JAW 2026: AI efficiency vs risks, global and local integration, Africa as an active architect in future of dispute resolution

Bowmans is a proud co-host, in conjunction with the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa AFSA), of the second Johannesburg Arbitration Week, which is currently being held at the Sandton Convention Centre.

Johannesburg Arbitration Week (JAW) aims to explore the issues and challenges in the rapidly evolving field of international commercial arbitration, with a special focus on the key initiatives shaping and revolutionising dispute resolution in Africa.

Our team on the ground compiled the following highlights of the key discussions and themes over the first two days of JAW 2026. 

DAY ONE

Arbitration on the African continent and cross-border trade

Africa is not a passive participant but an active architect in shaping the future of dispute resolution. In a dialogue between former heads of state across the continent (including Mozambique, Nigeria, Kenya and Liberia) a recurring theme was the role that leadership can play in conflict resolution. They shared insights on the growing tension between youth and political leadership and the increasing demand by women for meaningful participation in decision-making structures. They urged renewed cohesion across the continent, cautioning that division is the greatest vulnerability for exploitation.

With cross-border trade growing exponentially, disputes invariably arise. The courts give arbitration force, and the future of arbitration depends on its recognition and enforcement by the courts. In a session focused on arbitration practice, pitfalls and perspectives through the eyes of the Bench, the outlook is bright: courts across the globe are taking an increasingly pro-arbitration position.

Arbitration is the first and last day of the play – not the dress rehearsal – and the New York Convention may be relied on by both the ‘sinners’ and ‘saints’ for purposes of enforcement. Courts are wary of opposition in the garb of appeals or review. A recent decision in England emphasised that the court does not have discretion to recognise and enforce; even public policy considerations are limited to enforcement and are not concerned with the underlying subject matter of the dispute.

Views from the judiciary

Retired Judge Roland Sutherland implored practitioners to embrace radical reform:

• First, by refusing to disaggregate mediation, arbitration and the court process and to instead view them as part of the same ecology of dispute resolution.
• Second, by tapping into existing talent by appointing experienced practitioners as permanent judges on a part-time basis.

Judge Davis provided useful insight into the practical impact of the mandatory Mediation Directive which was implemented in the Gauteng Division earlier this year; at present, the lead time for a trial date is approximately six months (down from five years).

International collaboration and investor-state considerations

Founded in 1996 in conjunction with leading law firms, accounting firms and business organisations, AFSA celebrated 30 years of administering commercial, domestic and international disputes through arbitration and mediation across Africa.

In a session focused on BRICS, AfCFTA and the fading rules-based order, profound changes in the global trade and the dispute resolution landscape were identified, including the personal sanctioning of ICC judges (affecting risk exposure for arbitrators); China’s decision to grant 53 African states 100% tariff-free market access; and sanctions causing Russian parties to turn to ‘friendly’ jurisdictions like South Africa, India and Kazakhstan for enforcement. Practitioners discussed how BRICS countries are positioning themselves as seats of choice for cross-border international arbitration and the need for strategic advice including the appointment of region-specific arbitration institutions who better understand geopolitical circumstances.

Efforts to establish alternative arbitration regimes within BRICS will require time, as divergent national priorities continue to challenge the implementation of a unified set of rules and arbitral framework. The intention is a lower-cost alternative to institutions such as the ICC in the southern hemisphere – the current outlook is optimistic.

Recent investor-State disputes in the mining sector are increasingly focused on performance and regulatory compliance rather than expropriation. While the long life of these investments makes it unrealistic to hold States strictly to legal and regulatory frameworks agreed decades ago, particularly as environmental, governance, and anti-corruption standards evolve, regulatory change should not be used to undermine agreed investment protections. Preserving investor confidence requires a careful balance between legitimate regulatory evolution and legal certainty; failing to strike it risks destabilising long term contractual relationships across sectors.

Arbitration hubs and the seat of the arbitration

In a session exploring structural reform, judicial confidence and the rise of African arbitration hubs, it was noted that, while Africa generates some of the world’s most complex disputes, these disputes are consistently determined in foreign seats. While acknowledging the significant progress being made through reformed legislation and institutional expansion (including the growing footprint of the ICC on the continent), entrenched contracting practices and unequal bargaining power continue to favour established seats like Switzerland and Singapore. Panellists emphasised that this affects both the substantive outcomes (proximity is key for institutional and regulatory knowledge and, importantly, context) as well as deprives practitioners of further development and jurisprudence.

