{"id":389422,"date":"2026-07-04T17:30:23","date_gmt":"2026-07-04T12:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=389422"},"modified":"2026-07-04T17:12:26","modified_gmt":"2026-07-04T11:42:26","slug":"bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The International Arbitration Centre (IAC) is holding its fourth annual IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026 (EAW26), from 30 June to 3 July 2026 in Astana, Kazakhstan.<\/p>\n

In a panel discussion titled “Investment Opportunities & Risks in the Dispute Resolution Context”<\/span>, the esteemed panellists explored the changing architecture of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the emergence of new arbitration institutions, the increasing sophistication of State practice and the expanding role of mediation in investment disputes.<\/p>\n

The session was moderated by Anna Guillard Sazhko<\/span>, Independent Arbitrator & Counsel and Co-President of the Turkic Arbitration Association, and consisted of dignitaries namely, Dr. Yulia Levashova<\/span>, Associate Professor of International Investment Law, Nyenrode Business University; Kevin Nash<\/span>, Director General, LCIA; Konstantin Christie<\/span>, Partner, Peter & Kim; Dr. Eda Manav Özdemir<\/span>, Head of International Arbitration & Alternative Solutions Department, Directorate General for Law and Legislation, Secretariat General of the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye; and Elijah Putilin<\/span>, Arbitrator & Counsel, Putilin Dispute Management.<\/p>\n

After introducing the panellists, Anna Guillard Sazhko<\/span> underscored the scope of the discussion, stating that while dispute resolution is important, the main aim was to avoid them and maintain relationships.<\/p>\n

Also read: ‘A haven of legal peace in a world that gets more complex by the minute’: IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026 opens in Astana with calls for stronger institutions and independent dispute resolution<\/a><\/p>\n

Creating sustainable ADR ecosystems: Elijah Putilin<\/p>\n

At the outset, Elijah Putilin<\/span> opined that a sustainable ADR or dispute resolution mechanism instills confidence in investors. According to him, this sustainable system has three biomes:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Regulatory:<\/span> The first, he noted, is the regulatory framework, which encompasses both international and domestic legal instruments. International treaties governing investment protection, conventions relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards and national procedural and substantive legislation collectively provide the legal certainty necessary for investment.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Institutional:<\/span> The second pillar comprises the i<\/span>nstitutional framework, extending beyond arbitration centers to include national judiciaries responsible for enforcing arbitration legislation. He remarked, “any piece of legislation is only as good as the judiciary that enforces it”<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Communal:<\/span> Turning to the third component, he highlighted the importance of the legal community itself. Dispute resolution, he remarked, is ultimately about people. A vibrant community of arbitrators, practitioners, academics, and policymakers contributes to the continued evolution of dispute resolution.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    He explained that the ‘sustainable ecosystem’ meant that each biome intersects with the other; they should continuously inform and strengthen one another through ongoing collaboration, and they must not function independently. Academic research should shape legislative reforms; regulators should engage with courts on implementation challenges, while judicial decisions should, in turn, enrich professional discourse within the arbitration community. Only through such interaction, he suggested, can jurisdictions create a dispute resolution ecosystem capable of attracting long-term investment.<\/p>\n

    Drawing on his previous experience with an arbitral institution in Malaysia, Elijah referred to a study examining whether the presence of an arbitration centre itself generated economic value. The findings demonstrated that reputable ADR institutions contribute directly to local economies by attracting hearings, legal professionals, hospitality services, and related commercial activity.<\/p>\n

    “Even the mere existence of a reputable arbitration center in a jurisdiction in itself would bring investment to any country.”<\/p>\n

    Also read: Gary Born on the past, present and future of International Arbitration at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

    Role of institutions and future of arbitration: Kevin Nash<\/p>\n

    Building upon Elijah’s remarks, Kevin Nash<\/span> reflected on the broader economic significance of arbitration institutions and the role they play in strengthening the rule of law. According to him, arbitration contributes far more than hearing-related revenue.<\/p>\n

