• Can parties avoid national or regional regulatory laws by choosing a favorable arbitral seat and substantive law?
• Can arbitrators ignore "mandatory rules" regulating corporate governance, export trade sanctions, anti-money laundring rules, data protection laws and competition law?
• Can UNCITRAL harmonization efforts accommodate varied national "public interests"?
• Has arbitration become an autonomous legal system that can disregard national mandatory rules and instead create its own transnational rules?

Moderator: Constantine Partasides
Panelists: Sophie Nappert, Ilya Nikiforov, Martina Polasek

• What are the red flags signaling corrupt practices?
• Distinguishing between cultural and corrupt practices: is there an international standard?
• How can arbitrators ensure that corruption allegations are not obstruction and disruption tactics?
• Determining and meeting the burden of proof
• Does so-called transnational public policy provide a tool to deal with corruption?
• What are possible consequences and sanctions for corrupt practices in the context of an arbitration?

• Documenting and investigating compliance with laws and regulations: creating a future defense or leaving a smoking gun?

• Protecting confidential company information relating to compliance and corporate social responsibility programs from future disclosure

• What are the best methods for in-house and external counsel to work together in developing risk management policies that also ensure efficient dispute resolution?

• How can a company coordinate its positions when simultaneously engaged in private arbitration and proceedings before public authorities?

• What are and who controls the sources and the limits of arbitrator power?

• What is the correct balance between the parties' procedural agreements and the tribunal's power to conduct the proceedings in a manner it deems appropriate?

• Do expedited or emergency arbitrator procedures require more management by the tribunal and less party control?

• Jura novit curia: Can the tribunal raise points of facts, contract provisions, or law on its own motion?

• Do arbitration institutions have a duty to ensure that arbitrators act efficiently and fairly?

Moderator: Bo Nilsson
Panelists: Vladimir Khvalei, James Morrison, Robin Oldenstam, Neeti Sachdeva

• Will the new IBA Guidelines on party representatives bring needed order or create new issues?
• What role does culture have to play in determining what constitutes unethical behavior?
• Should a lawyer's duty to zealously represent his or her client be performed without regard to the arbitral process?
• Do arbitral institutions or tribunals have the power to saction a counsel's particularly bad behavior or to sanction a party?

• The abuse of challenging an arbitrator as strategy: should it be controlled or are challenges a freely exercisable right and are agreements to waive challenges enforceable?
• How far does an arbitrator have to go when  investigating potential conflicts and does the arbitrators’ duty of disclosure extend to secretaries to the Tribunal?
• Is it appropriate for counsel coordinate a defense to a challenge with the challenged arbitrator and should an arbitrator under challenge respond directly?
• How should arbitration institutes handle challenges: should they ever hold hearings, consult with the challenged arbitrator, give reasoned decisions, or publish their sanitized decisions?

Moderator: Luiz Olavo Baptista
Panelists: Crina Baltag, Yas Banifatemi, Johan Sidklev

• What are effective arbitration strategies for dealing with a change in government, a change in regulation, or a change in contracts?
•  Should contracts with a state party have a specially tailored arbitration clause?
•  Should institutional rules be adapted to meet the needs of arbitration with state-controlled parties?
• Does sovereign immunity extend to interim measures of protection? 

Jeremy Zell on behalf of the ICAL Alumni Association