Young ICSID Profiles Part Thirteen – 2026 Forecasts

Young ICSID is delighted to present the latest edition of its profiles showcasing skilled young professionals in the field of international investment law and dispute resolution. Each issue delves into practical aspects of career development and skill enhancement, offering perspectives from young professionals across the globe.

This installment features perspectives from Alan Bonfiglio Ríos (Mexico’s General Counsel for International Trade), Hamid Abdulkareem (Counsel, Three Crowns LLP, London), and Pirkka-Marja Põldvere (Partner, LEADELL Pilv Advokaadibüroo AS, Estonia). They discuss their careers, regional developments, and outlooks for 2026. 

These interviews were conducted independently and in writing. There was no coordination or collaboration between the interviewees. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the interviewees. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of ICSID, nor those of the organizations with which the interviewees are associated or employed.

What is your current role, and what key moment or action helped start your arbitration career? 

Alan: Since 2023, I have served as General Counsel for International Trade (Director General de Consultoría Jurídica de Comercio Internacional) at the Mexican Ministry of Economy, an institution I joined in 2017. I also recently became an adjunct professor of Public International Law at National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)’s Law School. The Consultoría Jurídica division handles Mexico's representation in international disputes under various trade agreements. Established during NAFTA negotiations, Consultoría Jurídica not only leads legal advice on trade agreement negotiations, but it also represents Mexico in investment arbitrations.

A key moment early in my career were the courses at UNAM that introduced me to ISDS, followed by LLMs in international commercial law (Université Paris Nanterre) and international law (University College London), where I further studied investment arbitration.

A second key moment was starting to work early in my career at law firms in Mexico specializing in litigation and arbitration, which gave me hands-on experience with prominent practitioners and allowed me to apply academic knowledge to procedural aspects of arbitration. Joining the Consultoría Jurídica marked another milestone, and I have since focused primarily on ISDS, international law, and dispute resolution. 

Hamid: I am Counsel in the London office of Three Crowns LLP, a firm focused exclusively on international arbitration, including investor–State disputes. I first encountered investment arbitration nearly 20 years ago as an undergraduate, while preparing to participate in the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. The Jessup exposed me to public international law in practice—treaty interpretation, preparing memorials, jurisdictional debates, etc.—and I was immediately drawn to it. That experience led me to take arbitration modules during my LLM three years later, and then to seek a role at a firm with a leading arbitration practice. From there, my path has been a combination of saying “yes” to opportunities, working hard, and lots of good fortune.

Pirkka: I am a partner at LEADELL Law Offices in Tallinn, Estonia. For the past approximately 20 years I have been representing clients in both litigation and arbitration, as well as acting as arbitrator, both domestically and, more prominently, internationally. 

My interest in arbitration started with writing a thesis on the subject at the University of Tartu and really took off after obtaining the LL.M. in International Commercial Arbitration Law from University of Stockholm in 2003/2004 (first year of the ICAL program). Ever since, I have been working with arbitration in one capacity or another, including lecturing on arbitration at Tartu University, advising the Estonian government on arbitration regulation, and of course acting as arbitrator and counsel in arbitrations. 

My interest in investment arbitration has another pillar: before starting to work at a law office and studying the ICAL program, I was an apprentice at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was more interested in public international law, or rather the borders between public and private international law (the topic of my bachelor’s thesis). Our law firm represented Estonia in an ICSID case (though I was not personally involved at the time). I have personally advised investors in bringing a claim against Estonia at ICSID.

What are the key recent arbitration developments in your region relevant to investment arbitration?  

Alan: On the one hand, I am intrigued about the increase in the amounts claimed in investment arbitrations, not only against States in the Latin American region, but in general. For example, it is noteworthy to compare the maximum amounts claimed in the first NAFTA cases with those claimed in the latest arbitrations under this same treaty. 

On the other hand, I note with great interest that in various cases, defenses based on exceptions/carve-outs established in international treaties applicable to the dispute are beginning to be analyzed in depth. Some of these provisions have been analyzed before international trade panels, with similar provisions recently being discussed in ISDS. Two recent examples are Seda et al. v. Colombia and Riverside Coffee, LLC v. Nicaragua, in which defenses based on security exceptions were analyzed.

