International Arbitration in Switzerland
2026 | Key Trends

Switzerland remains a leading destination for international arbitration, offering a stable legal framework, experienced practitioners and a well-established, arbitration-friendly approach. Recent developments in Swiss arbitration and Swiss arbitration law highlight how geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain disruptions and economic sanctions continue to shape international disputes.

The Swiss Arbitration Environment

Switzerland remains one of the world's most reliable and sophisticated arbitration hubs. Its legal market offers world class counsel and arbitrator expertise in large full-service firms as well as in specialised boutiques. Swiss law remains a particularly popular choice for international commercial contracts. Equally, Switzerland continues to be among the top choices as a seat of international arbitrations, even though other jurisdictions have emerged among the traditional arbitration hot spots.

A key reason for Switzerland's strength is the legal certainty, predictability, swiftness and respect for the finality of arbitral awards it provides. Arbitral awards rendered by a Swiss seated tribunal can only be challenged before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. The appeal period is 30 days, the grounds for review are narrowly defined, set-aside proceedings are typically completed within six months, and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has consistently shown great restraint in setting awards aside. Successful set-aside applications typically make up for only a single-digit percentage of all set-aside applications filed.

Furthermore, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court reliably respects the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals and very rarely intervenes. In 2024 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had decidedly restated Switzerland's arbitration friendliness, when it refused to follow the CJEU's Achmea and Komstroy decisions and confirmed a Swiss-seated arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate an intra-EU investment dispute on the basis of Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Conversely, the extension of an arbitration agreement to a non-signatory party is an exception to the rule, as the Swiss Federal Supreme Court confirmed in a decision of 10 March 2025. The party seeking to join a third party must demonstrate that it would be contrary to good faith to enforce privity of the arbitration agreement (4A_460/2024). The court confirmed its practice that a joinder will primarily occur where the third party intervened in the performance of a contract containing an arbitration clause.

Finally, Switzerland's infrastructure, short commutes, reliable public transportation, and quick access to international airports remain strong benefits for parties looking to resolve disputes in swift and cost-efficient arbitral proceedings.

The Swiss Arbitration Centre's reported 25% increase in newly commenced cases in 2025, bringing it to a record number of 125 newly commenced arbitrations, confirms the strengths of the Swiss arbitration environment. With the 2025 release of the Swiss Arbitration Centre's Supplemental Rules for Trust, Estate and Foundation Disputes, we expect Swiss arbitration to become even more attractive given that these rules are tailored to fields that are part of Switzerland's core global wealth management business.

Disruptions in supply chains and price volatility – renewed focus on traditional Swiss contract law concepts

While global supply chains became more resilient in 2025 compared with the immediate crisis management years of the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, businesses continued to face significant disruptions resulting from geopolitical tensions, sanctions, trade restrictions, inflation, volatile energy markets, and increasing tariffs.

These challenges in the market squarely placed traditional Swiss contract law concepts in the spotlight of international arbitrations governed by Swiss law. Specific performance, penalty clauses, adaptation of contracts – especially prices – to changed circumstances, immediate termination of long-term supply agreements, impossibility of performance, allocation of insufficient supply among the customer base, allocation of procurement risk and the understanding of force-majeure all played prominent roles. This included – sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessful – attempts to obtain specific performance through interim measures or emergency arbitration, pending the main dispute over the validity or applicability of existing price agreements. Often these disputes included some form of contractually agreed renegotiation clauses and the question whether both parties had genuinely complied with such clauses where renegotiations had not led to an agreement to change the contract in question.

Swiss contract law continues to regard contractual performance as the rule and intervention by courts and arbitral tribunals as the exception. Swiss law places primary responsibility on the contracting parties to allocate commercial risks themselves. Consequently, supply shortages, increased transportation costs, labour shortages, or fluctuating commodity prices generally remain part of the ordinary entrepreneurial risk assumed by commercial parties. The claim for specific performance thus remains reliably available under Swiss law, even where rendering performance has become economically burdensome for the counterparty. It is for the parties to agree in their contracts the circumstances justifying adaptation of the contract and the ways in which the contract shall be adapted. In some cases, the question then arose as to whether such adaption clauses themselves could be adapted, if the adaptation of the contract per such clause in the view of one party did not sufficiently address the gravity of the change in circumstances. Consistent with the traditional position of Swiss law, it will be for the parties to make clear whether such adaptation of the adaptation clause shall be possible, otherwise it will occur only in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Absent any explicit or implicit agreement by the parties, Swiss law sets high thresholds for judicial interference with agreed contract terms. Mere deterioration of a contract's profitability or a contract becoming loss-making is insufficient to justify judicial adaptation of the contract. The Swiss Supreme Court consistently requires that there be a change in the fundamental economic framework in which the contract had been concluded, that this change occurs after contract conclusion, that this change was unforeseeable at the time of contracting or reasonably deemed excluded by the parties, and that this change fundamentally alters the agreed equilibrium between performance and counter-performance.

