In-House Counsel Ask the Questions: Infrastructure Arbitration Worldwide

As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, our firm proudly hosted a lively and forward-looking session titled “In-House Counsel Ask the Questions: Infrastructure Arbitration Worldwide.” The discussion brought together senior in-house counsel and experienced arbitration practitioners to explore the evolving challenges of dispute resolution in major construction and infrastructure projects.

The session was opened by Maria Kostytska, who set the scene with a historical perspective on one of Paris’s most iconic infrastructure projects—and the emblem of PAW 2026—the Eiffel Tower. Built for the 1889 Universal Exhibition, the tower famously faced aesthetic criticism and even litigation brought against the City of Paris by neighboring property owners concerned about obstructed views. While dispute resolution mechanisms at the time were rudimentary, the example underscored how today’s large-scale infrastructure projects rely on far more sophisticated legal tools, setting the stage for the discussion that followed.

We welcomed distinguished in-house counsel Julien Maniere Lagon (Vinci Energies), Hans David Hahn (AREVA Germany), and Elisabeth Nicolas (SUEZ) who framed the questions at the heart of modern infrastructure disputes.

They were joined by K&L Gates speakers Guillaume Hess, Matthew Walker, Rodolphe Ruffié Farrugia, and Stefano Bardella, who shared insights drawn from their experience advising on complex infrastructure disputes across multiple jurisdictions. 

The session concluded with closing remarks and a synthesis of key themes by Louis Degos.

What We Shared

The discussion focused on the practical realities facing parties involved in large-scale infrastructure projects and the strategic decisions that shape how disputes are managed.

Selecting the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism was a central theme. The panel examined mediation, dispute boards, arbitration, further litigation before international chambers of local courts, noting that each mechanism has distinct advantages. Speakers agreed there is no universal solution; the effectiveness of any mechanism depends on factors such as the stage of the project and whether the priority is continuity of works or suspension.

The panel also emphasized that, while arbitral institutions provide robust procedural frameworks, the choice of seat and arbitrator often outweighs the choice of institution and arbitration rules in complex, multi-stage infrastructure disputes.

In particular, the seat determines critical issues such as potential annulment proceedings and enforcement pathways. Drafting teams were encouraged to consider the project location, the parties’ nationalities, and—where relevant—jurisdictions linked to asset locations or treaties that facilitate enforcement.

Finally, cost optimization emerged as a core concern for in-house counsel. The discussion highlighted the importance of:

• Transparent collaboration between in-house and external legal teams
• Strong, well structured contract drafting from the outset
• Early identification of potential issues by in-house teams to avoid escalation

What We Learned

While the discussion covered a broad range of perspectives, several points stood out:

• There is increasing recognition that dispute resolution strategy must be tailored, not standardized, particularly in long term, multijurisdictional infrastructure projects.
• The seat of arbitration remains a critical strategic decision, influencing both risk management and enforceability.
• Budget predictability and cost control are front of mind for in-house counsel, reinforcing the value of early legal input, disciplined drafting, and proactive issue spotting throughout the project lifecycle.

We extend our sincere thanks to all speakers and participants for contributing to a thoughtful and engaging exchange during Paris Arbitration Week.

Event Insights are key perspectives from events we host, attend, and support highlighting what matters most to our clients and industries.