    He remarked, “When you have the rule of law, a trusted institution, supportive courts, it is the grease on the wheels of economic commerce.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    Illustrating arbitration’s economic impact, he referred to studies from both Hong Kong and Toronto demonstrating that arbitration generates substantial annual economic activity not only through legal services, hospitality, transportation and related industries, but also through companies investing in the jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

    Complimenting Kazakhstan on developing a comprehensive arbitration ecosystem through the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) and the IAC, Kevin remarked that the jurisdiction had deliberately incorporated many of the features recognised internationally as essential for a successful arbitration hub.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    However, he emphasised that the broader benefit lies in encouraging businesses to invest in jurisdictions where disputes can be resolved efficiently and predictably.<\/p>\n

    Reflecting on his experience at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Kevin explained that Singapore consciously developed arbitration as an industry rather than treating it as a standalone dispute resolution mechanism. Its ambition was not merely to administer arbitrations but to provide a complete suite of dispute resolution services capable of addressing virtually every type of commercial dispute.<\/p>\n

    He rejected the recurring perception that new dispute resolution mechanisms threaten arbitration’s relevance. Recalling the establishment of the Singapore International Mediation Centre in 2014, he noted that many arbitration practitioners initially feared that mediation would replace arbitration. Instead, both mechanisms proved highly complementary. He cited the development of Singapore’s innovative Arb-Med-Arb protocol, under which parties commence arbitration, temporarily suspend proceedings for mediation and, if necessary, resume arbitration should settlement efforts fail. This integrated model demonstrated that mediation and arbitration could function together rather than compete with one another.<\/p>\n

    Similarly, he reminisced that when the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) was introduced, many questioned whether international litigation would diminish arbitration’s importance. Kevin explained how commercial courts ultimately enhanced, rather than undermined, Singapore’s arbitration framework by providing sophisticated judicial supervision and allowing parties to designate the SICC as the curial court for Singapore-seated arbitrations. He argued that arbitration remains the preferred method for cross-border dispute resolution due to its several advantages and fundamental tenets, such as speed, cost, flexibility, arbitrator appointment, limited avenues of appeal, and enforceability.<\/p>\n

    Addressing current trends in international arbitration, Kevin argued that institutional arbitration has become increasingly preferable to ad hoc proceedings, primarily due to cost considerations. While acknowledging that parties may choose ad hoc arbitration under frameworks such as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, he observed that institutional rules provide procedural mechanisms that significantly improve efficiency and certainty. These include emergency arbitration, expedited procedures, early dismissal applications, and institutional supervision throughout proceedings. Equally important, institutional rules assist enforcement courts by clearly codifying procedural powers that might otherwise depend solely upon tribunals’ inherent authority.<\/p>\n

    Kevin also advocated for increased transparency within the arbitration community. While recognising the importance of confidentiality, he suggested that arbitration institutions should publish more comprehensive and harmonised statistics regarding their caseloads. Greater transparency, particularly concerning settlement rates, would provide valuable information for commercial users considering arbitration clauses.<\/p>\n

    Observing that only a small proportion of contracts containing arbitration clauses ultimately result in disputes, he noted that even among commenced arbitrations, many conclude through settlement rather than final awards. He suggested that publishing such information would help businesses better appreciate arbitration’s practical value while reducing misconceptions surrounding its cost and duration.<\/p>\n

    Regarding the credibility of arbitration, he mentioned that as arbitration increasingly serves first-time users from sectors such as financial technology and emerging industries, institutions should continue demonstrating both cost-effectiveness and speed.<\/p>\n

    Concluding his remarks, Kevin observed that Kazakhstan’s investment in the AIFC and the IAC represented a significant competitive advantage. Drawing upon Myanmar’s accession to the New York Convention, he recalled how enhanced enforceability immediately generated greater confidence among international investors. Similarly, he suggested that Kazakhstan’s comprehensive arbitration infrastructure would continue to strengthen its attractiveness as an investment destination.<\/p>\n

