PIL.OT / DEVELOPMENT
PIL.OTv0.62.2
Joel Hames's case note in Arbitration International examines Naftogaz v Gazprom (AIFC-C/CFI/2026/0002), in which the AIFC Court of First Instance recognised and enforced a USD 1.13 billion Swiss-seated ICC award against Gazprom despite a prior Russian anti-enforcement injunction.
The judgment, delivered ex parte and on an expressly preliminary basis, sidesteps the unresolved dispute over the translation and scope of Article 14(4) of the AIFC Constitutional Statute and grounds jurisdiction in the AIFC Arbitration and Court Regulations, which extend to awards made irrespective of the seat. The author argues that the decision shows a pragmatic, pro-enforcement trajectory in AIFC jurisprudence.
The basis of the AIFC Court's jurisdiction to recognise and enforce a foreign-seated arbitral award, and the effect of a foreign anti-enforcement injunction on that jurisdiction.
Hames considers the AIFC's role in enforcing foreign awards through the Russian anti-enforcement injunction and the regulatory basis of jurisdiction. The analysis evaluates the pro-enforcement trajectory while preserving the judgment's expressly preliminary and ex parte character.
Arbitration International · 2026
DOI 10.1093/arbint/aiag016