Building credible African arbitral hubs requires more than legislative reform: it demands organised systems anchored in judicial support, institutional integrity and practitioner confidence. Ultimately, success should not be measured by market dominance: it should be measured by a shift in the market’s perception of Africa not as an ‘emerging’ arbitration destination but as an obvious one for continent-related disputes.

DAY TWO 

The dominant theme for Day 2 of JAW was institutional strengthening, legal certainty, and pragmatic adaptation as African arbitration continues to integrate more deeply into the global system. As Africa’s arbitration ecosystem continues to deepen and globalise, a strong theme of consolidation rather than disruption emerges, reinforcing institutional trust, procedural integrity, and legal certainty.

Africa’s arbitration framework is maturing and converging with global best practice

In the first panel discussion of the day, partners from the Bowmans offices in Mauritius, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia shared insights on developments in Africa’s legislative landscape and judicial treatment of arbitration awards. Keep an eye out for a detailed report on this session to follow.

In a session focussed on the Architecture of International Arbitration Practice, panellists discussed how international arbitration rests on a carefully constructed global architecture comprising international treaties, national legislation, institutional rules and the court’s treatment of arbitral awards. The panel explored how these layers interact to create predictability, enforceability and confidence in cross‑border dispute resolution.

In South Africa, the International Arbitration Act 15 of 2017 incorporates both the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention, consolidating international arbitration enforcement into a single, modern instrument. The International Arbitration Act represents a watershed moment for South Africa and has removed any lingering doubt that South Africa is a pro‑arbitration jurisdiction.

Courts and arbitrators jointly safeguard enforceability

National Courts are the gatekeepers of arbitration. Diamana Diawara, previously the ICC Africa director and currently a member of the AFSA Court, shared her experience that arbitrators globally are keenly aware of the treatment of their awards by courts. Arbitrators play a critical role in the enforceability of awards and should always have local and international stakeholders in mind when drafting awards. Awards must be practical, well-reasoned, procedurally sound with due regard for due process.

AI offers efficiency but raises long‑term professional risks

In a panel discussing the use of AI in arbitration proceedings, it was acknowledged that the use of AI introduces real efficiencies, especially in document-heavy matters, including document review, hearing preparation, transcription, and identifying inconsistencies in the record. However, there is a clear tension between cost-efficiency benefits of AI and the need to properly train the next generation of practitioners. Sound judgment and reasoning are developed through experience, exposure, and learning by doing; practitioners should not deprive themselves of these necessary skills by over-reliance on AI – especially at a junior level.

Integration of global and local realities

In a session on the impact of sanctions on international arbitration and enforcement, the group chief legal & regulatory affairs officer for MTN emphasised that, while sanctions form part of a policy framework, there is a direct operational impact – particularly in cases of ‘secondary sanctions’ and have the capacity to undermine the intended efficacy of arbitration proceedings. In South Africa, parties are not automatically indemnified from the consequences of complying with sanctions. Parties should carefully consider classic boilerplate clauses such as force majeure, illegality and incapability of performance so that they reflect the political reality and are fit for purpose. Practitioners should position themselves to provide contextually informed advice rooted in local imperatives.

In a session focused on critical minerals, energy security and strategic supply chains, sector specialists in mining, trade, and construction, discussed project delivery challenges and the dispute resolution tools that can be utilised to meet those challenges. If investors fail to do their due diligence to ensure that effective dispute resolution processes are in place in advance (bilateral treaties, ICSID arbitration, etc) then captive investments may be vulnerable. Tension exists between the regulatory reality and commercial interests resulting in a mismatch between policy and legislation on the one hand, and the ability to implement on the other.

Evolution of investment arbitration in Africa

Energy and infrastructure projects are highly regulated from an environmental, licensing and property perspective. Certainty is key to boosting investor confidence. This may be achieved through the adoption of harmonised arbitration rules relevant for and established in Africa. The SADC Charter signed in 2024 is a step in the right direction.

African countries have largely contributed to the international investment treaty jurisprudence as respondents under BITs and investor-state agreements. Increase in withdrawals from BITs and investor-state agreements initially sparked concerns, though there is optimism that the Protocol on Investment (passed by the African Union) and the introduction of foreign investment regulations and laws at State-level will shape international investor disputes going forward.

Several members of Bowmans’ Dispute Resolution team have been in attendance at Johannesburg Arbitration Week and contributed to this report. Jonathan Barnes is a partner in the firm’s Johannesburg office. Chantay Jaftha, Kelly Calvert-Evers, and Samantha Mason are Senior Associates in the Litigation Practice within the Dispute Resolution Department of the Johannesburg office. Mongale Falla is a Senior Associate who advises on various construction, mining and labour-related matters. Zandile Gando is an associate in the Johannesburg office.