01/07/2026
It’s no longer news that arbitration is firmly established as one of the main methods of dispute resolution in Brazil and worldwide.
Throughout 2025, several innovations were observed in arbitration. On an international level, a study conducted by Queen Mary University was published and, once again, highlighted the consolidation of arbitration as the preferred method for resolving cross-border disputes.
Within Brazil, relevant decisions were rendered by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”), and significant advances were made by arbitral institutions with the creation of new rules tailored to the current context. Also in 2025, Brazil was officially recognized as one of the seats of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”).
To elucidate these advances and achievements, a brief summary is provided below:
STJ recognizes the effectiveness of an arbitration clause included in the bylaws of a civil association: the Third Panel of the STJ, in Special Appeal No. 2.166.582/SC, recognized the effectiveness of an arbitration clause included in the bylaws of a non-profit civil association, confirming the autonomy of this legal entity to deliberate, through an assembly, on its internal rules. The STJ held that it is not for the Judiciary to previously assess the nullity or ineffectiveness of the arbitration clause — as occurs with adhesion contracts — so that, a priori, it is the arbitral tribunal that has jurisdiction to rule on the existence, validity, and effectiveness of the arbitration agreement.
STJ decides that arbitral tribunals lack jurisdiction to rule on the compensation of credits subject to judicial reorganization: through the judgment of Special Appeal No. 2.163.463/SP, the STJ decided that an arbitral award may not determine the compensation of reciprocal credits whose triggering events precede the judicial reorganization proceeding. According to the STJ, due to the rationale of the Brazilian Judicial Reorganization and Bankruptcy Law, all matters relating to the satisfaction of credits subject to judicial reorganization fall within the jurisdiction of the reorganization court. However, the STJ noted that the mere fact that one of the parties involved in the dispute is under judicial reorganization does not prevent the company from being a party to arbitration.
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and Arbitration – CAM-CCBC Administrative Guidance No. 07/2025: the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada (“CAM-CCBC”) has published its guidelines for the use of AI in proceedings under its administration. Although it stated that it does not currently use AI mechanisms to assist in the conduct of proceedings, the parameters established by CAM-CCBC encourage the safe use of the technology by participants, emphasizing the importance of observing duties of discretion and confidentiality, as well as encouraging dialogue regarding the possibility of using such mechanisms. CAM-CCBC also highlighted that the Guidance may be updated to reflect technological advances and regulatory changes.
Brazil is recognized as a seat of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”): in 2025, after approval by the National Congress, the Brazilian government ratified the Seat Agreement entered into with the PCA, making Brazil the main seat of the institution in Latin America. The establishment of a PCA seat in Brazil results from the country’s traditional diplomatic position, marked by neutrality, which reinforces the perception of Brazil’s role as an impartial actor in the resolution of disputes with geopolitical repercussions, especially at the regional level.
Arbitration is the preferred method for the resolution of cross-border disputes: the 14th edition of the International Arbitration Survey by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University highlighted the consolidation of arbitration as the main mechanism to resolve international disputes. Remarkably, 87% of participants reported choosing for arbitration — either on a standalone basis or combined with other dispute resolution methods — as their preferred mechanism to address this type of dispute, while only 4% of interviewees reported a preference for court proceedings. The survey also emphasized methods to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of arbitral proceedings, with most participants reporting positive experiences with methods such as expedited arbitration and the document-only proceedings.
The year 2025 proved to be successful for arbitration, both domestically and internationally. Once again, the attention of the market and even of the Judiciary to arbitration-related demands highlights the success of the institute and encourages its already traditional expansion.
Co-authored by: Silvia Rodrigues Pachikoski, Mariana Dias Sallowicz, Vitória Carolina de Morais Almeida, José Victor Palazzi Zakia and Julia Guimarães Rossetto
