Queen Mary LLM Students participate in London International Disputes Week 2025

22 July 2025

London International Disputes Week 2025 (LIDW 2025) once again turned the City into a crossroads for the global disputes community. The aim was to foster debate, promote best practices, and showcase London’s continued relevance as a leading centre for international dispute resolution. LIDW brought together stakeholders from across the globe, including barristers, solicitors, arbitrators, mediators, legal tech innovators, academics, and students.

This sixth edition, held 2-6 June 2025 under the theme “Innovation in Dispute Resolution: Navigating Global Risks”, featured over 180 distinct sessions, beginning with the traditional Monday focus on international arbitration. The days that followed delved into a broad spectrum of critical issues - including cross-border enforcement, ESG-related disputes, AI and legal tech, investment arbitration reform, international sanctions, asset tracing and recovery, sports law, and the evolving role of arbitral institutions within an increasingly complex global legal landscape. These substantive sessions were complemented by a series of social events designed to facilitate dialogue, exchange perspectives, and bring together individuals from across the disputes community.

Queen Mary University of London maintained a visible and vocal presence throughout the week. Students from the School of International Arbitration (SIA) attended a wide array of sessions. They contributed real-time analysis to the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, offering timely and thoughtful coverage of contentious issues. Their work ran in parallel with contributions from QMUL faculty members in different capacities, including notably Professor Loukas Mistelis who is one of the co-chairs of LIDW 2025.

Students’ coverage for the Kluwer Arbitration Blog

Ariane Fuller, Marcos Orofino, Pritam Dumbré, and Vaibhav Gogra collaborated on two posts reporting from the International Arbitration Day (IAD). The IAD events took place at the premises of the three host law firms: Linklaters, Simmons & Simmons, and Squire Patton Boggs. Fuller and Orofino’s first post, “Exploring Different Approaches on Promoting Arbitration”, reported on two events hosted by Simmons & Simmons and Squire Patton Boggs. The first event focused more on the role of the courts in promoting arbitration. The second focused on how addressing claims involving sovereign immunity can further support the promotion of arbitration. Although tackling the subject from different angles, both events covered how courts can directly or indirectly promote and attract arbitration.

Gogra and Dumbré reported key insights from several other events held on the International Arbitration Day in their co-authored piece, “Arbitration in Transition—Insights on Efficiency, Diversity, and Global Practice”. The blog post reflects on Kevin Nash’s keynote address, where the LCIA Director General underscored the value of disciplined case management in promoting timeliness and diversity. The blog also recaps a Linklaters-hosted session on the role of international arbitration in Middle Eastern giga projects, where panellists explored the legal, political, and logistical risks inherent in large-scale infrastructure developments, highlighting the value of tools such as mediation, Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Boards, and emergency arbitration. Additionally, the authors covered another Linklaters panel on procedural efficiency, where speakers emphasised that the effectiveness of mechanisms like expedited procedures, bifurcation, and early dismissal ultimately depends on proactive use by both tribunals and parties.

In a separate post, Fuller reported on how the panels at the Main Conference tackled the challenge of “Facing Uncertainty and Embracing Innovation with a Shared Legal Foundation”. Her post captured how practitioners proposed to navigate the rapidly evolving geopolitical and technological landscape that is shaping dispute resolution.

Together with her colleague Dumbré, Fuller also reported on a session hosted by Gatehouse Chambers and Elkinson, in collaboration with Clyde & Co and with Professor Loukas Mistelis as one of the panellists, in the post titled “The Role of Dissent in Arbitral Proceedings: Disruption or Dialogue”. The session explored the role of dissenting opinions in arbitration - whether they serve as a constructive dialogue or a disruptive force, and discussed ways to align dissenting opinions with the broader goals of arbitration.

In another co-authored post titled “Enforcement of Awards – Evolving Standards and Jurisdictional Tensions”, Gorga and Dumbré discussed the key challenges surrounding the enforcement of arbitral awards, a recurring theme of the LIDW 2025 week. Their post featured insights from a panel discussion co-hosted by Clyde & Co and Ankura, with multifarious perspectives from asset trackers, risk assessors, and funders in international arbitration, as well as a session on judicial challenges to enforcement procedures, hosted by Trowers & Hamlins. Themes included the courts’ balancing act between judicial oversight and party autonomy, praising the English Courts in reaffirming clarity and predictability in enforcement actions. Light was also shed on another panel discussion hosted by Stephenson Harwood LLP, which revolved around key obstacles to enforcement, including public policy defences, sovereign immunity, and jurisdictional conflicts under the New York Convention. Other issues, such as using practical tools like discovery for asset tracing in the U.S., third-party injunctions, and insolvency proceedings as strategic routes for award enforcement, were also explored.

