renewable energy arbitration Archives | SCC Times https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/renewable-energy-arbitration/ Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News Wed, 17 Jun 2026 08:29:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3 https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/cropped-SCC-Online_Telegram_HR-32x32.jpg renewable energy arbitration Archives | SCC Times https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/renewable-energy-arbitration/ 32 32 25 Things the World’s Top Arbitration Practitioners Said at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/19/cyprus-arbitration-day-2026-key-takeaways-and-insights/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/19/cyprus-arbitration-day-2026-key-takeaways-and-insights/#comments Tue, 19 May 2026 12:30:03 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=384616 Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 brought together leading practitioners, arbitrators, and policymakers to debate AI governance, geopolitical concerns, sanction constraints, investor-state arbitration, unsettled legal doctrines, and much more. Here are the key takeaways.

The post 25 Things the World’s Top Arbitration Practitioners Said at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 appeared first on SCC Times.

]]>

The much-awaited 4th Edition of the Cyprus Arbitration Days, titled Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026, held on 15 May 2026 brought together leading practitioners, arbitrators, academics, and policymakers from across jurisdictions to discuss the international arbitration landscape, fostering dialogue on evolving legal, procedural, and institutional aspects of dispute resolution.

The esteemed dignitaries engaged in insightful conversations ranging from AI in arbitration to Bilateral Investment Treaties, from EU Acquis to development of arbitration jurisprudence, from judicial overreach to res judicata, and so much more. The deliberations that took place over the course of 1.5 days were not only enriching but also thought provoking. Here are some key takeaways from the conference:

1. India was once only a capital importer until it started signing investment operation agreements. Now Indian companies are operating in the global market and suing foreign countries. — Mr. Roman Khodykin, Partner, Bryan Cave, UAE

2. India is very well positioned with good lawyers, good arbitrators, infrastructure, the structure is slowly coming in place, driven by a very strong-willed judiciary. — Ms. Purnima Kambalay, Senior Partner, Fox Mandal, Hyderabad

3. AI can improve efficiency. But it cannot replace human judgment or procedural responsibility. Transparency is key. — Prof. Dr. Alexander Petsche, Partner, Baker McKenzie, Vienna

Read about the eve of CAD 2026 in detail here: Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 Kicks Off with Discussions on India-Cyprus relations, Investment Treaties and AI in arbitration

4. The question is not whether AI belongs in legal practice. It already does. The question is whether legal institutions are prepared for its long-term cognitive consequences. — Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, LPD Secretary-Treasurer and IBA Treasurer, International Bar Association

5. The question is no longer whether AI will influence arbitration, but rather how arbitration can responsibly integrate technological innovation while preserving the fundamental principles of professional fairness, human judgment, and ethical integrity. — Mr. Agis Georgiades, Partner, CGA and CAD Co-Chair

Read more about the opening discussion on AI, ethics, and the future of arbitration here: Human Judgment vs AI Efficiency: The Question That Opened Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

6. That trust cannot be taken for granted. It must constantly be justified and reinforced through the quality of arbitral decision-making, the integrity of the process, and the willingness of practitioners and institutions to adapt intelligently to new realities. — Mr. Stavros Pavlou, CAD Co-Chair

Read more about Stavros Pavlou’s reflections on trust, institutional credibility, and the evolving arbitration landscape here: “Arbitration Is a People-Driven Profession Built on Trust”: Stavros Pavlou’s Welcome Address at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

7. The modern arbitral institution is not outside the arena. It is in the arena. And it may even be the arena. — Mr. Kevin Nash, Director General, London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)

Read more about institutional credibility, evolving expectations, and the future role of arbitral institutions here: “Move from Case Count to Credibility”: LCIA Director General Kevin Nash on the Future of Arbitration Institutions at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

8. CEDRAC is now becoming more active, more visible, and more operational. — Mr. Christodoulos Christodoulou, Senior Associate, Chrysostomides Advocates, Nicosia

