This introduces new requirements for the dispute resolution system. For entrepreneurs, in addition to legal resolution, factors such as speed, impartiality, confidentiality, and the process’s cost-effectiveness have become critically important.

Doctor of Science in Law, Professor, and International Arbitrator Foziljon Otakhonov has put forward important proposals that need to be implemented in this area.

– Over the past few years, Uzbekistan has established important legal foundations in international commercial arbitration, arbitration courts, and mediation, – says Mr. Otakhonov. – In addition, laws adopted in the fields of e-commerce, electronic digital signatures, personal data, and cybersecurity have created the necessary legal framework for resolving disputes in the digital environment. However, developing a modern system cannot be limited to legislation alone. Modern infrastructure is also required to facilitate remote hearings, electronic evidence, digital identification, information security, and hybrid proceedings. In this regard, the main task today is not to establish new institutions but to equip the existing legal framework with modern technical and digital capabilities.

For certain arbitration and arbitral institutions, building infrastructure that satisfies all criteria can be a substantial financial challenge. When each institution develops independently, resources tend to be used inefficiently and in a fragmented way. Thus, promoting cooperation, shared infrastructure, and sector specialization is more beneficial than fostering competition.

No single mechanism fits all disputes. Complex international commercial conflicts are often best resolved through arbitration. Some private-law disputes are suitable for arbitral tribunals, and cases where maintaining relationships is key are well suited to mediation. Thus, promoting a culture that guides applicants toward the most appropriate mechanism is essential.

Therefore, the suggested approach is: “a single point of contact – impartial information – choosing the most suitable mechanism – referring to a specialized institution – independent resolution”. In this system, the focus is on the applicant’s interests rather than those of the institutions.

–What are the steps to put this idea into action?

A practical approach would be to set up a modern Alternative Dispute Resolution Center in Tashkent. This center should be independent and not linked to any specific arbitration institution or tribunal, functioning as a neutral facility accessible to all on equal footing.

The facility should feature modern hearing rooms, mediation areas, studios for hybrid and remote meetings, equipment for simultaneous interpretation, electronic evidence management systems, and secure digital communication technology.

Initially, arbitration institutions, arbitral tribunals, and mediators can use this infrastructure on equal and preferential terms. Later, reasonable fee structures might be introduced to cover operational costs.

Importantly, the state’s role should concentrate on creating conditions that allow disputes to be resolved independently and professionally, rather than resolving them directly. While the state can aid infrastructure, it must refrain from interfering with the independence of arbitration or mediation processes.

– How can a digital platform be effectively integrated at the center?

– The proposed center in Tashkent shouldn’t be viewed just as a modern building. It also needs to include a digital platform.

Specifically, a 24/7 multilingual information service powered by AI would offer applicants initial guidance.

Such a system could inform individuals and entrepreneurs about the specific aspects of arbitration, arbitral tribunals, and mediation, detail the required documents, and present potential dispute-resolution mechanisms.

At the same time, artificial intelligence should not serve as a source of legal advice or as a decision-maker. Instead, its role should be confined to offering information, performing an initial categorization of applications, and guiding users toward the most suitable option.

Once a national system is established, a regional platform accessible to Central Asian countries could be developed in Samarkand as its natural extension.

Historically, Samarkand has served as a hub for trade routes and diverse cultures and civilizations. Now, this rich heritage offers a chance to redefine the city’s role. By establishing a center with advanced technological infrastructure, it could serve as a regional hub for international arbitration, cross-border dispute resolution, mediation, academic exchanges, and professional collaboration.

The division of responsibilities between Tashkent and Samarkand is especially significant. Tashkent could serve as the hub for national infrastructure, digital solutions, and institutional coordination, while Samarkand could be positioned as a platform for international cooperation, regional dialogue, education, and the resolution of cross-border disputes.

– What importance does the combination of practice, education, and research hold?

– The sustainable growth of the alternative dispute resolution system depends on qualified professionals and ongoing academic research. Consequently, these centers should keep ongoing collaboration with higher education institutions, research organizations, and industry professionals.

Centers should evolve into multifunctional hubs, serving not just as venues for hearings but also as spaces for professional development of arbitrators and mediators, practical training for students, international conferences, arbitration competitions, and academic research.

This will foster ongoing collaboration between practice and academia. Issues discovered in practical settings will serve as a foundation for academic research, and research outcomes will help enhance legislation and law enforcement procedures.

This approach should start with wide-ranging academic and professional discussions. It is crucial to examine practical experience, review international models, and integrate expert opinions by involving arbitrators, arbitral judges, mediators, lawyers, judges, entrepreneurs, scholars, and educational institutions.

Subsequently, a comprehensive concept for enhancing alternative dispute resolution in Uzbekistan can be developed. This plan should go beyond merely creating new centers and include reforming legislation, implementing digital solutions, developing infrastructure, leveraging artificial intelligence, establishing professional standards, training personnel, conducting statistical analyses, and fostering international collaboration.

The Tashkent center and the Samarkand platform may serve as key institutional components within this integrated ecosystem.

Uzbekistan’s next step in developing alternative dispute resolution should prioritize building a modern ecosystem that connects these institutions around a shared objective, rather than merely expanding their number.

This ecosystem should unify digital technologies, modern infrastructure, institutional cooperation, specialization, academic potential, and human interests into a cohesive system. Such integration would allow individuals and entrepreneurs to find the most suitable dispute resolution mechanism swiftly, ensuring disputes are settled independently, professionally, and efficiently.

Uzbekistan’s focus should be on developing a modern legal ecosystem rather than establishing new institutions, as the culture of alternative dispute resolution is deeply connected to the country’s legal and economic progress. In the 21st century, competition revolves around entire legal ecosystems, not just individual institutions.

Implementing the proposed modern, digital, and cooperation-focused system would boost Uzbekistan’s competitiveness in the legal services market and potentially establish the country as a leading regional hub for alternative dispute resolution in Central Asia.

Interviewed by Norgul Abduraimova, UzA