Hamid: From a London perspective, two developments stand out. First, the UK courts have continued to demonstrate strong and consistent support for arbitration, particularly at the enforcement stage. Most recently, the UK Supreme Court in Kingdom of Spain v. Infrastructure Services Luxembourg [2026] UKSC 9 confirmed that Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention constitutes a waiver by States of immunity from adjudicative jurisdiction in proceedings to recognise and enforce ICSID awards. That clarity reinforces London’s reputation as a reliable and predictable enforcement forum in investor–State disputes. Second, although the UK is no longer part of the EU, the ripple effects of Achmea and the termination of intra-EU BITs continue to shape the wider European landscape. Even from London, those developments influence how investments are structured, and enforcement strategy. 

Pirkka: Estonia has not been part of many investment arbitrations (4 ICSID cases concluded overall) so it would be difficult to generalize. In 2025, the Seaplane Harbour case came to an end (i.e., ELA USA Ltd v. Estonia; PCA case under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), where the investor’s claim was dismissed and it was resolved that Estonia had acted lawfully and that the port, object of the dispute, had been unlawfully transferred to private companies. An official statement by the Ministry of Justice regarding this case is publicly available here.

More generally, the key development is the termination of the intra-EU BITs, and overall, the effect of EU law on international arbitration – but none of this is specific to Estonia.

As investment arbitration develops, which skills should new practitioners focus on?

Alan: Judge Crawford explained it perfectly in his 2016 article: “How did I become an international lawyer? There is a short answer. You become a [domestic] lawyer first.” Before aspiring to be an expert in investment arbitration, it is essential to have a solid foundation in the legal system from which you come. Once that is achieved, the next step is to learn the foundations of public international law, international dispute resolution mechanisms and investment arbitration, and then put that knowledge into practice.

Similarly, it is extremely important to develop multicultural training (for example, studying abroad and in different languages), which will enable adaptation to different legal traditions and working methods.

One skill that all practitioners who do not come from a common law background should develop is the refinement of oral advocacy. Moot courts are useful for developing this skill, but it is not something that can be easily learned, developed, and perfected. I find interesting the new initiatives that offer training in cross-examination of witnesses and experts and in oral advocacy.

Hamid: First, precision in written advocacy. The ability to write clearly, persuasively and concisely is invaluable. Tribunals tend to appreciate clarity over flourish. Second, comfort with numbers. Damages analysis is central to most cases. You do not need to be an economist, but you do need to understand valuation methodologies and the assumptions underpinning expert reports. Third, judgment. Knowing which arguments to run, which points to leave aside, and how to maintain credibility before a tribunal is a skill that develops over time. One of the best ways to build it is to observe experienced advocates closely and ask yourself why strategic choices are being made.

And finally, never underestimate the importance of the “soft” skills — teamwork, cultural sensitivity and clear communication with clients under pressure. 

Pirkka: I would say that the main skill is interest in public international law and, more specifically, investment law, understanding broader global contexts. Without this, focusing on a detailed legal regime would be useless or boring. However, with interest, it is possible to develop the knowledge of investment law and especially practice, which is a large part of the skill set of an investment arbitration practitioner. Additionally, the overall understanding of how arbitration works is important. I would add interest in languages, though AI has had its role in decreasing this part.

ICSID has prioritized shortening the duration of proceedings and containing costs. Which case management tools or practices have you found most effective for improving time and cost efficiency? 

Alan: The practices and tools will depend on a case-by-case analysis, but there are five examples that I consider relevant:

Virtual Hearings. The pandemic demonstrated that some hearings, particularly those of short duration, can easily be conducted virtually. For example, hearings related to provisional measures, preliminary objections, and even hearings in jurisdictional phases (including those involving some examinations of witnesses and experts) can easily be conducted virtually. 

Machine Translations. It is not unusual for arbitration proceedings to be conducted in two languages, which means that courtesy translations of pleadings and some factual exhibits must be provided. There are new platforms (at reasonable cost) with information protection schemes that allow documents to be translated more efficiently and quickly or at least facilitate the translation work.

More Specific Document Production Phases. I see a preference on the part of investment tribunals to move away from the “commercial arbitration norm” of extensive document production, by limiting the number of document requests and implementing shorter and more expedited document production phases.