    Also read: “AIFC Court and IAC is our shortcut to the rule of law”: Panel on arbitration, legal traditions and institutional development at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

    Türkiye’s arbitration system and ISDS experience: Dr. Eda Manav Özdemir<\/p>\n

    Shifting the discussion to the State perspective, Eda explained that Türkiye has significantly modernised its approach to international arbitration under the Presidential Government System. She explained that the International Arbitration and Alternative Solutions Department, established in 2018 within the Directorate General of Law and Legislation under the Presidency, represents the Republic of Türkiye in investment arbitration proceedings while coordinating closely with various ministries, regulatory authorities, and public institutions depending upon the subject matter of each dispute.<\/p>\n

    According to Eda, Türkiye has sought not only to defend investment claims effectively but also to build long-term institutional capacity, promote knowledge sharing, and ensure coordination among public bodies involved in arbitration. To promote arbitration awareness and strengthen public sector expertise, the Presidency established a dedicated Working Group for Public Institutions that meets regularly to exchange experiences, discuss reform initiatives, and coordinate arbitration policy across government bodies.<\/p>\n

    Highlighting Türkiye’s commitment to education, she referred to the cooperation protocol signed between the Presidency, Ibn Haldun University and Istanbul Commerce University, pursuant to which the Turkish Arbitration Academy was established to train future arbitrators and arbitration practitioners. She further emphasised Türkiye’s willingness to collaborate with arbitration centres and academic institutions worldwide.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    Turning to Türkiye’s investment arbitration experience, Eda explained that foreign investment protection is primarily secured through BITs and multilateral agreements, through which Türkiye consents to specified arbitration mechanisms. Most investment claims against it have been administered under institutions such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the International Chamber of Commerce, the Istanbul Arbitration Centre, the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce Arbitration and Mediation Centre, or UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.<\/p>\n

    She observed that not all investment disputes arise from treaties alone. Many originate directly from investment contracts concluded between investors and host States or State-owned enterprises. Türkiye plays a dual role within the international investment regime simultaneously by defending claims brought by foreign investors while Turkish companies actively pursue investment arbitration abroad, particularly within sectors such as construction, energy, mining and transportation.<\/p>\n

    Reflecting upon Türkiye’s experience before investment tribunals, Eda also highlighted challenges concerning jurisdiction and treaty abuse. She noted that many cases involve allegations that so-called mailbox or shelf companies abuse the ISDS system by attempting to apply international jurisdiction in arbitration cases against<\/span> Türkiye.<\/p>\n

    Highlighting<\/span> Türkiye’s experience before international tribunals, she noted that the country has faced 17 arbitrations under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention, 1966, out of which 16 were decided in Türkiye’s favour, while three concluded through settlement, and only a few remain pending. At the same time, Turkish investors themselves have become active participants in ISDS, initiating several arbitrations abroad.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Underscoring how most investment disputes were based on BITs, Dr. Eda mapped the BITs signed by Türkiye, which had one of the largest BIT networks in the world. With its first BIT in 1982 with Germany, it has signed 115 BITs so far with partners across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. These agreements continue to provide traditional protections such as national treatment, most-favoured-nation treatment, protection against expropriation and guarantees relating to the free transfer of funds.<\/p>\n

    She explained that Türkiye occupies a unique position as both a capital-importing and capital-exporting country. This dual role has significantly influenced its treaty policy, encouraging a balanced approach that protects investors while safeguarding the State’s regulatory powers.<\/p>\n

    However, Dr. Eda emphasised that Türkiye’s current treaty model seeks to strike a more careful balance between investor protection and public interest regulation. This philosophy also reflected the country’s active participation in the ongoing UNCITRAL Working Group III discussions on ISDS reform. The reforms under consideration include strengthening arbitrator independence and impartiality, introducing codes of conduct, establishing appellate and review mechanisms, and exploring the possibility of a permanent multilateral investment court.<\/p>\n

