On 20 March 2025, the working group on the reform of French arbitration law, co-chaired by François Ancel, Justice at the Cour de cassation, and Professor Thomas Clay, submitted a report on the state of arbitration law along with reform proposals. This initiative is part of a broader reflection on the modernization of arbitration law, already underway in other countries.[1] This ambitious report did not intend, as stated in its preamble, to merely “look to the past” by codifying the rich body of case law that has developed since 2011 – the date of the last reform of French arbitration law – but rather to “look to the future, or at the very least, seek a path that might lead there with confidence”.[2]

With this in mind, the report first presents what it describes as foundational proposals, aimed at establishing arbitration law as an autonomous legal regime. Accordingly, the report recommends the adoption of a dedicated Arbitration Code, for which it provides a draft. This code would also include guiding principles specific to French arbitration law, which would serve to frame and structure it. The report further proposes unifying the rules applicable to domestic and international arbitration. Finally, it sets out a comprehensive reform of arbitration-related litigation. In addition to these foundational proposals, the report also discusses substantial amendments and reforms aimed at achieving greater flexibility, protection, and efficiency.[3]

This article is not intended to provide a detailed presentation of the proposed reform, but will highlight certain salient points, among which it should be noted that even the principle itself has been subject to criticism.[4] The Minister of Justice has nonetheless already announced the forthcoming adoption of regulatory measures that have gained broad consensus, as well as the launch of a consultation process to further explore high-stakes issues.[5]

I. The proposal to adopt an autonomous Arbitration Code

The first key aspect of this reform is the proposal to create an Arbitration Code. The working group’s report observes that arbitration law is currently scattered across various codes and statutes, which undermines its clarity and accessibility.[6] It is therefore proposed to bring together all provisions relating to arbitration within a dedicated code, with the aim of enhancing clarity, and the influence of French arbitration law, and reinforcing its autonomy.[7]

The Minister of Justice has announced its release for autumn 2026.

This proposal is the one that has sparked the most debate so far. It has notably been argued that the dispersion of arbitration provisions is somewhat misleading since the majority of them are contained within the Code of Civil Procedure.[8] Moreover, the presence of arbitration rules in other places follows a logic of its own, for example concerning scenarios where arbitration is used in particular cases.[9] It also appears that the need to establish an Arbitration Code does not stem from practitioners’ needs.[10]

For some, the question of the attractiveness of French arbitration law should also be tempered, since it is already well-known and valued, and a major modification could be counterproductive.[11]

Finally, beyond the arguments against the principle of codification, several authors have pointed out the lack of prior consultation on this matter to assess its consequences, especially since it represents a shift from the current organization of French procedural law, which is structured around a Code of Civil Procedure encompassing rules governing a wide variety of procedures.[12]

Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, the adoption of this code appears to be confirmed, with the Minister of Justice having announced its release for autumn 2026.[13]

II. The adoption of guiding principles of arbitration law

The reform project also plans to adopt guiding principles specific to arbitration, a proposal that further contributes to the autonomy of arbitration law and is intended to define its fundamental structure.[14] These principles are varied, many of them are drawn from existing law, and aim to establish the fundamental values of arbitration, to permeate it, to set central rules for the functioning of arbitration, or to establish a distinctive identity of French arbitration law.[15]

Some of these principles codify existing case law: this is the case, for example (i) with draft Article 2 of the Arbitration Code, which restates the solution of the Dalico case by affirming the autonomy of the arbitration clause in relation to the contract containing it, the assessment of its existence and effectiveness based on the common intent of the parties, and, in matters of international arbitration, without reference to any national law;[16] (ii) with draft Article 3, which provides that “in matters of international arbitration, no one may invoke their domestic law to challenge the arbitrability of the dispute or their capacity to be a party to arbitration to which they have consented”, thereby relying on the Galakis case law;[17] or (iii) draft Article 19, which provides that “the annulment abroad of the arbitral award by the court at the seat of the arbitral tribunal shall not be a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement of the award”, reflecting the Putrabali holding.[18]

Other principles are established as guiding principles based on existing provisions within the French Code of Civil Procedure, such as the independence and impartiality of arbitrators, the obligation of diligence and good faith, as well as respect for adversarial proceedings and equality between the parties.[19] Finally, some principles are new. They establish new rules, such as the mission of preventing denial of justice assigned to the supporting judge (juge d’appui).[20]

As an author noted, the underlying logic of autonomy in the reform project, along with the enshrinement of certain guiding principles, could give rise to a body of specialized case law that is difficult to anticipate at this stage.[21]

Some of these guiding principles codify case law solutions, others are based on existing provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and others establish new rules.

III. The unification of domestic and international arbitration regimes

Another significant proposal relates to the unification of the domestic and international arbitration regimes, with the definition of international arbitration also being slightly revised.[22] Again, the working group’s report emphasizes a desire for simplification, given that there are currently many rules common to both domestic and international arbitration, which has forced the regulator to rely on cumbersome cross-references within the Code of Civil Procedure.[23] It has thus been recommended to “absorb” the rules of domestic arbitration into international arbitration, in order to preserve the flexibility and liberal nature of the latter.[24]

Some special rules specifically designed for domestic arbitration or international arbitration logically remain. This is the case, for example, of substantive rules specific to international arbitration, such as those relating to the international arbitration agreement and codified in the aforementioned draft Article 2. It is also the case for the distinction between domestic and international public policy at the stage of the review of the award who will continue to apply,[25] or for the jurisdiction of the annulment judge[26].

While this unification proposal has not raised major objections, its implementation can raise questions. For instance, in domestic arbitration, the possibility for parties to choose a foreign law, the elimination of appeals against the award, and the unification of the proceedings governing setting aside applications raise some concerns.[27] Conversely, in international arbitration, some changes resulting from the unification of the regimes seem to run counter to the liberal nature of international arbitration. The ability to waive the annulment request or certain provisions, which are currently optional but that may no longer be waived in the future by the mutual agreement of the parties to the arbitration, illustrate well the point.[28]

IV. The overhaul of litigation related to arbitration

Finally, the reform project introduces a number of innovations in relation to the proceedings pending before French courts and which deal with arbitration.

First, it establishes an enhanced role for the supporting judge – whose distinct jurisdiction is affirmed –,[29] whose mission is to ensure the effective enforcement of the parties’ intention to resort to arbitration,[30] notably when parties are impecunious,[31] and to prevent any denial of justice.[32] Finally, the supporting judge is granted the authority to enforce investigative, provisional, or protective measures ordered by the arbitrator or emergency arbitrator.[33] This is to be welcomed, as currently such measures cannot be enforced.[34]

Regarding recourses against arbitral awards, several innovations are also noteworthy. These include the introduction of an action to obtain the non-recognition in France of an award rendered abroad, modeled after the exequatur procedure, as well as an appeal against the order granting such request,[35] the introduction of an award recognition procedure, distinct from the exequatur process,[36] the establishment of third-party opposition against the decision granting exequatur,[37] and the power granted to the annulment judge to refer the parties back to the arbitral tribunal.[38]

Finally, once again contributing to the autonomy of French arbitration law, the reform project proposes a complete overhaul of the procedure before the Court of Appeal in cases of appeals against decisions of the supporting judge and recourse against the arbitral awards.[39]