Call for Papers
2026 Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation
The Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei (“CAA”) and the Asian Center for WTO & International Health Law and Policy, College of Law, National Taiwan University (“ACWH”) will jointly host the “2026 Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation” from October 20 to 21, 2026 in Taipei, Taiwan.
Theme
The conference theme is “Geoeconomics and International Dispute Resolution.” Geopolitical confrontations in recent years have had a profound impact on the international economy and industries, leading to an increase in international disputes and the development of innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and distributed ledger technology (DLT), to outcompete amid these confrontations or hedge against them. Ever-changing geoeconomics further underscore the need to reflect on the function and mechanism of international dispute resolution. Could international dispute resolution serve as a tool to mitigate uncertainties in this geoeconomic era, or would it backfire under geoeconomics? How could, and should, international dispute resolution adapt to the challenges posed by emerging technologies, such as maintaining human centrality amidst AI’s widespread adoption and addressing DLT’s regulatory resistance nature? We invite international dispute resolution experts to share their insights and reflect on these profound issues.
Submission
Submissions of abstracts (500 to 1,000 words) on any of the following topics are welcome.
How does geopolitical confrontation impact international dispute resolution laws or practice? How could international dispute resolution be designed or employed to resolve disputes caused by geopolitical confrontation?
Geopolitical confrontation nowadays not only creates disputes but also profoundly affects dispute resolution laws. On the one hand, international dispute resolution, described as a transnational or supranational legal framework, has the potential to resolve disputes arising from business-to-business, state-to-business, or state-to-state confrontations, such as supply chain disruptions, investment disputes, or power confrontations. On the other hand, to gain an edge in confrontation, nation-states might integrate geopolitical considerations into the design or application of dispute resolution laws. How could international dispute resolution be designed or employed to address geopolitical confrontation? How could it handle the challenges posed by geopolitical confrontation to international dispute resolution laws?
Suggested topics include:
Could international arbitration resolve geopolitical disputes, and how?
Could international mediation resolve geopolitical disputes, and how?
Would, and should, clausula rebus sic stantibus be understood differently in the context of geopolitical confrontation?
Would, and should, recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards operate differently in the context of geopolitical confrontation?
Would, and should, public policy be understood differently in the context of geopolitical confrontation?
Would, and should, geopolitics politicize international dispute resolution mechanisms, e.g., arbitral institutions?
Other topics related to international dispute resolution and geopolitical confrontation.
Could international dispute resolution address disputes involving emerging denationalized financial instruments or services, such as crypto assets, virtual asset service providers, and decentralized finance? How could international dispute resolution laws be designed to address their cross-border and regulatory resistance nature?
Geopolitical confrontation also fosters the development of certain denationalized financial instruments or services, such as crypto assets (including stablecoins), virtual asset service providers, and decentralized finance. Their adoption is driven by their cross-border, anonymous, and decentralized nature, leading to relative resistance to sanctions, surveillance, and regulation. However, these natures also pose challenges to resolving disputes involving these denationalized funds. Is international dispute resolution, described as a transnational or supranational legal framework, capable of resolving these disputes? How could international dispute resolution mechanisms be designed to adapt to the cross-border, anonymous, and decentralized nature of denationalized finance?
Suggested topics include:
How could, and should, international dispute resolution proceed when parties are unknown?
How could, and should, international dispute resolution determine the seat, the jurisdiction, or the governing law in cross-border denationalized finance disputes?
How could, and should, arbitral awards be enforced in cross-border denationalized finance disputes?
Whether and how to design special dispute-resolution rules for denationalized finance disputes?
How to understand and position emerging decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms?
Other topics related to international dispute resolution and denationalized finance.
How should international dispute resolution govern the use of AI in its proceedings? What aspects of international dispute resolution should be preserved for human beings?
Geopolitical confrontation entails power competition for technological hegemony, casting AI into the spotlight. International dispute resolution mechanisms also compete in their AI policies and applications. However, widespread AI adoption risks marginalizing human beings, underscoring the need to reflect on the normatively desirable boundaries between humans and algorithms. Notwithstanding the potential of AI, what are the limits to the use of AI in international dispute resolution? What areas of international dispute resolution should be preserved for human beings?
Suggested topics include:
How could, and should, the rules of human-centered AI be designed in international dispute resolution?
How could, and should, the rules for human-AI interactions be designed in international dispute resolution proceedings?
How could, and should, international dispute resolution institutions discipline and monitor the use of AI in dispute resolution proceedings?
How could, and should, national AI laws impact international dispute resolution?
How could, and should, international dispute resolution laws treat AI arbitrators?
Other topics related to international dispute resolution and human-centered AI.
Review Process
Abstracts must be submitted by June 30, 2026. The organizing committee will review abstracts and announce the results on July 15, 2026. Applicants whose abstracts pass the review process will be invited to present at the conference. The invited presenters must submit their complete and unpublished papers by September 20, 2026.
Presenters are also invited to submit their papers to the Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal (CAAJ, an ESCI-indexed journal published by ACWH on a semiannual basis) for peer review, with a view to possible publication.
Important Dates (Taipei Time)
- Abstract submission deadline: June 30, 2026
- Abstract acceptance notification: July 15, 2026
- Full paper submission deadline: September 20, 2026
- Conference dates: October 20 to 21, 2026
Conference/Paper Language
All papers need to be written and presented in English.
Guidelines for Submission of Abstracts and Papers
Authors are invited to submit an abstract and a curriculum vitae in Word or PDF format to wtocenter@ntu.edu.tw. Each abstract submission must include the following information:
Paper title;
First name, middle name (if any), and surname of the author;
Institutional affiliation and title;
Email address;
Abstract (500 to 1,000 words); and
Up to 10 keywords.
Authors are strongly encouraged to use The Bluebook citations for their abstracts and full papers.
Contact information
Sunny Guan Ye Li (Ms.), Asian Center for WTO & International Health Law and Policy, College of Law, National Taiwan University
(Official website: http://www.ntu.law.acwh.tw/)
Tel: +886-2-33663366 ext. 55234
Fax: +886-2-33668965
Email: wtocenter@ntu.edu.tw
Elsa Yeh (Ms.), Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei
(Official website: https://en.arbitration.org.tw/)
Tel: +886-2-27078672 ext. 11
Fax: +886-2-27078642
Email: elsayeh@adr.org.tw
