Brief summary of the speech given by attorney Andrzej Zacharzewski during the Unbounded 2025 summit in Singapore

“Let’s be honest—if contracts actually worked the way we pretend they do, I wouldn’t be standing here.

We wouldn’t need summits like this, and coconut milk would still be cheap. But here we are—in a world where \'legal certainty\' often means \'good luck with that.\'

Thank you to the organizers for bringing together people who know how messy global business can be—and how we might make it a little less messy.”

*

We do not perceive disputes between entrepreneurs operating within the Union as \'international\'. The common market is primarily integrated, deliveries between EU member states are not import/export, and we operate in an environment that is more or less familiar to us, transparent, and, as a rule, has similar legal regulations.

Imagine the EU market as a big, happy family picnic. Everyone brings their delicious food and drinks; there\'s always plenty to share. We\'re all so close that we barely notice when someone brings a plate of pasta from Italy or a plate of goulash from the Czech Republic. It\'s like having a bunch of cousins who speak slightly different dialects but still understand each other perfectly. Of course, some cousins are greedy or selfish, some are boring or simply too loud.

But we try to play by the same rules, even if they have slightly different accents. If there\'s a disagreement, we have legal or administrative tools to help solve it.

These are things that are probably well known to you, and I am only pointing them out to emphasise that from the perspective of EU countries, disputes arising on the line \'We\' and \'They\', i.e. the rest of the world, and ways of avoiding and resolving them are essential.

But are such perspectives and concerns any different from those of other countries?

All of us gathered here operate in a world of global dependencies. At the same time, the world we knew is passing away, changing its course. New alliances are being formed, and old ones are falling apart.

“The legal world used to be a chessboard. Now it’s more like Jenga—remove the wrong block and everything crashes.”

European companies must cope with internal EU regulations, customs wars and very real wars that would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago, rebuild supply chains broken during the pandemic, become independent from external supplies of raw materials and energy, and face the ageing of our societies.

The future is unclear. A new, unknown world is being born. And the unknown arouses fear, although it creates new opportunities.

Therefore, Law firms that advise companies operate in a completely new, dynamically changing and challenging environment.

The nature of our work is changing: it is no longer just about knowing the law.

Our clients don’t just want lawyers. They want legal data analysts, geopolitical psychics, and risk therapists rolled into one.

A traditional, formalistic approach to law does not work in such conditions any more.

Imagine telling your client: “Don’t worry, the contract says we’re safe.’ Then a pandemic hits, tariffs skyrocket, or a ship blocks the Suez Canal.

Suddenly, that ‘safe’ contract is just a piece of paper… and not even the recyclable kind.

No contract, even the best one, will protect the client from the effects of a customs war, unpredictable decisions of world leaders, disrupted supply chains, or the consequences of climate change.

As lawyers, we must consider countless factors, such as customs issues, sanctions lists, determining the ultimate beneficial owner, and counteracting money laundering; we must also consider data protection, environmental protection, waste management regulations, food quality regulations, and thousands of similar issues.

The client makes the final decision, but it is up to us to prepare the analysis.

However, can a law firm operating on the local market properly assess and analyse the risks associated with international trade? Does it have all the data?

Can it have a correct and complete picture of the situation?

Of course not.

That is why the ability to cooperate and collaborate becomes particularly important.

Let me tell you about a situation where the contract was flawless—but reality had other plans.

One of our clients contracted the delivery of large quantities of coconut milk from Sri Lanka. Deliveries were planned several years in advance, and the price was agreed upon. On this basis, the client could plan the production and delivery of its brands to large retail chains. Unfortunately, due to the crop failure caused by climate change, the milk price increased, and the amount available on the market dropped dramatically.

Turns out the Supplier had read Sun Tzu too—\"The supreme art of war is to sell your coconut milk to the highest bidder”.

We had to sit down and talk. Find some common ground. Maintain commercial relations for the future. Forget about the provisions of the contract and look for a compromise. Fortunately, we managed to work out an agreement. Of course, it was impossible to magically increase the amount of milk on the market and drop its prices. In this case, the parties not only made mutual concessions but also found other areas of cooperation. This is a perfect example of the ADR method called \"Transactions\". Disputing parties engage in discussions to reach a mutually acceptable resolution, often involving compromise and concessions. Unlike more formal ADR methods like arbitration or litigation, transactions rely heavily on the parties\' willingness to collaborate and find common ground.

And yet, how easy it was to imagine a situation in which lawyers - traditionalists in defense of the \"spirit of the contract\" and the sacred principle of \"pacta sunt servanda\" go to war with the contractor and take the case to court.

The dispute is expensive and has lasted for many years. Its conclusion will no longer benefit anyone.

In another situation, a construction company from Poland is carrying out a contract in Ukraine. Our client, the bank, issues a bank guarantee for the proper contract performance. Due to the war, the contract\'s performance was delayed. The impatient investor files a demand for payment of the guarantee.

The bank does not care: if there is a demand for payment, it is formally correct, and then the guarantee amount should be paid, but—as a side effect—the investment in Ukraine will no longer be carried out.