More Precise Post-Hearing Phases. Investment tribunals are increasingly scrutinizing post-hearing stages. The aim is to have Post-Hearing Briefs to summarize the most relevant aspects of what happened at the hearing and address Tribunal questions, rather than creating a new written round to repeat arguments already made during the arbitration. 

Extension of Pleadings. This is a challenge for attorneys, but the length of pleadings is a situation to consider. Some tribunals ask the parties to prepare pleadings of a “reasonable” length. To the extent possible, I believe this is feasible and will result in more concise pleadings, accompanied by lists of relevant issues, chronologies, and dramatis personae. This streamlines argument presentation in disputes and may reduce costs.

Hamid: Efficiency is as much about mindset as procedure: being strategic about what truly advances the client’s position. First, early procedural realism is key: to align expectations at the outset about the procedural aspects of a case, including sequencing jurisdictional objections (in some cases bifurcation can be helpful, but it may not generate efficiency in other cases), the scope of document production (if any), the number of written submissions, and sometimes, how quickly an award is required. Over-ambitious timetables can backfire; well-calibrated ones create discipline. Second, focused document production. Where tribunals can provide a clear early signal that only narrow, well-justified requests will be accepted (e.g. some tribunals direct in PO1 that a party’s requests must pertain only to matters in respect of which that party bears the burden of proof), this can significantly reduce time and cost. Third, technology and coordination. Good organization of counsel teams is an underrated cost-control mechanism. Efficient document management platforms, clear internal workstreams and disciplined drafting processes reduce duplication of effort. 

Pirkka: The focus should be on the aim of resolving the case and not the process itself (avoiding arguments à la “it is investment arbitration, it has always been this long and cumbersome - thus it should be, and it is ok if it is like this”). Sometimes the simpler approach is more to the point (though not at the expense of thorough legal analysis).

Looking ahead to 2026, what trends do you foresee shaping the investment arbitration landscape? 

Alan: There will be more frequent cases in which preliminary objections based on manifest lack of legal merit are analyzed, which was a topic analyzed in detail in the 2022 ICSID Rules reform. The decisions in these cases, which have been reported gradually, will help define the standard that must be demonstrated for these preliminary objections to be considered admissible.

I also believe that the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, together with the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, put the spotlight on climate change and the obligations of both States and investors in environmental matters. As a result, we will likely see these issues discussed more frequently in ISDS cases. 

I expect bilateral investment treaties will be updated more frequently as some States already do so to balance investment rights and obligations, introduce relevant provisions (such as environment, right to regulate, and health), and address procedural issues identified in their experience as parties and from previous awards that have not resolved priorities for certain States.

Likewise, we will see more frequent disclosure of third-party funding, whether voluntary or ordered by tribunals in various forms. This will undoubtedly remain a critical aspect, prompting investment tribunals to analyze more requests for security for costs. 

Hamid: We can expect continued debate around ISDS reform and evolving treaty drafting practice. New-generation treaties increasingly refine substantive protections and procedural mechanisms. A practical effect of these debates is greater scrutiny of damages, with tribunals engaging more deeply with valuation methodologies and discount rates. That aside, climate change and energy transition disputes are likely to remain prominent, particularly as regulatory frameworks evolve and States recalibrate energy policies. Finally, investment arbitration does not operate in isolation from broader political currents. Geopolitical fragmentation may influence both treaty policy and enforcement strategy. 

Pirkka: Efficiency is definitely a key on one side. At the same time, an eye should be kept on EU developments that concern investment arbitration.

What is your motto in life?

Alan: Coming from a civil law system, I clearly have a fondness for Latin mottos! Seneca is often credited with the phrase “luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” I like to think that what Seneca meant is that true “luck” is cultivated through effort, thousands of hours of preparation (similar to Malcolm Gladwell's famous “10,000-hour rule”), and hard work, taking advantage of fleeting opportunities that life offers.

Hamid: “Control what you can control.” There will often be many variables outside your influence. In the workplace, what you can control is the quality of your preparation, your professionalism, and your integrity. If you consistently focus on those, with a sprinkling of good luck, the rest tends to fall into place. 

Pirkka: If you do something, do it as well as you can, and don’t forget to have fun along the way!