Ukraine’s prospects as a seat of arbitration was the focus of discussion at the ХII International Arbitration Readings in memory of Academician Igor Pobirchenko

On 10 October 2025, the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the ICAC) held the ХII International Arbitration Readings in memory of Academician Igor Pobirchenko. The most anticipated arbitration event of the year brought together more than 100 participants offline in Kyiv. More than 500 delegates took part in the conference online. Eleven speakers, including representatives of the legislative and judicial branches, arbitrators, scholars, and practicing arbitration lawyers joined the professional discussion of this year’s topic, “Ukraine as a seat of arbitration. A contemporary dimension of efficiency”.

Opening the international conference, Mykola Selivon, the President of the ICAC and the UMAC, emphasized the urgency of considering Ukraine as a seat of arbitration, despite the ongoing war. According to the ICAC’s President, the capabilities of Ukrainian arbitration, the judicial system, and the arbitration infrastructure have already been tested by the full-scale war, which sends a strong signal to the world about the resilience of Ukraine as a powerful and capable arbitration jurisdiction in Eastern Europe. His opinion was echoed by the President of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Gennadiy Chyzhykov:

“Ukraine’s power lies in its ability to think about the future. The ICAC has the potential, experience, and knowledge to become a platform for considering investment disputes during the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine.”

Roman Babii, the People’s Deputy of Ukraine, the Chairperson of the Sub-committee on the Enforcement of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and Alternative Dispute Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Committee on Legal Policy, offered a deep dive into the legislative prerequisites for expanding the jurisdiction of arbitration in Ukraine and the development of arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Mr. Babii briefly described three key initiatives that currently shape Ukraine’s state policy in the field of arbitration and other forms of ADR, namely:

The creation of an Interdepartmental Coordination Council on the Development of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods under the leadership of the Minister of Justice of Ukraine. One of the main tasks of the Council is to establish clear and coordinated communications between state authorities, arbitration institutions, and other stakeholders in Ukraine.
Ukraine’s progress on the path to European integration. The development and implementation of measures to expand the scope of arbitration, in particular with regard to the consideration of investment disputes, is part of Ukraine’s roadmap for EU accession.
The Strategy for the Development of the Justice System and Constitutional Justice for 2025-2029, which supports the development and importance of arbitration in Ukraine.

Roman Babii also briefed the delegates on the status of Draft Law No. 12141, which, among other things, contains provisions related to the designation of Ukraine as a seat of investment arbitration.

Made in Ukraine: Arbitral Jurisdiction of a New Generation

This was the title of the first session of the Readings moderated by Olena Perepelynska, Partner, Head of Arbitration Practice at INTEGRITES Law Firm; Member of the Board of the Ukrainian Arbitration Association. The speakers at the first session were: Catherine Rogers, Full Professor of Law at Bocconi University; Research Professor at the University of California Law, San Francisco; Oksana Karel, Attorney, Expert in the Field of Arbitration; and Olexander Droug, Partner at Sayenko Kharenko.

Professor Rogers emphasized that choosing the place of arbitration is one of the most important decisions in an arbitration clause. Today, the “seat of arbitration” does not mean the physical location where disputes are heard, but rather the legal consequences associated with holding arbitration in a particular country. A country’s pro-arbitration environment has three main components: developed national legislation and the rule of law; a strong judicial system that respects arbitration; and a robust arbitration infrastructure. The success of a jurisdiction as a seat of arbitration is a signal to the world that the country is open to investment and business.

Olexander Droug cited statistics on arbitration cases in recent years, which proves that Ukraine is already a seat of arbitration not only under the ICAC rules, but also under the rules of other international arbitration institutions. Mr. Droug focused on the factors that parties consider when choosing a seat of arbitration. One of them is the practice of judicial review. The statistics on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Ukraine is over 90%. The statistics on the annulment of arbitral awards by Ukrainian courts is less than 1%. According to Olexander, the practice of courts in Ukraine often precedes the development of legislation.

Therefore, according to the speaker, the facts and statistics show that Ukraine is already positively perceived by the international community as a seat of arbitration.

Oksana Karel spoke about powerful systemic and decisive shifts in judicial practice in support of arbitration. She noted the courts’ recognition of the independence of arbitration clauses from the main contract, the reduction of formalism, and the limitation of cases of interference by state courts in the course of arbitration proceedings. Ms. Karel also mentioned the substantial experience of Ukrainian arbitration lawyers in the field of investment arbitration, as Ukraine was often a party to investment disputes over the past 25 years. The level of training, experience, and language proficiency of Ukrainian arbitration specialists matches and often exceeds that of international arbitration lawyers from other countries.