Visalakshy Gupta, in her post titled “Arbitral Institutions Congress”, reported on the panel discussions co-hosted by McNair International, Clyde & Co LLP, and Osborne Clarke this year. The first session focused on a multitude of issues that institutions need to cope with, ranging from the ramifications of international sanctions imposed following the Ukraine-Russia conflict, to arbitrator performance and the task of maintaining a credible, diverse and gender- balanced arbitrator roster. The panellists also explored mechanisms for assessing arbitrator accountability through feedback and performance monitoring mechanisms. The second session focused on how arbitral institutions must adapt to technological and geopolitical shifts by investing in digital tools, maintaining neutrality, and actively engaging in global policy platforms. The panellists agreed that the sustained relevance of arbitral institutions is hinged upon service quality, transparency, and responsiveness to users. For the last session, the discussions highlighted the growing pressure on arbitral institutions to innovate through Artificial Intelligence, expedited rules, and user-focused services, while maintaining fairness and procedural integrity.

In “A Two-Way Road Between Litigation and Arbitration”, Fuller and Orofino covered the event hosted by Compass Lexecon and Signature Litigation, where speakers explored the mutual lessons arbitration and litigation can learn from each other, especially when it comes to the production of evidence. This discussion featured experienced practitioners and experts who offered insights from working across both legal landscapes.

Orofino also authored a thematic post titled “Shifting Trends in Complex Insurance Disputes – From Court to Arbitration”, based on a Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer session. He discussed how insurance law is adapting to COVID-related losses and emerging risks such as war, climate change, M&A activity, and cyberattacks. The post also covered how the panel addressed the evolving role of courts in shaping insurance law and the unique challenges of resolving insurance disputes through arbitration.

Fuller reported on “Navigating Trends and Anticipating Disputes in ISDS”. The post covered two events - one hosted by the CPR Institute, Three Crowns and Queen Mary, featuring Mr Maxim Osadchiy (Teaching Fellow at SIA), and another hosted by Skadden, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and Osborn Partners. Both events aimed to identify key trends, challenges, and the future direction of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).

Silvia Lamprinopoulou offered a practitioner-focused analysis in her post “A Practitioner’s Guide to Emergency Measures and Interim Relief in Arbitration”. Drawing on insights from a panel hosted by Atkin Chambers and CMS, the post broke down the evolving tactical and procedural considerations surrounding emergency arbitrators, court-ordered interim relief, and security for costs. The post offered practical takeaways for how strategic pre-award interventions can shape the direction and possibly, the outcome of arbitral proceedings.

In another co-authored post, Lamprinopoulou and Fuller explored three distinct panel discussions united by a common theme: mediation. Titled “The Strategic Turn From Conflict to Consensus” the piece highlighted mediation’s growing relevance across both commercial and investor-state settings. Drawing from sessions hosted by IPOS Mediation and 3 Hare Court, Freshfields, and CEDR in collaboration with 39 Essex Chambers and the Civil Mediation Council, the post addressed the practical dimensions of mediation advocacy, process design, and client preparation; the specific opportunities and challenges in investor-State mediation, and the increasing emphasis on enforceability in cross-border disputes. Across all sessions, panellists underscored the need for cultural and institutional shifts to normalise mediation as a core component of dispute resolution frameworks. Taken together, the panels recognised mediation not as a soft alternative, but as a flexible and forward-looking mechanism - one that is becoming increasingly central to modern dispute resolution strategy.

Finally, for the closing events of LIDW 2025, Lamprinopoulou, in her post “Navigating the Client in Commercial Disputes: Reframing Goals Through Co-Counselling” turned the spotlight onto the human side of legal strategy - client alignment. Based on a panel discussion hosted by Skadden, the post examined how both in-house and external counsel can shift clients away from purely adversarial instincts and toward outcome-driven decision-making, in support of the business’s long-term strategic goals. By presenting co-counselling as a framework for collaborative goal-setting, the discussion emphasised a growing priority in commercial dispute practice: aligning legal processes with business goals, and focusing as much on strategic purpose as on procedural execution.

Full coverage of LIDW 2025 is available on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog. The students and the SIA are very appreciative of this continued collaboration with the Blog and grateful to the entire editorial board.

Queen Mary’s strong contribution to LIDW 2025 reaffirms its active role in bridging academic insights with the realities of global legal practice. Through the collaborative efforts of students and faculty alike, the SIA continues to promote a culture of engagement, critical thinking, and professional development at the heart of the international disputes community.

Sincere thanks go to Dr Maria Fanou for her guidance, encouragement, and support in enabling students to take part in LIDW - not only as attendees, but as contributors and future practitioners in the field. We look forward to seeing next year’s cohort build on this momentum.

More information

• Find out more about studying the Comparative and International Dispute Resolution LLM or the Public International Law LLM at Queen Mary.
• Read more about Queen Mary's School of International Arbitration and their work.