Nayla Comair-Obeid(France)

Professor of the Lebanese University

Former Vice Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Distinguished guests, 

Esteemed colleagues, 

It is a great privilege to be with you today at the Fifth Seminar of the International Commercial Expert Committee and to participate in this Panel whose topic lies at the intersection of law, commerce and economic development. 

Global industrial and supply chains have become increasingly sophisticated, connecting manufacturers, suppliers, financing parties, insurers, logistics providers and customers across multiple jurisdictions. As supply chains have become more interconnected, commercial transactions have become more complex, giving rise to equally complex cross-border disputes. 

Because of this interdependence, the so-called "butterfly effect" has become a commercial reality. 

Take, for example, the recent disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. A geopolitical event in one region immediately affects businesses thousands of kilometres away, causing shipping delays, increased transportation costs and disruptions throughout global supply chains, triggering multiple disputes involving manufacturers, suppliers and retailers across different jurisdictions.

However, businesses can adapt to changing market conditions or unforeseen events. 

What they struggle to manage is legal uncertainty. Legal certainty provides businesses with the confidence to invest, trade and maintain long-term commercial relationships. It is the driving force of stability in industrial and global supply chains. 

The question, therefore, is not whether disputes will arise. They inevitably will. The real question is at what stage efficiency should be built into the dispute resolution process. 

First, efficiency must be embedded before any dispute arises. It begins with the contract drafting. 

Dispute resolution clauses are not “midnight clauses” anymore; they are the anchors of a contract and a strategic tool of risk management available to the parties. A well drafted clause provides certainty to the parties by identifying the specific steps the parties must take before commencing arbitration, the arbitral institution, the applicable procedural rules, the seat of arbitration, the language of the proceedings, and the method for appointing arbitrators. 

Sophisticated commercial contracts are also increasingly adopting multi-tier dispute resolution clauses. The parties may first be required to engage in good-faith negotiations between senior executives, followed—where appropriate—by mediation, before commencing arbitration as a measure of last resort. This evolution reflects an important shift in philosophy. The parties do not aim simply to resolve their dispute efficiently. They also provide how unnecessary disputes can be avoided wherever possible. 

This approach of dispute avoidance is valuable in long-term infrastructure, construction, energy and supply-chain contracts, where commercial relationships often continue long after a disagreement has arisen. In such circumstances, preserving the relationship may prove just as valuable as ultimately prevailing in an arbitration. 

The growing international acceptance of mediation demonstrates precisely this evolution. The Singapore Convention on Mediation has strengthened confidence in mediation as an effective mechanism for resolving international commercial disputes by facilitating enforcement of mediated settlement agreements. Currently, 60 parties have signed the Singapore Convention and 22 have formally adhered to it. 

The MENA region offers an excellent illustration of this broader trend. In the MENA region, 5 countries have fully adhered to the Singapore Convention, while an additional 4 countries are signatories pending ratification of the treaty. 

Over the past decade, arbitral institutions across MENA have also increasingly embraced mediation and dispute avoidance as integral components of commercial dispute management. CRCICA has revised its Mediation Rules early in 2013 while the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration has introduced its own set of Mediation Rules in 2016, followed by the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution in 2019 and the Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre in 2021. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre has introduced its dedicated Mediation Rules in 2023. And most recently in 2026, Arbitrate AD has adopted its own mediation rules. A private alternative dispute resolution boutique, Gulf Mediation, was also established in November 2023 administering mediations across the Gulf and training individuals and organizations in mediation. 

An equally noteworthy development is the increasing use of mediation in major infrastructure and public-sector projects throughout the region involving States or state entities. These developments demonstrate a broader evolution in international dispute resolution. The objective is no longer simply to resolve disputes efficiently—it is to avoid unnecessary disputes wherever possible. 

Finally, where dispute avoidance and mediation do not result in a settlement, arbitration remains the cornerstone of international commercial dispute resolution. Its qualities are well known: neutrality, flexibility, enforceability, party autonomy and expertise. 

However, efficiency in arbitration should never be measured solely by the speed with which an award is rendered. A process that concludes quickly but at disproportionate cost or through unnecessary procedural complexity cannot truly be regarded as efficient. Equally, a process that aims for speed at the expense of due process, risks undermining confidence in the arbitral process itself. 

True efficiency is measured by whether the proceedings produce an outcome that is fair, predictable, enforceable and proportionate to the dispute. Predictability and fairness are often as important as speed. Robust institutional rules undoubtedly provide the necessary procedural framework for efficiency, predictability and fairness. But institutional rules provide only this: the necessary framework. 

People make the framework work. Whether arbitral proceedings are indeed efficient is determined by the actions of arbitrators, counsels and parties. 

Experienced arbitrators exercise active case management. They identify the issues that genuinely require determination, discourage unnecessary procedural applications, and ensure that proceedings remain proportionate to the complexity and value of the dispute. 

Likewise, experienced counsel understand that effective advocacy is not measured by the number of procedural applications filed, the length of written submissions, or the production of numerous unrelated exhibits. It is measured by the presentation of focused, persuasive arguments that genuinely assist the tribunal in reaching a fair, well-reasoned, and efficient decision. 

The appointment of experienced arbitrators and capable counsel should therefore be viewed not merely as a question of professional excellence. It is a necessary component of procedural efficiency which reinforces the legitimacy of the arbitral process. 

In my view, the most efficient arbitrations are those in which all stakeholders share a common commitment to resolving disputes fairly, proportionately, and without unnecessary delay or expense. 

Allow me to conclude by returning to where I began. Global industrial and supply chains depend not only on efficient logistics and sophisticated commercial contracts, but equally on legal certainty. 

Efficient dispute resolution should thus begin at the contract-drafting stage, continue through meaningful negotiation and mediation, and culminate, where necessary, in arbitration that is fair, proportionate and predictable. 

When commercial parties have confidence that disputes will be managed in this way, they invest with greater certainty, continue doing business across borders with greater confidence and contribute to more resilient global supply chains. 

This commitment to more efficient dispute resolution is reflected in the continued development of arbitral institutions around the world. Here in China, the revision of the Arbitration Law has effected a few months now, the new Med-Arb Expedited Rules on mediating dispute resolution launched by the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court (BAC) and the continued modernization of the CIETAC Rules demonstrate China's commitment to providing businesses with dispute resolution mechanisms that are efficient, predictable and responsive to the needs of international commerce. These reforms in China and elsewhere reinforce a shared global objective: strengthening legal certainty supports international trade and investment. 

In an increasingly interconnected world, efficient justice is an economic necessity. Confucius taught us that "to see what is right and not do it is want of courage." Today, we know what is right: to continue building dispute resolution mechanisms that are efficient, fair and capable of supporting international commerce. It is now our collective responsibility to ensure that they continue to evolve in the service of businesses, investors and the global economy. 

Thank you very much.