""

International Arbitration

International Arbitration

International Arbitration

Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Overview

International arbitration can be an excellent forum for resolving complex commercial disputes, but it comes with its own unique set of challenges and nuances. When there can be huge sums or big issues at stake, you need the very best team at your disposal, made up of experienced lawyers able to handle arbitrations of any kind, and offer you best-in-class advice and representation across the globe.

At BCLP, we have built one of the premier international arbitration teams in the world. Our team of over 100 lawyers sits across the globe, based in our offices in Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Hong Kong SAR, London, Miami, New York and Singapore, meaning we can effectively service our clients’ arbitration needs 24 hours a day. We have teams with deep experience of disputes arising from projects in Latin America, Russia and the CIS, the Middle East, Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia.

Our team covers a variety of specialist areas, including construction and engineering projects, investor-state disputes, energy and natural resources, banking and finance, insurance and reinsurance, commodities, sports and the full range of corporate and commercial matters.

You feel that you are being taken care of, and the lawyers care about the smooth and efficient process and result

Chambers and Partners, UK 2022

We have recognised market leaders in investment arbitration, construction and engineering disputes and commercial arbitration-  our team members take leading roles in the arbitration community, in terms of teaching, writing, speaking and taking leadership positions. They are regularly appointed to sit as arbitrators. Members of the team have previously worked at international courts and tribunals, including the London Court of International Arbitration, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Several members of our team hold or have held teaching positions in international arbitration and international law at leading law schools around the world, including New York University, Queen Mary University of London, Emory University, Universidad de Navarra and Universidad de San Ignacio de Loyola. Many also are frequent speakers and writers on international dispute resolution issues.  

20

The amount of different arbitral rules we have experience in, including ICC, UNCITRAL, LCIA, SIAC, SCC, DIAC, ICSID, HKIAC, AAA, ADCCAC, DIFC-LCIA, CRCICA and AFSA. 

100+

The number of lawyers we have globally practicing international arbitration

Our team is multicultural – our international arbitration lawyers are qualified in a variety of civil law and common law jurisdictions, and present cases not only in English, but also in Russian, Spanish, French and Italian.  In addition, individual members of the team speak a range of other languages. 

Forensic accounting – Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner prides itself on being at the forefront of innovation. We can provide instant access to in-house accountancy advice on the financial aspects of arbitration claims. This provides clients with a more complete quantum analysis early on, which can lead to a strong competitive advantage. 

International Arbitration Surveys

International Arbitration Surveys

2024

International Arbitration Survey 2024

This year’s survey canvases views on some of those risks and asks whether change is needed to avoid arbitration becoming a safe harbour for corruption.

2023

International Arbitration Survey 2023

Our 2023 survey looks at AI in IA: the rise of machine learning

2022

Our 2022 survey looks at the reform of the Arbitration Act 1996.

The team works well in collaboration together and in a seamless way that is also very cost-efficient while maintaining high levels of proficiency.

Chambers and Partners, UK 2022

Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

Partner & Global Co-leader, International Arbitration, Miami / New York

+1 786 322 7373
George Burn

George Burn

Partner & Global Co-leader, International Arbitration, London

+44 (0) 20 3400 2615
C. Ryan Reetz

C. Ryan Reetz

Office Managing Partner, Miami

+1 786 322 7370
Roman Khodykin
+44 (0) 20 3400 2202
Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

Partner & Global Co-leader, International Arbitration, Miami / New York

+1 786 322 7373
George Burn

George Burn

Partner & Global Co-leader, International Arbitration, London

+44 (0) 20 3400 2615
C. Ryan Reetz

C. Ryan Reetz

Office Managing Partner, Miami

+1 786 322 7370
Roman Khodykin
+44 (0) 20 3400 2202

Meet The Team

Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

Partner & Global Co-leader, International Arbitration, Miami / New York

+1 786 322 7373
George Burn

George Burn

Partner & Global Co-leader, International Arbitration, London

+44 (0) 20 3400 2615
C. Ryan Reetz

C. Ryan Reetz

Office Managing Partner, Miami

+1 786 322 7370
Roman Khodykin
+44 (0) 20 3400 2202

Experience

  •  Representing the Bulgarian subsidiary of a global energy company in a high-value UNCITRAL arbitration regarding the failure to properly design and build a lignite-fired power plant in Bulgaria.  
  • Acting for a subsidiary of a global construction company in a dispute under a joint venture agreement relating to the development of a container terminal in Aqaba, Jordan. The claim, valued at US$70m, was subject to a tiered dispute resolution clause, which includes ICC arbitration.  
  • Representing a shareholder in a high-profile LCIA arbitration seated in London. The dispute concerns the management and operation of one of the largest Russian e-commerce companies. The case includes unfair prejudice claims, which are rare in international commercial arbitration.

Related Insights

Insights
May 19, 2025

Is challenging a judgment allegedly procured by a previously known fraud an abuse of process and vexatious?

