1.What is the current legal landscape for International Arbitration in your jurisdiction

International arbitration in Honduras is currently going through a moment of uncertainty caused by recent changes in public policies. Since Honduras’ withdrawal from ICSID, the country has received around 16 investor lawsuits driven by the legal uncertainty caused by the withdrawal. There is also an action of unconstitutionality against the submission of the State in arbitration, which is pending resolution. These circumstances cause uncertainty and lack of confidence in refereeing, which are key elements for the operation and growth of this practice.

Despite this, it has been observed that arbitration has remained an ideal mechanism for the resolution of cross-border disputes between individuals. This movement has been driven by virtue of the country’s regulatory framework aligned with contemporary international standards and by the country’s adherence to widely recognized international instruments. This offers the legal certainty and stability that individuals expect from arbitration.

At the intern level, the Law for the Promotion and Protection of Investments reinforces this vision by expressly recognizing arbitration as the main means for the resolution of disputes arising from relations between investors and individuals/State. The regulations establish that disputes between shareholders, as well as those related to intellectual property, distribution contracts or real estate, should preferably be submitted to national or international arbitration. In this way, the Honduran legal system not only admits arbitration as an alternative means, but also promotes it as the preferred mechanism for resolving disputes of a business nature.

Therefore, although it is true that the country formally withdrew from the ICSID Convention, this does not imply that investors have been left unprotected against disputes with the State. Honduras maintains in force a number of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties that provide for access to the ICSID Additional Facility (e.g., DR-CAFTA and the Colombia-Honduras FTA), as well as other recognized international regulations, such as those of UNCITRAL or ICC (e.g., the Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between Spain and Honduras). These alternatives ensure that disputes can be resolved under international standards of independence, neutrality, due process, and efficiency.

This openness reflects the commitment of the Honduran State to the protection of investments and to the technical and peaceful settlement of disputes.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in International Arbitration matters?:

Recommendation 1: Carefully selecting arbitrators — a decisive factor for the outcome

In international arbitration, the selection of arbitrators is one of the first challenges parties face, and experience has shown that it is an extremely significant one. The composition of the arbitral tribunal directly influences the pace of the proceedings, the depth of legal analysis, the admission and evaluation of evidence, and even the interpretation of the contract or applicable law. For this reason, the selection of arbitrators becomes one of the most consequential decisions in the entire process.

Selecting the right arbitrator requires far more than reviewing general reputation. It is essential to assess the candidate’s real experience in the type of dispute at hand—for example, technical construction disputes, infrastructure claims under FIDIC contracts, energy disputes, or financial matters. This evaluation often requires input from qualified professionals with expertise in those sectors. An arbitrator with a proven track record in the relevant field not only understands the technical aspects more deeply, but can also manage the case with greater efficiency and precision.

In many cases, additional considerations are also relevant, such as the arbitrator’s legal background (common law vs. civil law), their approach to case management, their openness to certain types of evidence (expert reports, internal documents, electronic evidence), and their ability to handle complex proceedings involving multiple parties or large volumes of information.

Another critical element is the arbitrator’s actual availability. An overburdened arbitrator can cause delays, while one with a balanced schedule enables the case to move forward more smoothly, benefiting the parties.

Ultimately, the selection of arbitrators shapes the intellectual and procedural framework of the arbitration. A thoughtful, technically informed decision at this stage can be decisive for the client’s success.

Recommendation 2: Rely on specialized teams with expertise in both international arbitration and the technical subject matter of the dispute

International arbitration requires dual specialization: mastery of the global arbitral system and a deep understanding of the industry or sector where the dispute originates. Relying solely on subject-matter experts or solely on procedural specialists can leave strategic gaps. The ideal approach is to engage a team that integrates both capabilities.

A team experienced in international arbitration understands how to construct case theories before international tribunals, how to organize and present evidence in line with global standards, which documents are likely to be relevant for the tribunal, how to prepare witnesses and experts, and how to anticipate potential procedural or jurisdictional challenges. This understanding of the “arbitration language” is essential to ensuring that the client’s narrative is both understood and effectively weighed by the tribunal.

At the same time, the technical subject matter cannot be treated superficially. In sectors such as construction, technology, energy, oil and gas, telecommunications, or large-scale public projects, it is essential to work with experts who truly understand the operations, commercial risks, and technical details of the contract. Only then can a solid case theory be developed—one that combines technical precision with clear and persuasive presentation to the arbitral tribunal.