Read more about CEDRAC’s growing role in regional dispute resolution and arbitration initiatives here: Cyprus Eurasia Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Center: What CEDRAC Does and Why It Matters — Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

9. We try to delineate how Achmea and the precedent that the European courts have developed, and that courts in other jurisdictions have picked up on, are threatened to spill over into commercial arbitration as well. —Mr. Franz Schwarz, President, VIAC, London

10. Practical implications for investors and practitioners has created a chilling effect when negotiating arbitration clauses with the state in new concession agreements. —Mr. Dimitrios Andriopoulos, Senior Associate, Calavros Law Firm Filios Kloukinas, Athens

11. The success of the reform will depend on whether it is possible to reconcile the skeptical and non-skeptical supportive views. —Ms. Eleni Dionysiou, Senior Associate, Patrikios Legal, Limassol

Read more about Achmea spillover concerns, enforcement challenges, and the future of investor-state arbitration in Europe here: When EU Law and International Arbitration Collide: Achmea Spillover, Sovereignty Concerns and Enforcement Resistance at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

12. There is a meaningful difference between refining legal analysis with an existing framework and building an entirely new legal framework from scratch, particularly where the governing law is foreign, where the risk of error and perceived overreach is considerably higher. —Ms. Eleni Lentziou, Senior Associate, CGA, Nicosia

13. There is a thin line between legal indications and warnings by the tribunal and legal advice to the parties or councils, or imitations for arguments or further objections. This could lead to a potential for, at least, perceived bias and challenges, for example setting aside actions. —Dr. Alexander Milionis, Attorney, Niedermüller, Lichtenstein

Read more about the insightful discussion on Iura Novit Curia here: Walking the tightrope between procedural fairness and judicial initiative: Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 Unpacks Iura Novit Curia

14. If we were to move away from the traditional conflict of laws approach, the use of a transnational approach to govern issues such as that of res judicata is not perfect because considerations of public policy as well as other considerations that may arise at the enforcement stage will still be extremely relevant. —Mr. Kyriakos Pittas, Partner, Soteris Pittas, Limassol

15. Arbitral precedent is not mechanical repetition. It is about disciplined engagement with prior arbitral reasoning. The tribunal remains independent, but it does not decide in a vacuum. If prior tribunals have addressed the same or similar issue, that reasoning forms part of the arbitral context in which the later tribunal operates. —Mr. Christodoulos Christodoulou, Senior Associate, Chrysostomides Advocates, Nicosia

Read more about res judicata and precedent in international arbitration here: Preventing Arbitral Law from Developing Invisibly: Experts on Precedent, Res Judicata and Award Publication at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

16. In the heartland of commercial arbitration, the resolution of corporate disputes, we see a new wave of courts discussing the arbitrability of certain corporate disputes. This is in the context of shareholder disputes and making sure you involve all shareholders. There have obviously been methods in arbitration to deal with these issues, but now the question is elevated much more fundamentally to a question of arbitrability. — Mr. Franz Schwarz, President, VIAC

Read his keynote address in detail here: Arbitration Under Pressure: VIAC President Franz Schwarz on Public Policy, Arbitrability and Judicial Overreach at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

17. The future of arbitration will not be built by legislation alone. It will be built by institutions, by practice and by trust. —Mr. Ioannis Economou, Member of Board of Executives, CAMC

Read more about the newly launched Cyprus Arbitration and Mediation Centre here: Local Enough to Know the Market, Institutional Enough to Be Trusted, Outward-Looking Enough to Matter: Inside CAMC at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

18. Hallucinations, fabricated quotations, and erroneous references to standards or contract clauses pose serious reputational risks that will crystallize the moment opposing counsel challenges the source of a claim under cross-examination. —Mr. Daniel Correa, Managing Director, DAC Consulting, London

19. No technology can fully eliminate hallucination or bias, so firms must adopt a layered defense strategy that includes diversifying AI model providers, maintaining rigorous human oversight, and grounding outputs in authoritative legal content. Critical thinking remains the indispensable safeguard, and that responsibility rests squarely with the practitioner. —Mr. Sébastien Bardou, General Manager, LexisNexis, Versailles