    Thus, she concluded by stating that Türkiye continues to contribute actively to these discussions through both written submissions and direct participation.<\/p>\n

    Also read: Cross-border M&A disputes require dispute architecture, not just arbitration: Experts discuss at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

    Uzbekistan’s evolving arbitration ecosystem: Elijah Putilin<\/p>\n

    Speaking from the perspective of Uzbekistan, Elijah acknowledged that though Uzbekistan has made remarkable progress in recent years, its arbitration ecosystem remains a work in progress. At the international level, Uzbekistan has established a strong legal foundation by joining major international instruments, including the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention, alongside an extensive network of BITs.<\/p>\n

    However, he underscored that the majority of the BITs were first-generation deals, wherein duties might appear balanced on paper, but created issues when disputes arose in real life.<\/p>\n

    Domestically, he explained that Uzbekistan had a robust legislative system on investment, UNCITRAL Model Law, and international commercial arbitration. The country’s arbitration framework incorporates several modern provisions that extend beyond the UNCITRAL Model Law, including protections relating to arbitrators’ immunity and confidentiality. However, civil code reforms were still ongoing.<\/p>\n

    Institutionally, Uzbekistan has witnessed considerable expansion. He highlighted that there were institutions such as the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre, the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Uzbekistan (CCIU), and the latest addition, the Uzbekistan Dispute Resolution Centre (UDRC), which was a one-stop shop that would administer mediation, arbitration, and litigation.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, Elijah shed light on the anticipated establishment of the Tashkent International Investment Forum, the Tashkent International Financial Centre, and the Tashkent International Commercial Court. These initiatives are expected to enhance investor confidence by providing specialised judicial supervision over arbitral proceedings while reducing concerns associated with domestic court supervisory jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

    Despite these advances, he identified that one significant gap was the absence of sustained dialogue between regulators, judges, arbitration institutions, and the wider legal community, which he emphasized previously. He reiterated that greater collaboration between these stakeholders was essential if Uzbekistan is to develop into a mature international arbitration jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

    Also read: Ushering new era of Kazakhstan’s legal system: Justice Margarita Odintsova and Justice Aigul Kydyrbayeva deliver notable addresses at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

    New trends in Eurasian Investment Arbitration: Konstantin Christie<\/p>\n

    Highlighting the recent trends in Eurasian Arbitration and ISDS<\/span>, Konstantin Christie<\/span> underscored that although natural resources continue to dominate investment disputes throughout the region, States have become significantly more sophisticated in protecting their interests.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Historically, many investment treaties drafted during the 1980s and 1990s afforded investors with extremely broad protections and expansive arbitration rights. Contemporary treaties, however, increasingly seek to narrow those protections through more carefully drafted jurisdictional provisions and substantive standards. For example, the recent India-Kyrgyzstan BIT has a narrower most-favoured nation clause and limited the state responsibility related to municipal organs and local governments.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    Although there are not many counterclaims, Konstantin mentioned that there were two high-value commercial arbitrations happening in Kazakhstan, which were an example of states being aware of different dispute ecosystems and having become increasingly experienced in defending investment claims.<\/p>\n

    Also read: ‘Commercial certainty, rule of law and cultural understanding will shape arbitration’s future’: Lawrence Teh shares Singapore’s journey at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

    Transformation of protection provisions in modern investment treaties: Dr. Yulia Levashova<\/p>\n

    Building upon her co-panellists’ remarks, Dr. Yulia Levashova<\/span> agreed that there had been substantive changes in new-generation investment treaties across Central Asia. She explained that modern BITs increasingly seek to rebalance the relationship between States and investors.<\/p>\n

