1. The enforcement endgame starts at the beginning

Winning an arbitration is only part of the equation. The real test lies in turning that award into value. Sophisticated parties prepare for enforcement well before proceedings are initiated, stress-testing the accessibility of assets for recovery, as well as the structural weaknesses that could be exploited by a well-resourced or hostile creditor.

This is particularly critical when dealing with sovereigns or politically exposed counterparties. Enforcement can be delayed, derailed or reframed as illegitimate – especially where strategic assets or contested jurisdictions are involved. Planning for enforcement is not a postscript. It is the foundation of any commercially viable arbitration.

2. Reputational risk doesn’t respect confidentiality

Confidentiality may govern the proceedings, but it doesn’t protect against reputational fallout that can shape stakeholder sentiment long before the facts are tested. Disputes can become public before they formally begin, especially in the pre-arbitration phase, where strategic leaks, political briefings and market speculation can set the tone.

Once proceedings commence, parties are often bound by silence while third parties – including governments, NGOs and counterparties – shape the public narrative. Reputational exposure is not always incidental. It is increasingly engineered. Strategic disclosures and selective framing are used to influence outcomes, unsettle counterparties and gain leverage. This is not a communications issue. It’s a risk that demands foresight, not reaction.

3. Geopolitics shape the rules of engagement

Arbitration is not insulated from the political climate. Treaty withdrawals, sanctions, shifting investment regimes and the growing use of public policy defences have made disputes a tool of statecraft. Governments are not just defending claims. They are actively reshaping the enforcement landscape and the incentives around compliance.

From Spain’s exit from the Energy Charter Treaty to Nigeria’s successful challenge to the P&ID award, sovereign actors are using legal, political and reputational levers in tandem. Any effective approach to arbitration must account for these geopolitical dynamics as much as legal precedent.

4. Stakeholder strategy is risk management

Disputes have implications beyond the parties involved. They affect credit ratings, investor confidence, market access and regulatory perception. In sovereign and regulated sectors, these effects are magnified.

Key stakeholders – from institutional investors and analysts to policymakers and trade bodies – often form views based on limited or contested information. Silence can create its own risks. Proactive, jurisdiction-aware engagement helps mitigate misinterpretation, maintain trust and reinforce a credible and coherent cross-border plan.

5. Narrative control is a strategic lever, not a PR add-on

Disputes are not just about legal arguments. They are also about narrative positioning. Whether to frame a dispute narrowly or link it to broader governance or political issues is a strategic decision that shapes outcomes.

Unmanaged scrutiny can distort the facts or escalate tensions. A well-managed narrative, rooted in discretion, timing and jurisdictional sensitivity, can influence negotiations, ease enforcement and support commercial continuity. In high-stakes disputes, narrative control is not cosmetic. It is decisive.

Read the full report here

To discuss how DRD Partnership can help shape arbitration strategy in high-stakes environments, get in touch with the team at arbitration@drdpartnership.com