Read more about use of AI by legal practitioners here: Are Practitioners Ready to Use AI Responsibly? Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 Asks the Question the Profession Is Avoiding

20. Organisations should establish a four-tier risk matrix categorizing AI use cases as low, amber, high or prohibited, combined with a five-stage operational framework i.e. identify the tools in use, document search methodologies, implement checks and reviews, maintain transparent disclosure practices and invest in continuous training. It is process and governance, not the technology itself, that will safeguard practitioners as AI capabilities continue to evolve —Mr. Christopher Clements, Partner, Deloitte, UAE

21. AI does not dilute professional responsibility but rather intensifies it. Lawyers must never outsource legal judgment to algorithmic tools, and disputes are often won not by identifying patterns but by recognizing the anomaly, the human context, or the single document that reshapes an entire case. —Mr. Alexander Marcopoulos, Partner, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, Paris

Read more about AI-assisted arbitration practice here: AI Governance, Professional Obligations, and the Question of Critical Thinking at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026

22. Tribunals seem to be seated more in what are now perceived as neutral seats geographically, which is shifting in today’s world. —Mr. Artem Doudko, Partner, Osborne Clarke, London

23. International arbitration is actually the preferred choice rather than litigation [in renewable sector disputes] because you are often dealing with complex, multi-jurisdictional parties. —Ms. Lynn Yin, Partner, Asserson, London

24. Sanctions and fundamental rights are uncomfortable bedfellows and that the tension between them gives rise to difficult legal questions for arbitrators and national courts, which require them to find principled ways of ensuring that sanctions are complied with in a way which minimises their effect on fundamental rights of the parties and fundamental principles of justice and fairness. —Mr. Alexandros Gavrielides, Partner, Scordis Papapetrou, Nicosia

25. Historically, force majeure clauses were often treated as boiler plate provisions, i.e., parties would include standard wording in their contracts without considering how these provisions would operate in practice during a major geopolitical crisis. However, recent crises have demonstrated the need for sophisticated risk-specific clauses. —Ms. Niki Liassides, Partner, Harris Kyriakides, Limassol

Read detailed discussion on key topics in arbitration in the last panel session of CAD 2026 here: Force Majeure, Geopolitics, Sanctions, Renewable Energy: Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 concludes | SCC Times

The post 25 Things the World’s Top Arbitration Practitioners Said at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/19/cyprus-arbitration-day-2026-key-takeaways-and-insights/feed/ 1 384616 Force Majeure, Geopolitics, and Climate Change: How Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 Ended with Its Most Diverse Panel https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/19/cyprus-arbitration-day-2026-concludes-with-discussion-on-key-topics-in-arbitration/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/19/cyprus-arbitration-day-2026-concludes-with-discussion-on-key-topics-in-arbitration/#respond Tue, 19 May 2026 06:30:58 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=384538 In the last panel of the event titled “Hot Topics in Arbitration”, the panellists examined how recent global developments were reshaping arbitral practice and creating new procedural and substantive challenges for parties, arbitrators, and institutions alike.

The post Force Majeure, Geopolitics, and Climate Change: How Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 Ended with Its Most Diverse Panel appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> .animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;} @keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}

The last panel discussion of the conference titled “Hot Topics in Arbitration” focused on growing complexity of international arbitration considering geopolitical instability, sanctions regimes, enforcement difficulties, and evolving legal frameworks.

The panel was moderated by Mr. Ashley Pratt, Barrister, 39 Essex, London, and empanelled by esteemed professionals namely, Mr. Artem Doudko, Partner, Osborne Clarke, London; Ms. Lynn Yin, Partner, Asserson, London; Mr. Alexandros Gavrielides, Partner, Scordis Papapetrou, Nicosia; Ms. Niki Liassides, Partner, Harris Kyriakides, Limassol.