Engaging specialized teams early on also allows for more accurate risk assessments, anticipation of expert report content, understanding how similar cases have been resolved in other fora, and projecting the likelihood of success with greater precision. In such a competitive and specialized environment as international arbitration, both sector-specific and procedural expertise make a substantial difference.

Recommendation 3: Design an enforcement plan from the outset, enabling a strategic vision that goes beyond the arbitral proceedings
In international arbitration, obtaining an award does not always translate into an effective result. The enforcement phase—particularly in jurisdictions with complex judicial systems or where the counterparty has transnational corporate structures—can be even more challenging than the arbitration itself. For that reason, it is essential for clients to adopt a strategic vision that incorporates enforcement considerations from the earliest stages of case assessment.

A solid enforcement plan begins with the early identification of the counterparty’s relevant assets, their location, the existence of guarantees, the corporate structure of the broader group, and any risks arising from sovereign immunity, insolvency, or asset transfers. This initial assessment allows parties to anticipate potential obstacles and evaluate the real feasibility of recovering the amounts sought.

The choice of the arbitral seat also has a significant impact, as it determines the standards for annulment and the judicial treatment of the award. Likewise, it is necessary to evaluate the jurisdictions where enforcement may ultimately take place and analyze their track record with respect to recognition under the New York Convention. Some courts apply stricter standards concerning public policy, due process, or documentary formalities; anticipating these risks is critical to avoiding setbacks.

It is also essential to evaluate the potential need for pre- or post-award interim measures, as well as to coordinate with local counsel in key jurisdictions. In complex disputes, the enforcement strategy cannot be viewed or treated merely as a subsequent stage. On the contrary, it should be understood as a parallel line of work throughout the arbitration.

Planning enforcement from the outset not only increases the likelihood of recovering the amounts awarded but also provides the client with a realistic view of the financial horizon and overall case trajectory.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in International Arbitration law in the next 12 months?

International arbitration is experiencing a particularly dynamic moment, characterized by significant institutional changes and the accelerated advance of technologies that are reshaping the way in which conflicts arising from foreign investment are managed. Both threats and opportunities in the next twelve months will be strongly conditioned by two factors: the reconfiguration of the Honduran system following the denunciation of the ICSID Convention in 2022, and the rapid incorporation of digital tools from fully virtual hearings to artificial intelligence solutions that are modifying the way lawyers, arbitrators, and users participate in proceedings.

Following its withdrawal from ICSID, Honduras has sought to build an alternative model that allows it to maintain the ability to attract foreign investment without relinquishing sovereign control over dispute settlement mechanisms. In this process, the government has opened negotiations with the UNCITRAL Secretariat to strengthen the adoption of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as the preferential – or even original – way to resolve disputes under treaties or investment contracts. The main argument behind this transition is that UNCITRAL’s rules, due to their flexibility and transparency, would allow the State to maintain a greater degree of procedural oversight, while offering standards recognized by the international community. They would also allow ad hoc or institutional arbitrations administered by cheaper alternatives to ICSID, which, in principle, is in line with the state’s policy of cost containment.

However, this transformation is taking place in a complex political context. The general elections scheduled for November 2025 generate an opportunity that represents the greatest opportunity for the next twelve months in international arbitration: an eventual change of government could reverse the current position and promote Honduras’ return to ICSID. This possibility is not merely theoretical; various political and business sectors have expressed their preference for reinstating the country in the traditional system, arguing that ICSID continues to be perceived as the global standard for protecting investments and providing legal certainty. Thus, Honduras is at an intermediate point in which the transition to UNCITRAL coexists with the expectation – latent and plausible – of a future reaccession to ICSID.

This regulatory ambivalence has direct implications for both the state and investors. From a risk perspective, it requires the design of flexible legal strategies and the structuring of contracts that include staggered clauses or hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms that can be adapted to different institutional scenarios. At the same time, it is an opportunity for Honduras to redefine its investment policy and renegotiate treaties. If the country manages to manage the transition clearly or its reincorporation into ICSID, it could position itself as a more competitive destination in Central America, especially for investments in energy, infrastructure and free zones.

