Русский
The Russian Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have received requests to conclude bilateral investment treaties with numerous countries in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, as without them, the enforceability of decisions in these regions remains questionable.
At the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, Russian lawyers have noted a trend of Russian companies moving from traditional European arbitration centres to Russian permanent arbitration institutions and platforms in the CIS, Asia, and the Middle East. The key drivers of this shift include the enforceability of decisions, geopolitical risks, and procedural speed.
During a forum session dedicated to cross-border arbitration and judicial disputes, representatives from the Russian Arbitration Centre at the Russian Institute of Modern Arbitration and the Arbitration Centre at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs confirmed growth in international proceedings at their institutions. Valeria Senatorova, Director General of the RAC, notes an increase in complex and large-scale disputes that parties previously referred primarily to foreign authorities. Mikhail Savranskiy, Deputy Chairman of the Arbitration Centre at the RUIE, provides statistics showing a rising number of international disputes involving parties from the CIS and the Middle East.
Senatorova highlights three factors determining the choice of Russian permanent arbitration institutions: guaranteed enforceability of decisions within the Russian judicial system, the ability to conduct proceedings in both Russian and English, and the prompt resolution of technical and organizational issues through direct contact with the institutional team. Both experts agree that the cost of proceedings in Russian arbitrations is significantly lower than abroad, where registration fees can sometimes exceed the value of the claim itself.
Daniil Petrukh, Senior Lawyer and Head of International Arbitration Practice at SIBUR, states that the cost of the arbitration fee is not the deciding criterion. According to him, dispute resolution efficiency and enforcement prospects come to the fore. In this sense, he believes Russian arbitration is preferable to a Russian state court. Petrukh also emphasized the need to maintain competition among domestic arbitration institutions to improve the predictability of decisions and reduce resolution times.
Since 2022, the geography of arbitrations involving Russian entities has changed. Instead of European arbitration, contracting parties have increasingly turned to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre, and the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. According to Petrukh’s observations, the main criteria for choosing a foreign venue are institutional neutrality and accessibility for the parties.
At the same time, the issue of Dubai arbitration institutions remains open due to political aspects and recent decisions in the Wintershall case, Petrukh notes. Experts also consider the choice of the Singapore questionable for Russian parties, as the country is included in the list of unfriendly countries, and local state courts do not always support domestic arbitration decisions. Vladimir Khvaley, a partner at Mansors law firm, adds that Singapore arbitration is currently in high demand globally and is consequently overloaded, leading to unjustifiably long dispute-resolution times.
Alexey Dudko, Senior Partner at LEVEL Legal Services, has said that an anchor jurisdiction is necessary—one that is neutral, independent, and positioned between East and West. This explains the non-governmental initiative of the BRICS countries to establish an arbitration academy, similar to the International Chamber of Commerce Academy.
The arbitration centres of the CIS countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, and Uzbekistan—as well as the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, are promising for Russian business. As an example of the demand for such venues, Bishkek handled 500 international disputes over the past year.
A Russian business initiative was brought forward in the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs for systematic work by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to build a database of international treaties to protect Russian companies and enforce judicial decisions in the countries of the Global South—Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.
Currently, Russia has no such agreements with countries in these regions, and the principles of international comity and reciprocity do not function. Vladimir Talanov, a partner at EPAM Law Office, reported that practically all foreign disputes involving Russian entities are now related to EU sanctions regulations No. 833/2014 and No. 269/2014.
Talanov said he encountered instances where European arbitrators did not always understand the nuances of specific sanctions or were completely unaware of them, resulting in a new trend: EU parties intentionally delay the process by submitting requests to the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify anti-Russian regulations. He cited an appeal by the Riga Regional Court in a case involving Russia’s United Grain Company and a Latvian company as an example of this tactic.
Andrey Danelyan, Head of the International Law Department at the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, has proposed creating an international legal body within the BRICS framework as an alternative to the International Criminal Court.
Both a BRICS arbitration mechanism and a clearing of the backlog of Russian bilateral investment treaties would be meaningful steps in Russia’s pivot to the Global South.