Force Majeure and Drafting Challenges amid Geopolitical Crises- Ms. Niki Liassides

A. Force Majeure & Geopolitical Issues:

Kickstarting the session, Ms. Liassides began by emphasizing that international arbitration has been fundamentally challenged by a succession of geopolitical crises over recent years. Rather than isolated disruptions, the international commercial environment was now characterized by continuous instability arising from events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia—Ukraine war, conflicts in the Middle East, economic sanctions, and global supply chain disruptions. She explained that these developments have generated a broad range of disputes, including:

  1. Inability to deliver goods due to sanctions or export controls;

  2. Delays in infrastructure and construction projects;

  3. Shipping and logistics interruptions caused by war zones or trade route closures;

  4. Financing disruptions linked to banking restrictions and sanction compliances.

Underscoring that the main question was whether such events automatically qualified as force majeure, arbitral tribunals do not automatically accept that war, sanctions, or economic crises satisfy the force majeure threshold. Instead, they apply a structured legal analysis focused on several key factors, which were as follows:

  1. Contractual Wording: The wording of the force majeure clause is critical. Tribunals examine whether the relevant event falls within the scope of the clause. Clauses may make express references to war, armed conflict, sanctions, embargoes, government actions, or events beyond the parties’ reasonable control, or some events might be considered as consequences of war rather than acts of war.

  2. Causation: The affected party must demonstrate that the force majeure event directly caused the inability to perform contractual obligations.

  3. Foreseeability and Mitigation: Tribunals also scrutinize whether the event was foreseeable and whether the affected party took reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences. Mitigation has become one of the most heavily examined aspects of force majeure claims.

  4. Suspension versus Termination: Many geopolitical events create delays rather than impossibility. Consequently, tribunals frequently examine whether contractual obligations should be suspended; deadlines extended, or contracts terminated entirely.

B. Drafting Lessons for the Recent Crises:

Following up on her inputs, Ms. Liassides addressed how lawyers should adapt drafting practices in response to these developments. She explained that historically, force majeure clauses were often treated as boiler plate provisions, i.e., parties would include standard wording in their contracts without considering how these provisions would operate in practice during a major geopolitical crisis. However, recent crises have demonstrated that this generic drafting was no longer adequate, and there was a need for sophisticated risk-specific clauses.

She added that lawyers were now increasingly expected to anticipate geopolitical risks and allocate them explicitly within contractual frameworks in advance. Such modern drafting had specific mentions to war, armed conflicts, cyberattacks, sanctions, export controls, supply chain disruptions, pandemics, government restrictions, and even energy shortages. Drafting of sanction-related clauses has also become essential as they affect finances, insurance, and even participation in the proceedings. Furthermore, not only must the mitigation obligations be clearly regulated in the contracts, but even the arbitration clauses had to be reconsidered. Ms. Liassides also highlighted that arbitral institutions were responding to these developments, citing updates in ICC force majeure clauses as an example.

C. Challenges of Sanctions in International Arbitration Proceedings:

From a procedural perspective, Ms. Liassides highlighted some operational difficulties that sanctions create in arbitration proceedings, such as delays in payments, difficulties securing legal representation, increased compliance obligations for all participants, and expanded due diligence requirements concerning ownership structures and sanctions exposure.

Ms. Liassides concluded by noting that arbitral institutions and tribunals were becoming significantly more proactive in managing sanctions-related risks as they, increasingly, were requesting sanctions-related disclosures, seeking additional information from parties, developing internal compliance frameworks, and exercising active procedural management.

Sanctions, Fundamental Rights, and Enforcement of Awards- Mr. Alexandros Gavrielides

A. Access to Arbitration for Sanctioned Parties

At the outset, Mr. Gavrielides clarified that sanctions do not prevent sanctioned parties from commencing arbitral proceedings. He illustrated that access to justice, at least in the EU, was a fundamental right, and EU institutions have repeatedly emphasized that sanctions must respect such rights.