Fortunately, we persuaded all the conflicting parties to sit around the table and talk. And it soon turned out that the whole dispute was based on a minor issue that could be resolved relatively quickly. The only problem was a lack of communication and ambition.

The demand for payment of the guarantee was withdrawn, and the investment was made.

Mediation is not weakness—it’s two grown-ups choosing coffee over combat.

These examples show how important a flexible approach and the search for agreement are. Experienced lawyers, with their knowledge and composure, can help calm the conflict, tone down emotions, and direct the parties\' attention to possible solutions.

This does not always happen. An inexperienced lawyer, unsure of his position, will tend to take his participation very personally. Each proposal he pushes through will be his victory, and each rejected one will be his defeat. If the negotiations turn into a fight between two law firms trying to dominate each other, this is a recipe for disaster.

However, the parties cannot always conduct talks or reach an agreement independently. Negotiations are good, but sometimes external help is needed.

Leaving a case to a court is always risky business. I am sure that if I asked you, you would all answer that the courts are overloaded with cases, that the waiting time for a decision is long, that the proceedings are expensive, and that their outcome is uncertain.

Apart from that, the issue of trust in the justice system: If you did not know anything about the Polish justice system, would you leave the resolution of your case worth millions of dollars in the hands of a Polish judge? Regardless of how much I assure you here that our Polish courts are professional, free from pressure, the judges are prepared, experienced and independent, and the enforcement of judgments is efficient, you will have the right to feel uneasy.

Apart from that, the most significant victory is victory without a fight, as Sun Tzu teaches. Isn\'t entrusting the resolution of your dispute to a court an admission of your helplessness? Of course, sometimes there is no other way. But if a dispute arises between cooperating companies, doesn\'t a meeting in the courtroom ruin the relationships and trust built over the years? Therefore, using other ADR methods, such as mediation or arbitration, is reasonable. These tools can and should be used not as a means to achieve victory over the opponent, but to find a solution that satisfies both parties as much as possible.

If we recall the principles governing ADR, such as Voluntariness, Confidentiality, Neutrality -  we will see that they are excellent at helping to build trust in a world where people trust each other less and less.

As for arbitration, its invaluable advantage is that the adjudicating panel can be composed of practitioners from a given industry who know the specifics of the market. What\'s more, the development of technology has made it much easier to use arbitration without travelling far.

Arbitration is no longer a mahogany-table-in-Geneva affair. It’s Zoom calls, cloud uploads, and people in sweatpants resolving billion-dollar disputes.

For example, I am the Chairman of the Council of the Court of Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce in Kraków. Last year, we developed entirely new regulations for this court, which provide for online proceedings and the submission of documents in digital form, eliminating the circulation of paper documents. This way, without leaving Singapore or Australia, you can participate in a hearing on the other side of the globe. We are not the only ones. Similar solutions are being implemented all over the world.

Why am I talking about this? Arbitration is not reserved exclusively for large companies and significant disputes. In addition to considerable, renowned arbitration courts such as CIETAC, SCC Arbitration Institute in Stockholm, Vienna International Arbitral Center and others, there are dozens of small but well-prepared arbitration courts in the world, with the appropriate intellectual and organisational background to resolve international commercial disputes between large, medium and small companies.

The development of digital technologies has facilitated and accelerated the proceedings, eliminating the need for expensive and time-consuming travel.

Implementing a judgment issued by such courts does not pose any problems.

Very often, even the judgment is not needed - an agreement is reached, as in the case of a considerable dispute I ruled on concerning the construction of a hospital. The investor and the contractor managed to add up all the costs, establish a list of corrections and complete the investment.

In conclusion, I would also like to say that dispute resolution methods that work in some countries do not necessarily work in others. For example, in Poland, where I come from, mediation works in family matters but is practically non-existent on economic issues. We also rarely encounter conciliation proceedings in our practice.

I would also not overestimate cultural differences as a potential factor hindering understanding between companies operating in different environments. In my experience, these differences exist but are not significant enough to prevent communication.

Humans are a social species; cooperation and exchange are part of their blood.

Of course, a lawyer must also be part psychologist, storyteller, and, above all, an attentive listener.

Nothing alleviates conflicts like the exchange of ideas, goods, and capital. Nothing builds trust like trade. Nothing motivates people like creation. So we, lawyers, are tasked with doing everything we can to help our clients build global trust, develop responsible businesses, and in this way - even indirectly - help millions of people worldwide lead dignified and peaceful lives.

To help our clients resolve disputes, we must abandon the dogmatic view of law and contracts: they are not sacred texts written on stone tablets. They are instructions for action and descriptions of processes. And processes have their own dynamics and are sometimes unpredictable. Resolving disputes is not about determining who is right, but whether and how to overcome the arising obstacle and continue cooperating. Nothing is better suited for this than arbitration and mediation. The development of technology allows us to use these tools without leaving home. This makes alternative dispute resolution methods increasingly accessible.

At the end of the day:  contracts don’t build trust—people do. And it’s our job to ensure that the legal system helps them solve problems as they appear, not hinders them.