26th International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot (IMLAM)

International maritime law is the body of public and private rules governing activities at sea, including navigation, shipping, marine resources, and the resolution of disputes between vessels, cargo interests, and coastal states. Its modern foundations trace back to customary practices codified in instruments such as the Hague-Visby Rules (1924/1968), the Hamburg Rules (1978), and the Rotterdam Rules (2008) on carriage of goods by sea, alongside conventions developed under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) covering safety (SOLAS), pollution (MARPOL), and seafarers' rights (MLC 2006). The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) remains the constitutional framework, defining maritime zones, freedom of navigation, and obligations to protect the marine environment. The core disputes in maritime law today cluster around several axes: the allocation of risk and liability between carriers, shippers, and insurers under competing carriage regimes; jurisdictional conflicts when casualties, collisions, or salvage operations involve multiple flag, port, and coastal states; and the growing tension between commercial shipping interests and environmental obligations, particularly regarding greenhouse gas emissions, ballast water, and oil pollution. Charterparty disputes, demurrage, off-hire claims, and bills of lading remain the daily bread of maritime practice, while novel questions arise from autonomous vessels, cyber risks, and sanctions compliance. The field stands at an inflection point. The IMO's 2023 revised GHG strategy targets net-zero shipping emissions by or around 2050, raising complex questions about retrofits, alternative fuels, and the apportionment of compliance costs in long-term charters. Geopolitical pressures — Red Sea attacks on shipping, Black Sea grain corridor disruptions, and expanded secondary sanctions on tanker trades — have stressed force majeure, safe port, and war risk clauses. Arbitral tribunals in London, Singapore, Hong Kong, and elsewhere are increasingly called upon to interpret standard forms (BIMCO, NYPE, Gencon) against this turbulent backdrop.

Arbitration is the principal mechanism for resolving cross-border commercial and maritime disputes, offering parties a neutral forum, party-appointed expertise, and an award that is enforceable in over 170 jurisdictions under the 1958 New York Convention. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006) has been adopted in some form by more than 85 states, providing a harmonised framework for the conduct of proceedings, the powers of tribunals, and limited grounds for judicial intervention. In the maritime context, ad hoc arbitration under LMAA, SCMA, HKIAC, or SMA terms dominates, reflecting the industry's preference for specialist arbitrators and procedural flexibility. The central disputes in modern arbitration concern the scope of arbitral jurisdiction and the limits of party autonomy. Recurrent questions include the law governing the arbitration agreement (highlighted by Enka v Chubb and Kabab-Ji), the separability and incorporation of arbitration clauses from charterparties into bills of lading, anti-suit injunctions to restrain foreign proceedings, and the availability of interim and emergency relief. Enforcement remains contested where awards face public policy challenges, sanctions complications, or insolvency of the award debtor. The interaction between arbitration and state courts — particularly when third parties, group-of-companies doctrines, or non-signatories are involved — continues to generate divergent jurisprudence across seats. The field is evolving rapidly. Sanctions regimes targeting Russian, Iranian, and other trades have forced tribunals to address payment of fees, representation, and the legality of performance under contracts otherwise governed by English or New York law. Third-party funding, expedited procedures, and virtual hearings — accelerated by the pandemic — are now standard features. New rules from the major institutions emphasise efficiency, transparency, and the consolidation of related disputes, while debates continue over arbitrator diversity, disclosure obligations following Halliburton v Chubb, and the role of AI in evidence and award drafting.