Nevertheless, he stated that sanctioned parties frequently encounter substantial practical obstacles such as, banking over-compliance and difficulties processing payments despite arbitration related transactions being excluded from sanction application, which cause delays and increase costs. Though these operational barriers may interfere with effective access to justice, Mr. Gavrielides opined that a case-by-case analysis had to be undertaken to ascertain the same.

Regarding EU sanctions, he explained that there were two situations regarding the ability of sanctioned parties to obtain arbitral awards:

  1. Claims Affected by Sanctions: Where a claim concerns a contract directly or indirectly affected by EU sanctions, Article 11 of EU Regulation 833/2014 applies. This provision prohibits satisfaction of such claims when brought by Russian parties. Accordingly, even though a sanctioned party is not prevented from commencing arbitral proceedings to advance a claim falling within the scope of application of Article 11, the arbitral tribunal is prohibited from satisfying this claim, i.e. from making an award in favour of the sanctioned party.

    2. According to Mr. Gavrielides, this prohibition does not merely create a defense rather, arbitral tribunals themselves have a duty to ensure compliance with Article 11, regardless of whether the respondent raises the issue. Consequently, an award rendered in breach of Article 11 would likely face refusal of enforcement across EU Member States. However, he found this approach problematic because it allows losing parties to evade valid arbitral awards and undermines the effectiveness of the fundamental right to access justice.

  2. Claims Outside Article 11: Where claims are unrelated to contracts affected by sanctions, the prevailing view was that tribunals may still issue awards in favor of sanctioned parties. He argued that EU sanctions should not generally prevent tribunals from issuing awards unless the claim falls specifically within Article 11. He referred to the English cases involving PJSC National Bank Trust v Boris Mints, where courts recognized that access to justice includes not merely the right to have a claim adjudicated, but also the right to obtain judgment.

Applying similar reasoning, Mr. Gavrielides argued that other than claims under Article 11 of Regulation 833, EU sanctions do not preclude tribunals from making an award in favour of a sanctioned party, as this would constitute an impermissible interference with the right of access to justice.

Thus, he discussed some proposed alternatives to refusal of enforcement:

  1. Recognition Without Enforcement: He considered this approach ineffective because it offers no practical relief.

  2. Stay or Suspension of Enforcement: In this approach, the enforcement can be stayed or suspended till the sanctions are listed. This approach may better align with the New York Convention but still leaves prevailing parties without meaningful remedies.

  3. Enforcement Subject to Protective Conditions: Arguing that this was the “least unsatisfactory” option, he stated that under this model the enforcement could proceed by putting the funds into frozen or restricted accounts till sanctions remained. This ensured that sanctions compliance is maintained while preserving the integrity of arbitral awards.

Lastly, he concluded by observing that sanctions and fundamental rights are “uncomfortable bedfellows,” requiring careful balancing by tribunals and national courts.

The Arbitrator’s Perspective- Mr. Artem Doudko

On the topic of geopolitical changes and sanctions, Mr. Artem Doudko provided insights from the perspective of both counsel and arbitrator. He stated that tribunals continued to approach sanctions and geopolitical disputes through structured legal analysis, despite increasing complexity. Thus, he highlighted a few key issues in the current landscape:

  1. Scrutiny of Arbitrator Impartiality: According to him, one of the most significant emerging issues is heightened scrutiny of arbitrator impartiality. This includes expanded disclosure obligations, examination of affiliations with sanctioned jurisdictions or entities, potential assumptions of bias based on nationality, and increased mentions of social media statements as evidence of partiality.

  2. Choice of Seat and Neutrality: He observed that parties were increasingly selecting arbitration seats perceived as geographically neutral, and the concept of neutrality itself was evolving.

  3. Institutional versus Ad Hoc Arbitration: Mr. Doudko also noted that institutional arbitration offered advantages over ad hoc arbitration, particularly regarding handling of payments, management of sanctions compliance, and administrative support. Institutions have generally adapted more effectively to sanctions-related operational issues.

  4. Trend of Anti Injunctions Suits: He stated that this issue impacted arbitrators directly, like the issue of how they get paid.