The Honduran Investment Promotion and Protection Law reinforces this trend by expressly recognizing that national and international arbitration is the primary way to resolve disputes related to economic and corporate activity. The regulation establishes as a primary way for investors to resort to arbitration tribunals for disputes between shareholders, conflicts arising from intellectual property and disputes in distribution contracts. This legal framework provides the opportunity for specialized, neutral and more agile mechanisms than the ordinary jurisdiction, thus strengthening the confidence of national and foreign investors in the Honduran legal climate.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

As a firm, we ensure high client satisfaction by structuring our practice around technical discipline, strategic clarity, and a deeply service-oriented philosophy. In arbitration—where expectations regarding responsiveness, industry knowledge, and procedural precision are particularly high—we prioritise early case assessment, risk mapping, and transparent communication from the outset of every mandate. This approach allows clients to understand the trajectory of their dispute and the strategic rationale behind each decision.

A central component of our client-service model is the deliberate allocation of work within the team. Matters are handled through a combination of specialised expertise and internal oversight, ensuring that every analysis, submission, and procedural step reflects both technical rigor and the high standards expected in sophisticated commercial disputes. Continuous peer review, collaborative review sessions, and structured workflow management allow us to maintain consistency and quality across the lifecycle of each case.

We also invest significantly in ongoing professional development. Arbitration in Honduras and the wider region is evolving rapidly, and clients expect counsel who remain aligned with best practices, comparative standards, and global trends. Our lawyers participate in advanced training, regional workshops, and cross-border collaborative projects, ensuring that our advice incorporates both local insight and international perspective.

Technology plays a pivotal supporting role. The firm utilises digital platforms for document management, evidence organisation, timeline control, and virtual hearing preparation—tools that have become essential in modern arbitration practice. This not only increases efficiency but reduces costs, optimises communication, and enhances clarity in procedural execution.

Ultimately, client satisfaction is achieved through a combination of responsiveness, strategic foresight, and an unwavering commitment to excellence. We treat each matter with the seriousness and accountability it deserves, ensuring that our clients receive representation aligned with international standards and tailored to the realities of the Honduran and regional arbitration environment.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping International Arbitration law and how can clients benefit from them?

In parallel to these institutional challenges, international arbitration is undergoing a profound technological transformation. One of the most significant advances is the consolidation of virtual or completely remote hearings, which after the pandemic ceased to be an exceptional measure to become a standard modality in most global arbitrations. For the Honduran context, where most hearings are held in cities such as Washington or New York, virtualization represents substantial savings in travel costs, accommodation, space rental, and general logistics. This not only reduces the total cost of arbitration, but also lowers the barriers to participation for witnesses, experts, and defense teams that previously faced budget or scheduling constraints.

Virtual hearings have also streamlined the processing of proceedings: experts from different countries can appear without the need for long trips, arbitrators can coordinate dates more easily, and parties can use digital filing tools that optimize case communication. For Honduras, whose economy demands efficient and less onerous processes, virtualization becomes a strategic advantage for both the public sector and private companies facing complex disputes.

Another high-impact technological advancement is the increasing incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into the practice of arbitration. These tools offer capabilities that transform the way lawyers prepare their cases: AI platforms can review huge volumes of documents in a matter of minutes, identify relevant patterns, classify evidence, and suggest links between facts and legal arguments. In the preparation of writings, AI allows you to generate initial drafts, verify argumentative coherence and make comparisons between versions of documents with millimetric precision. For Honduran legal teams—who often operate with limited resources when litigating high-value arbitrations—these technologies represent an efficiency multiplier.

Customers also benefit directly from these developments. Automation reduces billable hours spent on mechanical tasks, speeds up case preparation, and allows attorneys to spend more time on strategic decisions. It also enhances the customer’s ability to understand the progress of their process through dashboards, predictive analytics, and automated summaries that facilitate informed decision-making. On the arbitrators’ side, AI can assist in managing voluminous files, verifying internal award consistencies, and identifying relevant precedents without compromising their decision-making independence.

However, the incorporation of technology also generates new risks. In the next twelve months, one of the most relevant challenges will be to ensure that the AI tools used do not introduce bias, errors or privacy violations. It will require clear ethical guidelines and transparency standards on how and to what extent courts can use these technologies. Investors themselves will need to ensure that their legal teams use AI responsibly and in accordance with international standards.