Cross-border disputes rarely announce themselves gently. A concession renegotiated by a change in government, a pipeline delayed by permitting disputes, a transmission project caught between two regulatory regimes each can escalate from a contractual disagreement into a matter of national consequence within months. What separates a dispute that is resolved efficiently from one that drags on for years is very often the caliber of the person sitting at the head of the tribunal.
As the volume and complexity of international commercial and investment arbitration continues to grow, parties are increasingly selective about who they entrust with adjudicating disputes that sit at the intersection of commerce, regulation, and sovereignty. This is especially true in three categories of dispute that have come to dominate arbitral dockets worldwide: sovereign, energy and infrastructure disputes.
The Sovereign Dimension
Disputes involving states, state-owned entities, or sovereign wealth funds carry a distinct character. They are rarely confined to the four corners of a contract; questions of public policy, regulatory discretion and sovereign immunity are never far from the surface. A sovereign dispute arbitrator must be equally comfortable interpreting a bilateral investment treaty and reading the political economy behind a state’s conduct, understanding not only what the law requires, but why a government acted as it did, and what a workable remedy actually looks like in practice.
Energy: The Oldest and Most Technical Battleground
Energy disputes remain the most technically demanding matters in the arbitral world, spanning upstream exploration agreements, long-term supply contracts, tariff and pricing disputes, and the accelerating wave of renewable energy claims arising from shifting subsidy regimes. An energy dispute arbitrator is expected to hold their own against expert witnesses on reserve valuation, delay analysis, and regulatory pricing formulas, while never losing sight of the commercial bargain the parties originally struck. It is a discipline that rewards depth over generalism.
Infrastructure: Where Engineering Meets Law
Large infrastructure projects such as ports, rail networks, power plants, and toll roads are built on programmes measured in years and budgets measured in billions. When delay, defect or termination claims arise, the dispute is as much about critical-path scheduling and engineering causation as it is about contract interpretation. An infrastructure dispute arbitrator needs the discipline to manage voluminous technical evidence without losing procedural efficiency, delivering awards that withstand scrutiny at enforcement while remaining commercially realistic for the parties who must live with the outcome.
A Practice Built Across Jurisdictions
Harshavardhan Sancheti has built a practice around precisely this convergence of technical fluency and jurisdictional range. Sitting as arbitrator and counsel across institutional and ad hoc proceedings in the United States, the United Kingdom, India and continental Europe, he brings a rare combination: formal training in international arbitration and dispute resolution, courtroom-tested advocacy experience, and the temperament to manage complex, multi-party proceedings to a fair and enforceable conclusion. As a member of arbitral tribunal USA panels and international institutions alike, he is regularly appointed in matters spanning energy, infrastructure, banking, joint ventures and investment treaty claims disputes where the stakes are high, the parties are sophisticated, and the margin for procedural error is thin.
As global capital continues to flow into energy transition projects, cross-border infrastructure and emerging markets, the demand for arbitrators who combine sectoral depth with genuine cross-jurisdictional credibility will only intensify. Parties selecting a tribunal today are, in effect, selecting the institution that will decide how billions of dollars in commercial risk are ultimately allocated. That decision deserves an arbitrator whose expertise has been tested, not merely claimed.