Addressing the issue of conflicts of interest as he wears both hats, Mr. Doudko emphasized the importance of thorough due diligence and stressed that arbitrators must err on the side of caution and decline appointments where necessary.

“A lot of complexity, but we still keep dealing with it in a structured legal way, and that’s the only thing that we can do in these complicated times.”

On the topic of end-users of arbitration, Mr. Doudko addressed a broader institutional question of who represents arbitration to the outside world and how the arbitration community can better communicate its value. He argued that arbitration professionals spend significant time discussing arbitration internally at conferences and specialist events, but insufficient effort is made to explain arbitration to those outside the field. Thus, he suggested the community to engage with commercial clients, in-house counsels, transactional lawyers, business executives, and policymakers.

Reform of PRC Arbitration Law and Enforcement in China- Ms. Lynn Yin

A. Amendment of Chinese Arbitration Law

Answering the question on the first major revision to the Chinese Arbitration Law, Ms. Yin mentioned that the statute had not been amended since 1995 and now the much-awaited update aimed at aligning Chinese arbitration law more closely with international standards and conventions. She underscored that the most significant development was the creation of a formal legal structure for enforcement of arbitral awards within China, even for countries which had no treaty with China.

She stated that historically, enforcement in China was regarded as highly uncertain. However, now there was every prospect of enforcement, and the new framework significantly improves it a little more. She added that award creditors of foreign awards may now seek enforcement based on the debtor’s place of residence, location of assets, creditor’s place of residence, or any location reasonably connected to the dispute.

Ms. Yin also mentioned that the reforms established a legal basis for foreign arbitral institutions to administer arbitrations within mainland China, particularly in free trade zones and potentially other strategic regions.

Underscoring that the Chinese principle of enforcement had always been based on reciprocity, she explained the evolution from “strict reciprocity” to “presumed reciprocity.” Previously, Chinese courts required proof that foreign courts or arbitral institutions had enforced Chinese judgments before reciprocal enforcement would be granted. However, under the new approach, enforcement may proceed unless there is evidence that the relevant foreign jurisdiction has refused to enforce Chinese judgments or awards. Ms. Yin described this shift as transformative and emphasized that it substantially improves confidence in enforcing arbitral awards in China.

B. Renewable Energy Arbitration:

Regarding the recent increase in renewable energy arbitrations, Ms. Yin explained that this increase was due to growing global energy demand, expanding use of artificial intelligence and data infrastructure, climate change, changing climate policies, volatility in fossil fuel markets, and geopolitical instability. Noting this, she underscored that governments and international institutions were actively encouraging investment in renewable energy which has led to rapid development in sectors such as wind energy, solar PV, thermal solar energy, green hydrogen, biomass projects, etc.

Since these industries are still evolving, the legal and contractual frameworks governing them were also continuously developing. Thus, there was significant uncertainty and increased likelihood of disputes. She substantiated her argument by highlighting how disputes can arise at virtually every stage of a renewable energy project lifecycle. Furthermore, recent geopolitical developments posed further problems.

Ms. Yin explained that this made arbitration the preferred dispute resolution mechanism for renewable energy disputes because projects are usually multi-jurisdictional, technically complex, internationally financed, and commercially sensitive. In such cases, arbitration offers several advantages, such as neutrality, flexibility, international enforceability, and procedural adaptability.

She also stressed the need for careful drafting of arbitration clauses across all project contracts as disputes become extremely difficult to manage if arbitration clauses are inconsistent across the interconnected contracts.

Thus, the last session of Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 ended with insightful discussions on coping with geopolitical tensions, navigating sanctions, growing complexities of disputes, renewable energy arbitrations, and more.

The eventful Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 concluded with closing remarks by Mr. Agis Georgiades.

Read other Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 reports HERE.

The post Force Majeure, Geopolitics, and Climate Change: How Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026 Ended with Its Most Diverse Panel appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/19/cyprus-arbitration-day-2026-concludes-with-discussion-on-key-topics-in-arbitration/feed/ 0 384538