Global Leader in Arbitration & Mediation Training
Empowering lawyers, judges and ADR practitioners in Asia, Africa and Latin America through AI-driven learning and globally recognised industry certification.
The Center for International Mediators and Arbitrators (CIMA), England & Wales, is a global leader in online ADR training and certification. With members in more than 33 countries, CIMA is dedicated to empowering lawyers, ADR practitioners, and students through internationally benchmarked training and certification, AI-driven simulations, thought-leadership events, and practical mock proceedings.
We are the 2025 Title Sponsor and Official Training Partner of the MMCS International Maritime Arbitration Competition (MIMAC 2025) in the Asia and the Official ADR Partner of the 2025 REACO Conference in Africa. If your ambition is to build a distinguished and rewarding career in international mediation and arbitration, CIMA is your ideal partner. Our Global Programs in arbitration and mediation offer a trusted pathway. Upon successful completion of Parts I, II and III, participants earn Fellowship; the FCIMArb designation—one of the most respected credentials in the ADR field.
CIMA membership connects you to a prestigious international network and opens doors to elite institutions in London, New York, Accra, Kigali, Singapore, and Dubai. Let's help you shape your future in dispute resolution. Join CIMA today.
Redefining Arbitration and Mediation Training for the Digital Age
Our Services
Global Arbitration News
London — Experts met at London Arbitration Week 2026 to discuss global dispute resolution.
The panel, titled “Realising Arbitral Justice: Access to International Arbitration and Enforcement of Awards,” brought together leading voices from the judiciary and academia to examine the growing gap between arbitral decisions and their effective enforcement. Moderated by Paul MacMahon and co-organized with Dr. Can Eken of Durham University, the discussion highlighted the critical role national courts play once arbitral proceedings conclude.Speakers emphasized that the journey from award to execution remains uneven across jurisdictions. While arbitration is often praised for its efficiency and neutrality, participants noted that without robust court support, enforcement can become a bottleneck—undermining confidence in the system. Courts, they argued, must strike a careful balance: respecting the autonomy of arbitral tribunals while providing timely and effective mechanisms to recognize and enforce awards.Beyond enforcement, the panel turned to a broader concern—access to justice. Arbitration, traditionally seen as a tool for commercial elites, is increasingly scrutinized for its cost and
Baku, Azerbaijan — Azerbaijan has taken a significant step onto the global arbitration stage with the launch of the Baku Arbitration Centre, the country’s first dedicated arbitral institution.
Baku, Azerbaijan — Azerbaijan has taken a significant step onto the global arbitration stage with the launch of the Baku Arbitration Centre, the country’s first dedicated arbitral institution.The center was officially inaugurated in Baku on October 24–25 during the Azerbaijan Arbitration Days conference, a two-day gathering of legal practitioners and policymakers focused on the future of dispute resolution. Held under the theme “Driving the Transformation,” the event highlighted Azerbaijan’s ambitions to position itself as a regional hub for international arbitration.The establishment of the center reflects a broader trend among emerging economies seeking to strengthen legal infrastructure and attract cross-border investment. By providing a local forum for resolving commercial disputes, officials and experts say the new institution could reduce reliance on foreign arbitration venues while boosting investor confidence.Participants at the conference pointed to Azerbaijan’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia as a key advantage in building a competitive
Washington — The American Arbitration Association has unveiled a new set of rules integrating artificial intelligence into the arbitration process, marking a significant shift in how certain commercial disputes may be resolved.
The framework, known as AI-led arbitration rules, introduces a hybrid decision-making model in which an AI system conducts initial analysis and issues preliminary determinations. Those findings are then reviewed and finalized by human arbitrators, preserving a layer of human oversight while accelerating early-stage decision-making.The rules are designed specifically for two-party disputes handled through the association’s Digital Dispute Resolution Center, a platform aimed at streamlining arbitration procedures. Under the new system, parties face filing fees of $2,500 per claim or counterclaim, alongside tightly structured timelines that allow each stage of submissions to be completed within ten business days.Arbitration practitioners say the move reflects a broader push to modernize dispute resolution by leveraging technology to reduce costs and delays—longstanding criticisms of traditional arbitration. By assigning routine or preliminary assessments to AI, the system aims to free arbitrators to focus on more complex legal and factual issues.Still, the introduction of AI into adjudicative
Paris — A French appellate court has reinforced the country’s reputation as a leading pro-arbitration jurisdiction, clarifying when conflicts between arbitral awards and foreign court judgments may violate international public policy.
in a decision issued September 16, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected an attempt by Société Nationale d’Électricité and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to set aside an arbitral award issued under the International Chamber of Commerce.The court held that, in principle, a direct conflict between an arbitral award and a foreign judgment could breach international public policy—but only under specific conditions. Such a breach may arise where the foreign judgment has already been formally recognized in France, a process known as exequatur, and where the two decisions produce mutually exclusive outcomes.In this case, however, the judges found no such conflict. The Congolese judgment relied upon by SNEL had previously been denied recognition in France because the opposing party had not been properly notified of the proceedings. Without that recognition, the court concluded, the alleged inconsistency between the rulings could not trigger a violation of public policy.The ruling also
