Thursday 19 February 2026
10:00AM EST / 4:00PM CET (90 minutes)
Hosted on Zoom by JURIS Conferences
Join us for the second webinar in a series exploring developing issues in the assessment of damages in international arbitration. This 90-minute CLE Webinar continues the initiative by JURIS and the Editors of The Journal of Damages in International Arbitration to foster discussion around these critical topics.
For those looking to dive deeper, many of the themes discussed—and much more—are explored in the Journal. As a special thank-you to our attendees, we’re offering an exclusive 50% discount on an online subscription to the journal.
See below for promotion details and how to subscribe.
Webinar Registration
Register HereAttendees of this program may submit live questions for a Q&A session with the panelists.
Please note that this conference will be recorded and may be made available by JURIS after the event. Audience members will not be visible in the recording.
Continuing Legal Education: 1.5 hours of NYS CLE credit (transitional and non-transitional) in the Areas of Professional Practice. A NYSCLE certificate of attendance will be provided upon request which may be used when applying for credit in other jurisdictions.
Key Topics
Rapid regulatory transitions driven by climate policy, energy security, geopolitics, and shifting trade and investment regimes are reshaping international arbitration. Measures adopted in pursuit of decarbonization, environmental protection, or resource security increasingly affect the value of long-term investments, particularly in energy, mining, and infrastructure, raising complex damages questions in both commercial and investor‑state disputes.
As tribunals confront claims arising from regulatory change and policy reversals, factors such as regulatory uncertainty, foreseeable sustainability constraints, transition risk, and evolving international obligations influence cash‑flow projections, discount rates, counterfactuals, and investor expectations. While damages analysis is necessarily applied and case-specific, its credibility depends on a clear link to fundamental economic concepts and established best practices. That connection is what allows tribunals to assess competing models with confidence.
Against that backdrop, the panel will begin by revisiting core economic foundations, then examine damages modeling in climate and environment related disputes, and conclude with a tribunal‑focused synthesis of emerging themes. Questions to be explored include:
• How can economic analysis help distinguish bona fide, non-discriminatory environmental regulation from measures that may breach investment protections?
• How should damages models account for foreseeable climate, environmental, and sustainability constraints rather than assuming unconstrained profit paths?
• How should tribunals assess causation, proportionality, and investor expectations in disputes arising from environmental and climate policy shifts?
• What lessons can be drawn from recent cases and emerging international legal developments for future climate- and resource-related disputes?
Panelists
Prof. Arik Levinson is Professor of Economics at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, where he also serves as Vice Chair and Director of the Georgetown Center for Economic Research. He is a leading environmental economist whose recent research focuses on distributional consequences of energy policies, economic and environmental consequences of carbon tariffs, and climate benefits of incentives for clean power. Professor Levinson’s work has been widely published in leading academic journals, and he has served at the U.S. Department of the Treasury as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Climate and Energy Economics. His expertise provides a rigorous economic foundation for understanding environmental regulation and its implications for investment and damages.
Pablo D. López‑Zadicoff is an Executive Vice President at Compass Lexecon, Washington, DC, and an experienced testifying and consulting expert in international arbitration and litigation. His work focuses on damages and valuation issues in investor-state and commercial disputes, with particular depth in mining and energy matters. Mr. López-Zadicoff has advised on disputes involving environmental regulation, permitting, expropriation, and regulatory change, and regularly addresses the intersection of project economics, sustainability constraints, and damages modeling in resource-intensive industries.
Beatrice Van Tornout is Counsel in the Arbitration and Dispute Resolution group at Fieldfisher, based in Brussels. Her practice focuses on international arbitration and complex cross-border disputes, including large-scale energy and infrastructure projects, such as wind farms and oil and natural gas developments. Ms. Van Tornout has written and spoken extensively on how ESG considerations are reshaping dispute resolution, including issues of enforceability, funding, remedies, and procedural adaptation.
Arne Fuchs is a Partner at Ashurst and Global Head of the firm’s International Arbitration practice, based in Frankfurt. He has extensive experience advising on high-value and complex commercial and investor-state disputes, particularly in the energy, mining, infrastructure, and natural resources sectors. Mr. Fuchs regularly counsels clients on disputes arising from regulatory change, geopolitical risk, and energy-transition dynamics. He also assists clients in defending against complaints and civil claims relating to alleged ESG and human rights compliance issues, including along global supply chains. In addition to his role as counsel, Mr. Fuchs regularly acts as an arbitrator.
Sencer Ecer (Moderator) is a Senior Vice President at Compass Lexecon, Washington, DC, and an economist specializing in damages valuation and antitrust. He has served as testifying and consulting expert across a wide range of matters, including several investor-state and commercial disputes in the energy sector. Sencer also has an academic background in economics and regularly publishes and speaks on damages methodologies and antitrust.