    One of the most significant developments, she opined, was the jurisdictional getaway because under the Soviet-era BITs, an investor was typically any legal entity incorporated in the contracting party, and the investment was defined very broadly as every kind of asset. In the new generation, contracting parties depart from this approach in two respects. Firstly, on the investment side, the definition of “investor” in modern agreements increasingly requires genuine economic activity within the home State before treaty protection becomes available.<\/p>\n

    Similarly, the definition of “investment” has become substantially more rigorous as treaties now require objective characteristics such as capital or resource contribution, duration, and meaningful economic contribution before investments qualify for treaty protection. These changes, she observed, were likely to prevent purely contractual arrangements or short-term commercial transactions from qualifying as protected investments.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    The second development, Dr. Yulia mentioned, was the evolution of substantive standards such as fair and equitable treatment. Earlier treaties frequently relied upon broad, open-ended formulations, while modern ones increasingly tie these protections to customary international law while expressly recognising the State’s right to regulate in pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, there have been developments, like the right to regulate and regarding counterclaims. To substantiate this, she mentioned the Hungary-Turkmenistan and India-Uzbekistan BITs, which include express reference to the right to regulate and counterclaims.<\/p>\n

    Another notable development, according to Dr. Yulia, was third-party funding because lately third-party funding was being regulated, such as in the ICSID rules and new treaties. Several recent investment treaties now require disclosure of third-party funding arrangements throughout arbitral proceedings, as they might influence applications for security for cost application and raise issues relating to confidentiality and privilege. She also pointed to the India-Uzbekistan BIT, which prohibits third-party funding altogether.<\/p>\n

    Hot Topics in Investment Arbitration: Konstantin Christie<\/p>\n

    According to Konstantin, States now routinely engage leading law firms and deploy sophisticated jurisdictional objections alongside substantive treaty defences.<\/p>\n

    Regarding new generation BITs, he added that they<\/span> specifically limit double-<\/span>nationality investors from pursuing their claims. Furthermore, under international law<\/span>, a party now cannot attempt to start a claim by moving the corporate seat to a useful jurisdiction after the dispute arises. In this regard, he cited Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, Alverley Investments Limited and Germen Properties Ltd v. Romania<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a>, and Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited and Bordo Management Limited v. Ukraine3<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span> Thus, he observed that the trend was that States recognised their positions and available defenses in terms of investment arbitrations.<\/p>\n

    He also remarked that in terms of the trends in the Eurasian and Eastern Europe region, the Russia-Ukraine war had created several claims under BITs and the EU sanctions package number 18, which deemed already preemptively any claims by Russian parties as abusive claims against EU nationals. Thus, the trend was to push for a proper investor who would commit capital, time, and risk.<\/p>\n

    Konstantin further discussed recent judicial developments concerning most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses, highlighting a significant decision delivered by the Supreme Court of Sweden recognising the extension of the MFN clause to dispute resolution mechanisms. Given the widespread use of Stockholm as a seat of arbitration in historical BITs, he suggested that the judgment may have considerable implications for future investment disputes.<\/p>\n

    Convergence of commercial and investment arbitration: Kevin Nash<\/p>\n

    Reflecting on his transition from the SIAC to the LCIA, Kevin admitted that he had initially assumed the LCIA administered predominantly commercial disputes centred on the United Kingdom, Britain, or Ireland. Internal data, however, revealed a much broader international practice. Over the past several years, the LCIA has administered hundreds of disputes involving States and State-owned enterprises, with parties originating from more than 160 jurisdictions and proceedings seated under dozens of different governing laws. These figures, he stated, demonstrated that commercial arbitration institutions were beginning to specialise in investment arbitration rules, such as the SICC Investment Arbitration Rules.<\/p>\n

    He further noted that State-owned enterprises now participate extensively in commercial arbitration both as claimants and respondents, requiring institutions to develop expertise for such disputes. He highlighted several procedural considerations that assume particular importance in disputes involving States, including joinder of non-signatories, pre-constitution joinders, consolidation of related proceedings, etc. This is because, from a State’s point of view, they are assessing how an institution handles complex multi-contract infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n