Similarly, immediate termination of supply agreements is subject to a high threshold under Swiss law. Broad concepts such as “material breach”, absent a further agreed contractual definition, are typically interpreted restrictively under Swiss law. Failing an agreement on grounds for immediate termination, the terminating party must demonstrate that it could not be reasonably expected to continue the contract due to the circumstances that caused it to declare termination. This standard is difficult to meet in practice, thus reinforcing the notion that Swiss law reliably protects the written agreement and that it is for commercial parties to agree exceptions to this principle or otherwise be held to their word.

Given the ongoing political and economic instability on the one hand, and the significant capital allocation to the build-out of artificial intelligence infrastructure – with its reliance on GPUs, memory, energy and cooling – on the other, we anticipate that disruptions of and challenges to supply chains will remain a constant subject matter in arbitration. In many of these instances damages will be insufficient to address the buyer's needs and claims for specific performance will become even more frequent than they already are now. Conversely, sellers will find themselves more frequently overburdened with their procurement risk and thus may also more frequently have to look for adaption of the contract. Both issues meet where the quantity of goods the seller can procure is insufficient to satisfy all of the buyers in full. We expect to see this issue more frequently, and tribunals – absent agreed terms – will have to look to a multitude of circumstances to determine whether it is first come, first serve for buyers or whether sellers may ration goods among their customers.

Economic sanctions and arbitration

On 4 March 2022, Switzerland implemented the first package of economic sanctions against Russia. With minor deviations, these were the economic sanctions that the European Union had rolled out in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Since then, Switzerland has closely aligned its sanctions regime with that of the European Union and implemented additional sanctions packages. Today, sanctions legislation in Switzerland and the European Union is by and large identical.

Rendering legal services to the government of the Russian Federation or to legal entities in the Russian Federation is prohibited under article 28e(1)(a) of the Ukraine Ordinance. There is an exception to this prohibition in article 28e(10)(a) of the Ukraine Ordinance, provided that the legal services are necessary to preserve the right to legal defence in court proceedings and the right to a valid appeal. There is a further exception in article 28e(10)(b) of the Ukraine Ordinance, provided that the legal services are necessary to ensure access to court proceedings, administrative proceedings and arbitral proceedings in Switzerland, a member state of the European Economic Area or the United Kingdom or for the recognition and enforcement of a court judgment or an arbitration award rendered in Switzerland, a member state of the European Economic Area or the United Kingdom.

Under Russian law, since 2020 Russian courts have been able to ignore arbitration and choice of court agreements, irrespective of the law applicable to such agreements, on the grounds that Russian parties could not expect fair proceedings abroad. As part of its counter-measures against foreign sanctions, Russia gave its courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning sanctioned Russian entities and disputes concerning foreign sanctions in Article 248 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (APC). The same provision also allows Russian courts to issue anti-suit injunctions against foreign proceedings under threat of criminal sanctions.

Initially, article 248 APC was used by Russian courts to protect Russian entities subject to foreign sanctions. However, Russian courts now use this provision whenever they perceive a restrictive measure against or disadvantage to a Russian legal entity. Counterparties to Russian legal entities at first attempted to blunt the Russian courts' use of article 248 APC by requesting anti-suit injunctions abroad to prevent Russian legal entities from going to Russian courts in the first place. Typically, they order foreign companies not to apply for anti-suit injunctions abroad under threat of large fines, which directly exposes assets located in Russia to immediate enforcement and could trigger proceedings for recognition and enforcement of such Russian court decisions abroad.

On 12 February 2025 Switzerland implemented the EU's response of November 2024 in article 29d of the Ukraine Ordinance. Since then, it is explicit in Swiss legislation that any orders, decisions, judgements or other court measures on the basis of or in connection with article 248 APC or comparable Russian legal provisions are not recognised, carried out or enforced (article 29d(1) Ukraine Ordinance). The provision also makes clear that any requests for legal assistance in connection with any alleged violation of such orders, decisions, judgements or other court measures will not be granted (article 29d(2) Ukraine Ordinance). Finally, any penalties or other sanctions issued under the Russian Criminal Code for violations of orders, decisions, judgements or other court measures based on article 248 APC will not be recognised and will not be executed in Switzerland (article 29d(3) Ukraine Ordinance).

Outlook

Switzerland's outlook in arbitration is positive. The quality of services offered by both its law firms as well as institutions is high, while Swiss universities provide a steady flow of strong talent. Switzerland's legislative framework, both in terms of substantive law as well as arbitration law, is stable and proven in practice. Swiss contract law is apt to address the current and future challenges in international commerce. Switzerland is arbitration friendly and reliable in respecting the finality of awards. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court remains solid in its position in deferring to arbitration and arbitral awards, while not compromising on protecting procedural safeguards and good faith conduct.


Chambers & Partners, International Arbitration, Tends & Developments 2026