Geopolitical disruption is increasingly becoming a contractual and investment risk, forcing companies to anticipate policy shifts, supply-chain interruptions and potential state action much earlier in the investment cycle, experts said at the ETLegalWorld Commercial Disputes Conclave 2026.
Speaking during the panel Navigating Global Trade Tensions and Investor-State Disputes, moderated by Karuna Nundy, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, the speakers examined how businesses should structure contracts and investments amid changing trade and political conditions.
Campbell Jackson, EY Global Claims and Disputes Leader, said government intervention in strategic resources is creating fertile ground for disputes.
He pointed to measures involving lithium, nickel and rare earths globally, adding that mining and natural resources are likely to remain major areas of investor-state dispute activity as countries seek greater control over critical assets.
Contracts must account for geopolitical shocks
Saurabh Malhotra, General Counsel and Head – Legal Risk & Compliance (South Asia), Intertek, highlighted how disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz can create significant additional insurance and freight exposure for importers.
His broader message was that contracts need to evolve alongside geopolitical risk. Just as pandemic-related provisions became more prominent after Covid-19, businesses should now examine transit risks, additional war-risk premiums and liability allocation more carefully rather than relying on standard force majeure language.
Malhotra also stressed the importance of local legal due diligence when making cross-border investments, including understanding labour laws, licensing requirements and the wider regulatory environment. Prevention, he argued, is far less expensive than attempting to correct risks after an investment has been made.
Treaty protection begins with investment structuring
Avaneesh Singh, Chief Legal Officer, Senior VP – Legal, Navitas Life Sciences, said invoking bilateral investment treaty protections requires businesses first to examine how their investment was structured and documented.
Companies should evaluate communications with regulators, potential restrictions, available local remedies and the strength of their evidence before pursuing treaty claims. He also cautioned that investor-state proceedings can carry indirect commercial and regulatory consequences and should therefore be pursued only after a careful risk assessment.
Varun Singh, Founder & Managing Partner, Foresight Law Offices, argued that India’s growing outbound investment strengthens the case for predictable international dispute-resolution protections.
He said mechanisms offering greater neutrality and enforceability could improve confidence for both foreign investors entering India and Indian companies investing overseas.
Mediation can preserve commercial relationships
Jonathan Rodrigues, Mediator & Founder, The PACT, said mediation should be built into contracts as part of multi-tier dispute-resolution mechanisms rather than treated as an afterthought.
“A contract without a mediation clause is handicapped,” he said, arguing that mediation is particularly valuable where parties want to preserve an ongoing commercial relationship.
Rodrigues added that Indian institutions need stronger protocols, quality control and capacity to handle cross-border mediation and arbitration seamlessly.
The panel’s central takeaway was that geopolitical risk can no longer be treated as an external event. It must be incorporated into investment structuring, contracting and dispute strategy from the outset if businesses are to protect capital and preserve commercial flexibility.
The discussion was a part of the fifth edition of ETLegalWorld Commercial Disputes Conclave 2026. The conclave brought together legal professionals, policymakers, industry leaders and dispute resolution experts to discuss the evolving commercial justice ecosystem.