    He concluded by noting the LCIA’s deliberate expansion of expertise through appointments of leading figures from ICSID, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre to its Court, alongside strengthening regional knowledge within the Secretariat, remarking that, “You really do want to have an institution that understands the realities of the case”.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Also read: ‘Asia is becoming a superpower of disputes’: Prof. Loukas Mistelis highlights global arbitration trends at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

    Mediation’s growing role in investment disputes: Dr. Yulia Levashova<\/span><\/p>\n

    While arbitration continues to dominate investor-State dispute settlement, Dr. Yulia observed that mediation was gaining traction and governments across Central Asia were investing heavily in dispute prevention infrastructure. She illustrated her point by mentioning how several new-generation BITs now incorporate detailed pre-arbitration negotiation procedures and structured mediation provisions rather than relying solely upon traditional cooling-off periods. For example, the Kyrgyzstan-Turkmenistan and Hungary-Turkmenistan BITs have detailed procedural frameworks governing pre-arbitration negotiations.<\/p>\n

    Such provisions, she argued, provide parties with opportunities to resolve disputes at an early stage while preserving their ability to pursue arbitration if negotiations fail. However, she questioned whether in an investment contract, such multi-tier ADR clauses would prevent the dispute or create procedural hurdles. The outcome could be both of them and it depended on three factors:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Enforceability architecture behind the mediation clause<\/span>: Regarding enforcement, Dr. Yulia highlighted the growing significance of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have both ratified the Convention, although Kazakhstan has done so with reservations while Kyrgyzstan has adopted the Convention without reservations, thereby extending its application to disputes involving foreign investors.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Institutional capacity of states and arbitration institutes to support mediation<\/span>: She highlighted the significant institutional support for investment mediation emerging across Central Asia.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Drafting of the mediation clause<\/span>: She stressed that successful mediation provisions should include short timelines, designate public officials with authority to negotiate settlements, and preserve parties’ rights to proceed to arbitration where amicable resolution proves impossible.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Thus, the session concluded, providing a comprehensive overview of one of the fastest-evolving areas of international dispute resolution.<\/p>\n

      The discussion reflected that while investment protection remains essential to attracting foreign capital, States are increasingly recalibrating treaty protections to preserve their sovereign right to regulate, improving procedural safeguards, and promoting more balanced dispute resolution mechanisms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

