute resolution, including litigation, arbitration, mediation and other areas of alternative dispute resolution, as well as negligence and damages.
Dispute Resolution International is edited by Kim Rooney, an independent arbitrator and barrister at Rede Chambers, Hong Kong. Kim is assisted by an Editorial Board comprising leading practitioners from around the world.
Dispute Resolution International is distributed to all members of the IBA Dispute Resolution Section, giving it a readership of approximately 4,000. It is published twice a year and was launched in May 2007.
If you are interested in contributing to Dispute Resolution International, please contact Kim Rooney at: kim.rooney@redechambers.com and Chloe Woodhall at chloe.woodhall@int-bar.org.
If you are not a member of the IBA, you can find out more about how to join here.
Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £88 per issue
£176 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscription
Latest Issue - Vol 19 No 2 October 2025
Domestic arbitration in Pakistan is still governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 even though both India and Bangladesh repealed and replaced that law in 1996 with new statutes based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, in 2023, Pakistan initiated a formal reform process which has resulted in a new Draft Act.
The Draft Act is based upon the Model Law and yet differs significantly from it. For example, the Draft Act does not deal with foreign arbitrations at all but instead deals only with domestically seated arbitrations (albeit both international and purely domestic arbitration).
The article examines, and tries to explain, the various choices made in preparing the Draft Act. In broad terms, those choices were driven by the need to make the Draft Act comprehensible and practically workable in the particular context of Pakistan. For example, the Draft Act provides different standards of review in relation to purely domestic awards as opposed to domestically seated international awards. This is because the needs of sophisticated business consumers are quite different from those of the average unsophisticated Pakistani. The Draft Act also tries to pre-empt practical concerns regarding implementation by establishing minimal institutional frameworks for arbitral appointments and oversight.
This article examines the first arbitral award rendered under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), prompted by the UK’s prohibition of sandeel fishing in English and Scottish waters. It analyses the tensions between regulatory autonomy and treaty-based obligations, with particular attention to the role of scientific evidence, the principle of proportionality and allegations of discrimination. The tribunal’s reasoning, which upholds the Scottish ban while identifying procedural deficiencies in the English measure, sheds light on the dynamic relationship between environmental protection and international trade law. The article further considers the award’s procedural innovations and reflects on its broader implications for the future operation of dispute resolution mechanisms under the TCA.
The APEC Collaborative Framework for Online Dispute Resolution (the ‘Framework’) addresses the growing need for efficient and affordable resolution of cross-border B2B disputes, particularly for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises. Traditional litigation and arbitration are often too costly and slow for low-value, high-volume disputes, creating a barrier to trade. Developed by APEC with input from UNCITRAL’s earlier work, the Framework establishes a decentralised network of accredited ODR providers who offer a standardised, tiered process combining negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Key innovations include expedited timelines, simplified procedures, a single neutral practitioner, and cost proportionality. By enhancing accessibility, reducing costs, and building trust in digital trade, the Framework supports inclusive economic growth and smoother commercial exchanges across the Asia-Pacific region.
This article examines how deepfakes – AI-generated or manipulated audio, image, and video – destabilise evidentiary assessment in arbitration. Beyond the risk of convincingly falsified exhibits, deepfakes fuel the ‘liar’s dividend,’ whereby the mere possibility of manipulation is invoked to discredit authentic proof. Detection remains technically challenging, costly, and unevenly accessible – especially for mid- and small-value cases. Drawing on recent litigation experience, the EU AI Act’s transparency framework, and broader evidentiary principles, the article highlights how these difficulties risk undermining fairness, efficiency, and equality of arms. After a brief technical primer on deepfakes and their detection limits, the discussion distills lessons from court cases (including the emergence of the ‘deepfake defence’) and evaluates arbitration’s current evidentiary toolbox, highlighting risks of chilling effects and cost inflation if authenticity burdens are misplaced. While arbitration is not without safeguards – party autonomy, due process, procedural loyalty, ethical duties, and soft-law instruments – the article questions whether these tools are sufficient in practice. The contribution is ultimately pragmatic: safeguard fair and efficient truth-finding by reinforcing proportional verification, targeted expert input, and principled tribunal case management – so that access to justice is preserved when seeing is no longer believing.
- Volume 19 Number 1, May 2025
- Volume 18 Number 2, October 2024
- Volume 18 Number 1, May 2024
- Volume 17 Number 2, November 2023
- Volume 17 Number 1, May 2023
- Volume 16 Number 2, October 2022
- Volume 16 Number 1, May 2022
- Volume 15 Number 2, October 2021
- Volume 15 Number 1, May 2021
- Volume 14 Number 2, October 2020
- Volume 14 Number 1, May 2020
- Volume 13 Number 2, October 2019
- Volume 13 Number 1, May 2019
Open access articles
The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Year
While the pandemic disruption has extended for far longer than initially expected, courts (after the first wave), arbitral institutions and stakeholders in commercial dispute resolution have largely continued operations, increasingly supported by innovative digital technology, flexible scheduling and flexible cost structures, among other tools.
Released on Jun 02, 2021
The Global Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Commercial Dispute Resolution in the First Seven Months
In 2020, most of the world’s countries have had to respond to the severe disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which emerged in late December 2019 (the ‘pandemic’). The pandemic poses enormous health and socio-economic challenges. As of September 2020, it is not known when the pandemic will end; some countries are already experiencing further waves of infection. Globally, judiciaries and arbitral institutions have been under great pressure to continue operating during the pandemic [...]
How to order
Members of the Dispute Resolution Section committees receive Dispute Resolution International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 2075 5333
Pricing: £88 per issue
£176 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscriptions
Guidelines for authors
Copyright and Disclaimer
Copyright: The IBA holds copyright in all articles, newsletters and papers published by them. If you wish to reproduce or distribute any IBA publication or any part of an IBA publication, permission must be requested in writing from the Managing Editor at editor@int-bar.org, and due acknowledgment given.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in journals, newsletters and papers are those of the contributors, and not necessarily those of the International Bar Association.