“Once a judgment is tainted by deceit it is fatally flawed” (Park v CNH Industrial Capital Europe Limited). But can an application to set aside a default judgment allegedly procured by fraud, itself be an abuse of process, vexatious and a collateral attack on a previous judgment of the court? We explore this question in the context of the claimant having previously known about the alleged fraud, in Henshaw J’s judgment of 8 May 2025 in (1) Federal Government of Nigeria; and (2) Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria v Williams.
Insights
May 13, 2025

Fake legal authorities – AI hallucination or professional negligence?

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) has the potential to make significant changes to various aspects of the practice of law. It is possible that many lawyers will incorporate AI in doing legal work, one way or the other and to some degree or other, in the foreseeable future. However, while AI is a powerful tool at lawyers’ disposal, work generated by AI can contain errors, and AI has the potential to “hallucinate”, i.e. make up false information or something that does not in fact exist. In two recent court cases in Canada and the UK, the lawyers submitted to the courts case authorities that did not exist, leading the other side’s lawyers and the court to suspect that those cases had been (mis-)generated by the use of AI.
Insights
Apr 29, 2025

Does “back to back” mean “pay when paid” in construction contracts?

In Sze Fung Engineering Limited v Trevi Construction Company Limited [2025] HKCA 278[1], the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (“CA”) ruled that the “back to back” wording in that case was not a “pay when paid” clause, but governed only the timing of payment.
Insights
Apr 28, 2025

Does Without Prejudice Privilege apply to reports prepared by third parties?

The without prejudice (“WP”) rule generally prevents statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute from being put before the court as evidence. Usually, these statements are made in communications between the opposing parties to a dispute. Can WP privilege attach to documents produced by third parties who are not parties to the dispute? This was a question before a deputy judge of the English High Court (“Court”) in BNP Paribas Depositary Services Ltd v Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 2575 (TCC)[1].
Insights
Apr 28, 2025

Hong Kong Court makes security for costs order against Mainland parties with no assets in Hong Kong

In Y and Another v GI and Another [2025] HKCFI 1317[1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“Court”) allowed the defendant’s application for security for costs against the plaintiffs in respect of the plaintiffs’ application to set aside an arbitral award. In doing so, the Court found that the plaintiffs were resident outside Hong Kong, had no assets available in Hong Kong and the setting aside application had little prospect of success.

Related Insights

News
Jun 12, 2025
The Best Lawyers in France 2026
Insights
Jun 11, 2025
Importers who paid IEEPA tariffs that were later ruled unlawful seek refunds
Insights
May 19, 2025
HK court grants worldwide Mareva and appoints interim receivers in aid of enforcing arbitral awards
Insights
May 19, 2025
Is challenging a judgment allegedly procured by a previously known fraud an abuse of process and vexatious?
“Once a judgment is tainted by deceit it is fatally flawed” (Park v CNH Industrial Capital Europe Limited). But can an application to set aside a default judgment allegedly procured by fraud, itself be an abuse of process, vexatious and a collateral attack on a previous judgment of the court? We explore this question in the context of the claimant having previously known about the alleged fraud, in Henshaw J’s judgment of 8 May 2025 in (1) Federal Government of Nigeria; and (2) Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria v Williams.
Insights
May 13, 2025
Fake legal authorities – AI hallucination or professional negligence?
Artificial intelligence (“AI”) has the potential to make significant changes to various aspects of the practice of law. It is possible that many lawyers will incorporate AI in doing legal work, one way or the other and to some degree or other, in the foreseeable future. However, while AI is a powerful tool at lawyers’ disposal, work generated by AI can contain errors, and AI has the potential to “hallucinate”, i.e. make up false information or something that does not in fact exist. In two recent court cases in Canada and the UK, the lawyers submitted to the courts case authorities that did not exist, leading the other side’s lawyers and the court to suspect that those cases had been (mis-)generated by the use of AI.
Insights
Apr 29, 2025
Does “back to back” mean “pay when paid” in construction contracts?
In Sze Fung Engineering Limited v Trevi Construction Company Limited [2025] HKCA 278[1], the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (“CA”) ruled that the “back to back” wording in that case was not a “pay when paid” clause, but governed only the timing of payment.
Insights
Apr 28, 2025
Does Without Prejudice Privilege apply to reports prepared by third parties?
The without prejudice (“WP”) rule generally prevents statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute from being put before the court as evidence. Usually, these statements are made in communications between the opposing parties to a dispute. Can WP privilege attach to documents produced by third parties who are not parties to the dispute? This was a question before a deputy judge of the English High Court (“Court”) in BNP Paribas Depositary Services Ltd v Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 2575 (TCC)[1].
Insights
Apr 28, 2025
Hong Kong Court makes security for costs order against Mainland parties with no assets in Hong Kong
In Y and Another v GI and Another [2025] HKCFI 1317[1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (“Court”) allowed the defendant’s application for security for costs against the plaintiffs in respect of the plaintiffs’ application to set aside an arbitral award. In doing so, the Court found that the plaintiffs were resident outside Hong Kong, had no assets available in Hong Kong and the setting aside application had little prospect of success.
News
Apr 16, 2025
BCLP recognized in Global Arbitration Review 100 2025