      1.<\/a> ICSID Case No. ARB\/06\/5<\/p>\n

      2.<\/a> ICSID Case No. ARB\/18\/30<\/p>\n

      3.<\/a> SCC Case No. V 2015\/092<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The session explored both the remarkable institutional developments taking place across Central Asia and the broader global movement towards modernising investment treaties through balanced treaty drafting, stronger procedural safeguards, and greater emphasis on dispute prevention.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67524,"featured_media":389447,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[107256,97664,107243],"tags":[108972,84777,108964,3226,108600,104327,37235,108986,108965,108593,108970,108608,108609,108610,108611,108592,77766,108594,105756,66368,108591,46971,108963,108974,82893,108967,62168,3740,108966,108968,108971,108595,108973],"class_list":["post-389422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eurasia-arbitration-week","category-events-collaborations","category-international","tag-adr-in-investment-treaties","tag-aifc","tag-anna-guillard-sazhko","tag-arbitration","tag-astana-international-financial-centre","tag-bits","tag-dispute-resolution","tag-dr-eda-manav-ozdemir","tag-dr-yulia-levashova","tag-eaw26","tag-elijah-putilin","tag-eurasia-arbitration-conference","tag-eurasia-arbitration-conference-2026","tag-eurasia-international-arbitration-conference-2026","tag-eurasia-international-conference-2026","tag-fourth-annual-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026","tag-iac","tag-iac-eaw26","tag-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026","tag-icsid","tag-international-arbitration-centre","tag-investment-arbitration","tag-investment-mediation","tag-isds","tag-kevin-nash","tag-konstantin-christie","tag-lcia","tag-mediation","tag-nyenrode-business-university","tag-peter-kim","tag-putilin-dispute-management","tag-turkic-arbitration-association","tag-uncitral-working-group-iii"],"yoast_head":"\nBIT reforms, Investment Arbitration, Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Experts discuss the Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape in Central Asia through BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Experts discuss the Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape in Central Asia through BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-04T12:00:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Investment-Arbitration.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sonali Ahuja\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sonali Ahuja\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sonali Ahuja\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\"},\"headline\":\"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-04T12:00:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3641,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Investment-Arbitration.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"ADR in investment treaties\",\"AIFC\",\"Anna Guillard Sazhko\",\"Arbitration\",\"Astana International Financial Centre\",\"BITs\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Dr. Eda Manav \u00d6zdemir\",\"Dr. Yulia Levashova\",\"EAW26\",\"Elijah Putilin\",\"Eurasia Arbitration Conference\",\"Eurasia Arbitration Conference 2026\",\"Eurasia International Arbitration Conference 2026\",\"Eurasia International Conference 2026\",\"fourth annual IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\",\"IAC\",\"IAC EAW26\",\"IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\",\"ICSID\",\"International Arbitration Centre\",\"Investment Arbitration\",\"Investment Mediation\",\"ISDS\",\"Kevin Nash\",\"Konstantin Christie\",\"LCIA\",\"mediation\",\"Nyenrode Business University\",\"Peter & Kim\",\"Putilin Dispute Management\",\"Turkic Arbitration Association\",\"UNCITRAL Working Group III\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Eurasia Arbitration Week\",\"Events & Collaborations\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIT reforms, Investment Arbitration, Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Investment-Arbitration.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-04T12:00:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\"},\"description\":\"Experts discuss the Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape in Central Asia through BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Investment-Arbitration.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Investment-Arbitration.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Investment Arbitration\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/04\\\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\",\"name\":\"Sonali Ahuja\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sonali Ahuja\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/sonali\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"BIT reforms, Investment Arbitration, Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","description":"Experts discuss the Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape in Central Asia through BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","og_description":"Experts discuss the Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape in Central Asia through BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-04T12:00:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Investment-Arbitration.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sonali Ahuja","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sonali Ahuja","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"Sonali Ahuja","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8"},"headline":"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","datePublished":"2026-07-04T12:00:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/"},"wordCount":3641,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Investment-Arbitration.webp","keywords":["ADR in investment treaties","AIFC","Anna Guillard Sazhko","Arbitration","Astana International Financial Centre","BITs","Dispute Resolution","Dr. Eda Manav \u00d6zdemir","Dr. Yulia Levashova","EAW26","Elijah Putilin","Eurasia Arbitration Conference","Eurasia Arbitration Conference 2026","Eurasia International Arbitration Conference 2026","Eurasia International Conference 2026","fourth annual IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","IAC","IAC EAW26","IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","ICSID","International Arbitration Centre","Investment Arbitration","Investment Mediation","ISDS","Kevin Nash","Konstantin Christie","LCIA","mediation","Nyenrode Business University","Peter & Kim","Putilin Dispute Management","Turkic Arbitration Association","UNCITRAL Working Group III"],"articleSection":["Eurasia Arbitration Week","Events & Collaborations","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/","name":"BIT reforms, Investment Arbitration, Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Investment-Arbitration.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-04T12:00:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8"},"description":"Experts discuss the Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape in Central Asia through BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Investment-Arbitration.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Investment-Arbitration.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Investment Arbitration"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/04\/bit-reforms-investment-arbitration-investment-mediation-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Evolving Investment Arbitration Landscape: Experts discuss BIT reforms, State practice, and emergence of Investment Mediation at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8","name":"Sonali Ahuja","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sonali Ahuja"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sonali\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Investment-Arbitration.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67524"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389422"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389422\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":389449,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389422\/revisions\/389449"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/389447"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}