QUARTERLY DISPUTES BAROMETER: OCT-DEC 2025

2025 has seen a marked escalation in cross-border legal disputes, driven by a volatile mix of geopolitical tension, economic uncertainty and regulatory transformation. From tariff shocks and sanctions enforcement to investor-state claims and sector-specific litigation, the global disputes landscape is undergoing rapid evolution. Legal practitioners across jurisdictions are adapting to new risks and procedural innovations, while companies are reassessing their contractual frameworks and compliance strategies.

This Disputes Barometer draws on the insights of legal experts to provide a comprehensive overview of the key trends shaping international arbitration, litigation and mediation, offering insights into emerging challenges and strategic responses across industries and regions.

Trade, tariffs and sanctions: geopolitical pressures and regulatory conflict

Global economic instability is prompting a noticeable increase in cross-border legal disputes, with trade policies and sanctions emerging as key catalysts. This trend is being driven by a confluence of macroeconomic and geopolitical factors, including shifting trade policies, sanctions regimes and regulatory enforcement.

“In 2025, macroeconomic pressures like geopolitical instability and tariff uncertainties are driving dispute trends,” says Sharmistha Chakrabarti, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. “Companies are closely monitoring President Trump’s shifting tariff policies in forecasting future business plans, but often overlook how these changes affect pre-existing contracts.

“Tariff increases may render the terms of a contract uneconomical for one of the parties,” she continues. “That party may seek to exit or renegotiate the agreement by invoking contractual provisions such as force majeure, material adverse change, or change of law clauses. Common law doctrines such as illegality, impossibility of performance, and frustration of purpose may also be invoked. Needless to say, the counterparty may challenge the validity of the termination resulting in disputes.”

Oct-Dec 2025 issue

Davis Polk

Latham & Watkins LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

WilmerHale