In early September 2025, the ICC issued a report exploring the impact of regulatory initiatives on arbitration in Latin American and Iberian countries (the “Region”). The report draws on responses from members of the Latin American and Iberian (LAI) Regional Chapter of the ICC Institute of World Business Law and was intended to identify key trends, challenges and opportunities affecting arbitration in the Region. The study posed four questions to the reporters:

• What are the legislative or regulatory initiatives (public or private) that are currently being debated within their jurisdiction? What will be the direction of changes to the legislation and/or the practice of arbitration in their country, as they currently stand?
• What impact would these legislative or regulatory initiatives have on the development of arbitration and why? Do they pose a threat to their jurisdiction as a place for international arbitration?
• What measures, if any, have been taken or are being taken to avoid these initiatives becoming law?
• If these initiatives do become law, what measures could be recommended to mitigate their impact?

The study considered 17 national reports of which 12 reported that there were proposals for regulatory and legislative initiatives that would potentially impact arbitration —both positively and negatively. The twelve countries where that is the case were: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Spain, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal and Venezuela.

Key Findings

The study highlights that while arbitration remains a preferred dispute resolution mechanism in the Region, it faces increasing regulatory and legislative scrutiny, particularly where public entities or strategic sectors are involved. Motivations might include transparency concerns, political sensitivities and the oversight of public contracts.

A few significant trends and examples appear across the study’s findings:

• Brazil: The study profiles Brazil’s Bill No. 3293/2021 as an example of significant regulatory intervention. The bill proposes restricting arbitrators to a maximum of ten active cases, preventing staff at arbitral institutions from acting as arbitrators in cases managed by that institution, and measures to secure greater diversity and less repetition in tribunal composition. The bill would also make all arbitral awards public and would require arbitrators to disclose any circumstances giving rise to the “slightest doubt” about impartiality, rather than the more widely adopted standard of “justified doubt”. The study notes that due to feedback from the Brazilian arbitration community and other institutions (such as the ICC International Court of Arbitration) about its potential impact on the attractiveness of Brazil as an arbitral seat, the progress of the Bill appears to have stalled for the moment.
• Guatemala: The study discusses a legislative initiative contained in the proposal for amendment of Public Procurement Law (Bill No. 6141 of 20 September 2022). It includes a proposal for granting exclusive jurisdiction over public procurement disputes to courts with jurisdiction over matters of administrative law, which the ICC views as having potentially significant adverse effects on arbitration in Guatemala.
• Peru: The ICC study examines several Peruvian bills that aimed at improving transparency in State-related arbitral matters, requiring that information and awards become public, not only at the end of proceedings but during them—including in public-private partnership disputes. In 2024, new legislation also mandated that all arbitrators and arbitration centres be included in a national register, with further details to be implemented through subsequent regulations.
• Ecuador: While Ecuador is not considering new legislative initiatives, the study notes several constitutional challenges to regulations enabling international arbitration by State entities. The current rules permit international arbitration (seated in a New York Convention countries) if pre-approved by the Attorney General, aiming for a balance between oversight and ensuring Ecuador’s participation in global dispute mechanisms.
• Wider region: Across the twelve jurisdictions surveyed, the ICC study identifies both common and distinctive themes. Many legislative efforts emphasise transparency—particularly when the State is a party—while others introduce professional restrictions or registration requirements for arbitrators.

A central question posed by the ICC study is whether these regulatory trends might adversely impact on the development and status of international arbitration in countries in the Region. The answer, according to the study, is complex. While greater transparency and supervision might carry the benefits of enhancing trust/legitimacy in arbitration, excessive regulation or the erosion of key features (such as confidentiality and party autonomy) may risk discouraging both domestic and foreign use of arbitration—potentially to the detriment of investment and economic development.

Conclusion: Navigating change

The ICC study concludes that all regulatory reforms can always usefully be debated with input from the arbitration community and business sectors, to ensure that arbitration remains efficient, reliable and attractive for complex cross-border disputes. Practitioners can remain alert to these developments and proactive in providing feedback to advocate for balanced, internationally aligned reforms.

To learn more, you can access further resources and the full study on the ICC Institute of World Business Law’s website.