Resolving commercial disputes in Russia: state arbitrazh courts, international arbitration (ICAC), enforcement of foreign awards and the 2022 exclusive-jurisdiction rule.
Commercial disputes involving a Russian party can be resolved in two very different systems: the Russian state commercial courts (confusingly called “arbitrazh” courts, though they are ordinary state courts) and genuine arbitration — either institutional or ad hoc. For foreign companies, the choice of forum, the wording of the dispute-resolution clause, and the realistic prospects of enforcement have all changed materially since 2022. This guide sets out how disputes are actually resolved in and around Russia in 2026.
The single most common source of confusion for foreign parties is terminology. Russia's state commercial courts are called “arbitrazh courts” (арбитражные суды) — but they are ordinary state courts that hear business disputes, not arbitration tribunals. True arbitration (третейское разбирательство) is a separate, private mechanism based on the parties' agreement.
State arbitrazh courts: a four-tier system (first instance, appeal, cassation, and the Supreme Court). They hear the vast majority of commercial disputes, are relatively fast and inexpensive, and their judgments are directly enforceable in Russia.
Arbitration: a private tribunal chosen by the parties in a contract clause. Awards are confidential and, in principle, enforceable across the 170+ states party to the New York Convention. In Russia, only arbitral institutions holding a government permit may administer disputes.
For a foreign company with a Russian subsidiary, most routine disputes — unpaid invoices, supply disputes, lease and contract claims — end up in the state arbitrazh courts. Key practical features:
Speed: a first-instance commercial case is often decided within 3–6 months — considerably faster than courts in many Western jurisdictions.
Cost: state court fees are modest (a percentage of the claim, capped), and there is no jury; cases are decided by professional judges.
Language: proceedings are in Russian; foreign-language documents require certified Russian translations, and foreign corporate documents generally require apostille or consular legalisation plus translation.
Representation: a foreign company can be represented by Russian-qualified counsel under a power of attorney; from 2019 most commercial court representatives must hold a law degree.
Track record: the arbitrazh courts have a reasonably independent record in ordinary commercial matters. Outcomes become less predictable in politically sensitive cases or where the state has an interest.
Where parties prefer a neutral, confidential forum, they include an arbitration clause. The leading Russian institution is the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC / МКАС) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation — a long-established body that administers cross-border commercial disputes and whose awards are widely enforced.
Foreign-seated arbitration (LCIA, ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, Vienna) remains possible in principle, but practical constraints have grown: some Western institutions have restricted Russia-related work, arbitrator availability and payment of fees can be complicated by sanctions, and — most importantly — the enforcement of a foreign-seated award against Russian assets now carries additional risk (see below). Many parties dealing with Russia now favour arbitration seated in a neutral jurisdiction (e.g. the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre or arbitration under the ICAC rules) over traditional European seats.
The most significant development for foreign parties is Article 248.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, in force since June 2020 and applied expansively since 2022. It grants the Russian arbitrazh courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving Russian (or foreign) persons subject to foreign sanctions — even where the contract contains a foreign arbitration or foreign-court clause.
In practice this means a sanctioned Russian party can: (1) ignore a foreign arbitration/jurisdiction clause and sue in a Russian arbitrazh court; and (2) obtain an anti-suit injunction (Article 248.2) restraining the counterparty from pursuing proceedings abroad, backed by a penalty up to the amount of the foreign claim. Russian courts have applied this even where the Russian party is not individually listed, treating the general sanctions environment as sufficient.
The consequence for drafting: a foreign-seated arbitration clause no longer guarantees that a Russian counterparty will be held to it. Parties should assume that a dispute with a Russian entity may end up in a Russian arbitrazh court regardless of the clause, and structure their risk (advance payment, security, guarantees, assets outside Russia) accordingly.
Russia is a party to the 1958 New York Convention, so foreign arbitral awards are, in principle, recognised and enforced by the Russian arbitrazh courts. Recognition is sought at the arbitrazh court of the region where the debtor or its assets are located.
Grounds for refusal follow the Convention: invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, award beyond the scope of submission, procedural irregularity, or conflict with Russian public policy (публичный порядок).
The “public policy” ground has historically been applied narrowly, but in the current environment it — together with the Article 248.1 exclusive-jurisdiction rule — creates real uncertainty for enforcing foreign awards against Russian assets.
Enforcing a Russian award or judgment abroad against a foreign parent is the mirror-image problem: possible under the New York Convention for arbitral awards, but recognition of Russian state-court judgments abroad depends on reciprocity and has become harder in several Western jurisdictions.
There is no single right answer, but the clause should be a deliberate risk decision rather than boilerplate:
If enforcement will realistically be needed against Russian assets, a Russian forum (arbitrazh court or ICAC arbitration) is often the most practical choice — an award or judgment enforceable where the assets are.
If the foreign party holds the leverage (it controls supply, IP or payment), a neutral arbitration seat may still be workable — but pair it with commercial security (advance payment, retention, parent guarantee).
Specify the governing law, the seat, the institution and rules, the number of arbitrators and the language explicitly. Ambiguous clauses are a common reason disputes over the clause itself precede the actual dispute.
Consider the sanctions position of both parties and their banks — an award you cannot get paid on, or fees you cannot remit to the institution, is of limited value.
Assume a dispute with a Russian counterparty may be heard in Russia regardless of the contract clause — build commercial protections accordingly.
Keep bilingual contracts and properly legalised corporate documents ready; missing translations and legalisation cause avoidable delay.
Engage Russian-qualified counsel early — procedural deadlines in the arbitrazh courts are short and strictly applied.
Where the relationship matters, provide for structured negotiation or mediation before litigation — Russian courts increasingly encourage pre-trial settlement.
In principle yes, but since 2022 a Russian party — particularly one affected by sanctions — can rely on Article 248.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code to bring the dispute before a Russian arbitrazh court despite the clause, and can seek an anti-suit injunction against foreign proceedings. You should not assume a foreign-seated clause will be honoured; structure commercial security accordingly.
Usually where the assets are. If the debtor's assets are in Russia, a Russian arbitrazh court judgment or an ICAC arbitral award is the most directly enforceable option. A foreign award adds a recognition step in Russia that now carries additional public-policy and jurisdiction risk. We assess the asset position first, then recommend the forum.
Practical support for international business in Russia.