Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang Speaks on Choosing the Seat of Arbitration for Energy Disputes – AJFB/FBLS Event in Edinburgh

On 20 April 2026, Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang, founder of Astute Dispute Resolution, spoke on Choosing the Seat of Arbitration: Arbitrating Energy Disputes, a hybrid event organized by the Association des Juristes Franco-Britanniques / Franco-British Lawyers Society (AJFB/FBLS) and kindly co-hosted by the Scottish Arbitration Centre and the Ciarb Scottish Branch in Edinburgh.

Continuing the Society’s long-standing tradition of events comparing seats of arbitration, the panel brought together speakers from five legal systems: the Right Honourable Lord Justice McCloskey (Northern Ireland), Gillian Carmichael Lemaire (Scotland), Charles Marquand (France), Dr Leonardo Carpentieri (England & Wales) and Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang (Switzerland). The debate was chaired by the Right Honourable Lady Carmichael, Senator of the College of Justice, following opening remarks by Robert Stevenson, former President of the English and Welsh section of the AJFB/FBLS, arbitrator and adjudicator.

Speaking for the Swiss seat, Nhu-Hoang addressed three questions at the intersection of geopolitics and arbitration practice.

A Pipeline of Energy Disputes in the Making

Although the current crisis in the Gulf has not yet produced a wave of arbitrations, this quiet should not be misread. We are in a pre-arbitration phase: facts remain unclear, losses have not crystallized, and parties are still preserving commercial relationships. Negotiation is not the absence of disputes, it is often their first stage.

Once losses crystallize, several waves of disputes can be expected: non-performance claims and force majeure defences, where the real question will not be whether there was a crisis but whether it truly prevented performance; price-driven defaults, where performance becomes uneconomic and breach becomes a commercial calculation; cascading shipping and supply chain disputes arising from rerouting, delays and cost allocation; and a later, more technical wave of insurance, sanctions and regulatory disputes, with war destruction potentially giving rise to investment treaty claims.

Switzerland as a Seat: Predictability Above All

When comparing Switzerland with London or Paris, the question is not which seat is arbitration-friendly, all three are. Switzerland’s distinctive strength is predictability. Challenges to awards go directly, and only, to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, with no multi-layer appeal. The grounds for annulment are narrow and the courts show marked deference to tribunals, which translates, for the parties, into finality.

Switzerland’s neutrality and non-EU position are also increasingly relevant in sanctions-sensitive and politically exposed energy disputes, where the choice of a neutral forum is not an abstract concept but a strategic asset. Combined with a long-standing practice of complex, expert-heavy energy cases, this makes Switzerland a particularly suitable seat for high-value energy disputes.

Expert Evidence: Time for a Code of Ethics?

Drawing on her dual and complementary experience as counsel and arbitrator, Nhu-Hoang closed with a reflection on expert evidence, which in many energy arbitrations plays an important part in the outcome of the case. Party-appointed experts drifting into advocacy, and the resulting perception of bias, remain a concern for tribunals and parties alike. The proposal for a code of ethics for expert witnesses deserves serious consideration: it would not replace existing procedural tools, but could usefully complement them and reinforce confidence in expert evidence.

Astute Dispute Resolution thanks the AJFB/FBLS, the Scottish Arbitration Centre and the Ciarb Scottish Branch for the invitation to contribute to this rich exchange of perspectives across five legal systems, and Lady Carmichael for her thoughtful chairing of the debate.

---