At the end of the discussion, the speakers unanimously agreed that the upcoming reconstruction of Ukraine, as well as the active development of the defense sector and infrastructure, will significantly influence the involvement of Ukrainian arbitration lawyers in providing expert support for disputes arising from relevant contracts in the future. An increasing number of international contracts will contain an arbitration clause referring disputes to the ICAC for consideration and resolution.

National courts and the pro-arbitration climate in Ukraine

The moderator of the second session, Kostiantyn Pilkov, a Justice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, PhD in Law, began the discussion with the thesis that national courts play a key role in supporting the arbitration infrastructure in Ukraine. The discussion was also joined by Olena Belianevych, Professor of the Department of Civil Law and Procedure at Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University (Vinnytsia); Dmytro Hudyma, a Justice of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, PhD in Law, Olena Kibenko, a Justice of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, Doctor of Law, and Roman Marchenko, Attorney, Senior Partner at Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm, the Honored Lawyer of Ukraine.

Ms. Belianevych identified the key components of a meaningful “framework” for interaction between national courts and arbitration in Ukraine. According to the scholar, arbitration should be treated as an example of self-regulation and independence of economic entities in choosing the means of satisfying their economic needs, in particular with regard to dispute resolution. At the same time, the state should accept the parties’ refusal to use the services of the state court without prejudice and with respect, and recognize the potential and effectiveness of international commercial arbitration.

The speaker noted that in order to ensure the “pro-arbitration” nature of legal positions, the Supreme Court seeks scientific conclusions on a number of arbitration-related issues , in particular: recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards; postponement of enforcement of the ICAC awards; the legal nature of an arbitration clause, invalidation of an arbitration clause; extension of the effect of an arbitration clause to a party that did not sign it; application of the provisions of the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, etc.

Supreme Court Justice Dmytro Hudyma took a closer look at the Supreme Court’s case law, which has continued to shape Ukraine’s pro-arbitration climate in recent years. In particular, the Justice explained the background, approaches, and logic behind recent Supreme Court decisions on the following issues: the jurisdiction of the ICAC in the event of conflicting contractual provisions; the ICAC awards related to sanctioned creditors; deferral of enforcement of the ICAC awards and related court decisions; annulment of the ICAC awards; issuance of a duplicate of the writ of execution attached to the materials of criminal proceedings for enforcement of the ICAC awards.

Supreme Court Justice Olena Kibenko considered approaches to distinguishing between the jurisdiction of commercial courts and international commercial arbitration. In particular, the speaker outlined the advantages and risks of a pro-arbitration approach, where a commercial court limits its jurisdiction in favor of arbitration. Ms. Kibenko also focused on issues of determining the arbitrability of a dispute and applying a pro-arbitration approach in bankruptcy cases.

Roman Marchenko invited the delegates of the Readings to look at the arbitration climate from the client’s perspective. In particular, the speaker cited examples of recent similar cases that were pending before national courts and on which the courts reached opposite conclusions. Mr. Marchenko noted that such examples have a negative impact on legal certainty and predictability for businesses and investors. The lawyer also focused on the practice of broad interpretation of the concept of “public policy,” which can be used as a justification for Ukraine’s non-recognition of international arbitration awards. Mr. Marchenko also provided a legal assessment of cases of non-recognition of arbitration awards due to the sanctioned status of a party to the dispute. The speaker believes that courts should be guided solely by the law when making decisions. Despite the importance of protecting Ukraine’s national interests, especially during a full-scale war, considerations of political expediency should be left to the discretion of the legislature, not the courts.

In the discussion that took place at the end of the session, moderator Kostiantyn Pilkov and the speakers touched upon controversial aspects of qualifying the concept of “effective remedy” in the resolution of disputes by national courts and in arbitration, as well as the readiness of the arbitration community to consider disputes with more complex claims in connection with the expansion of arbitration jurisdiction in Ukraine. In addition, the issue of the limits of judicial control (control in the sense of the relevant functions of national courts) in the enforcement of international arbitration awards and the consideration of applications for setting aside was outlined separately.

At the end of the conference, the moderators of the event, Olena Perepelynska and Kostiantyn Pilkov, offered brief takeaways of the discussions, and the President of the ICAC, Mykola Selivon, summarized both sessions, thanked the moderators, speakers, participants, and organizers of the conference, and encouraged all those present to continue developing pro-arbitration practices in Ukraine and shaping a sustainable image of Ukraine as an effective seat for arbitration.

You can view photos from the event here.

A video broadcast of the Readings is available at the link.