{"id":389629,"date":"2026-07-07T13:30:28","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T08:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=389629"},"modified":"2026-07-07T14:12:59","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T08:42:59","slug":"soft-law-uncitral-model-law-arbitration-friendly-courts-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/soft-law-uncitral-model-law-arbitration-friendly-courts-iac-eurasia-arbitration-week-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Soft law, UNCITRAL Model Law and arbitration-friendly courts take centre stage at IAC Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The panel discussion on Day 3 of the International Arbitration Centre (IAC) Eurasia Arbitration Week 2026, titled “International Law & Practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)”<\/span>, explored the growing influence of soft law, developments in national arbitration legislation, the enforcement of arbitral awards, mediation under the Singapore Convention, and emerging trends in international investment law.<\/p>\n

Moderated by Daniil Litosh<\/span>, Associate, Unicase, the panel featured David Hunt<\/span>, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; Yerkin Budenov<\/span>, Counsel & Head of Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) Practice, ADL Disputes; Caitlin Walczyk<\/span>, Associate, White & Case LLP; Fuad Gashamov<\/span>, Founding Partner, Legalize and Dr. Yulia Levashova<\/span>, Associate Professor of International Investment Law, Nyenrode Business University.<\/p>\n

Soft law has become an indispensable part of international arbitration<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Opening the discussion, Caitlin Walczyk<\/span> observed that although soft law instruments are technically non-binding, they have become deeply embedded in international arbitration practice.<\/p>\n

Referring to procedural rules, she noted that the International Bar Association (IBA) Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration are routinely relied upon by tribunals across jurisdictions. According to Walczyk, tribunals rarely depart from these rules despite their non-binding character, making them an accepted procedural standard across commercial arbitration.<\/p>\n

She further explained that similar developments have occurred in relation to conflict-of-interest guidelines and other institutional standards, many of which have effectively become part of everyday arbitral practice.<\/p>\n

Turning to investment arbitration, she highlighted the importance of the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, noting that they continue to influence substantive legal reasoning in disputes involving attribution, continuing breaches and State responsibility.<\/p>\n

She observed:<\/p>\n

“Tribunals are creating awards that are based on these ILC Articles and based on these principles that are developing over time.”<\/p>\n

Encouraging younger practitioners to participate in international arbitration organisations and working groups, Walczyk said that many of today’s accepted standards originate from committees that draft guidelines and best practices.<\/p>\n

She added:<\/p>\n

“These are the people that are shaping these rules and these guidelines that ultimately become effectively universally accepted by tribunals.”<\/p>\n

Azerbaijan’s new arbitration law aligns closely with the UNCITRAL Model Law<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Throughout the session, moderator Daniil Litosh<\/span> connected the various themes by highlighting how international arbitration continues to evolve through a combination of legislation, institutional practice and judicial interpretation. He observed that while international conventions and national arbitration laws provide the legal framework, practitioners, arbitrators and courts continue to shape many of the principles governing modern arbitration.<\/p>\n

Commenting on the growing reliance on soft law, Litosh noted that the development of arbitration remains an ongoing process driven by the legal community itself. He remarked:<\/p>\n

“Nowadays, in case there is no much substantial regulation, it’s actually us as lawyers, as future practitioners, as experts and judges and arbitrators who are creating the relevant principles.”<\/p>\n

As the discussion progressed, Litosh steered the conversation towards practical issues, inviting the speakers to compare Azerbaijan’s recently enacted Arbitration Law with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law, examine the advantages of choosing the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) as the seat of arbitration, and discuss the growing importance of mediation following the adoption of the Singapore Convention.<\/p>\n

He also emphasised that institutional support remains central to the success of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and noted that the expanding network of modern bilateral investment treaties across Eurasia reflects the region’s continuing commitment to strengthening international dispute resolution.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Responding to a question on domestic arbitration legislation, Fuad Gashamov<\/span> explained that Azerbaijan’s Arbitration Law, adopted in 2023 and in force since 2024, was largely modelled on UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.<\/p>\n

According to Gashamov, nearly 85 per cent of the legislation mirrors the structure and substantive principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law, while the remaining provisions reflect domestic policy choices intended to establish a complete arbitration framework.<\/p>\n

He identified several important distinctions between the Azerbaijani legislation and the UNCITRAL Model Law.<\/p>\n

Unlike the Model Law, which primarily governs international commercial arbitration, Azerbaijan’s legislation applies to both domestic and international arbitration.<\/p>\n

The statute also expressly regulates issues left to domestic legislation under the Model Law, including:<\/p>\n