International arbitration is rarely boring, but Moscow's latest legal play has turned heads across global judicial circles. Russia has officially appointed former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud as its arbitrator in a massive, multi-million dollar dispute.
The case involves Oschadbank, a state-owned Ukrainian bank seeking heavy financial recovery for lost assets and operations. If you are wondering how a former head of India's apex court ended up arbitrating a fallout from the Russia-Ukraine war, you need to look past the political headlines and examine the intricate mechanics of international investment treaties.
The Anatomy of the Oschadbank Dispute
The core of the legal battle centers on banking assets, infrastructure, and investments in four specific Ukrainian regions: Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Following the full-scale invasion, Oschadbank claimed it lost total control and operational capacity over its branches and holdings in these territories.
Instead of traditional domestic litigation, the bank initiated international arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty. The framework governing this clash is the 1998 Agreement between Russia and Ukraine on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments.
Oschadbank served a formal notice of dispute in July 2025. When Moscow allegedly didn't respond, the bank escalated the matter by filing a formal notice of arbitration. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in claimed losses.
Inside the Tribunal Structure
Arbitration panels are designed to balance competing international interests. This specific dispute relies on a three-member tribunal.
The setup includes:
- The President: Dyalá Jiménez, a Costa Rican arbitrator and former trade minister, chosen jointly by both sides.
- The Claimant's Choice: Stavros Brekoulakis, a Greek arbitrator and professor at the National University of Singapore, appointed by Oschadbank.
- The Respondent's Choice: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, appointed directly by Russia.
This is entirely separate from earlier historical litigation. For context, Oschadbank previously secured a massive $1.5 billion award against Russia concerning assets lost during the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Moscow largely sat out those earlier proceedings, making their active participation and appointment of a high-profile international jurist like Chandrachud a notable tactical shift.
Chandrachud's Complex History with Russian Appointments
This isn't the first time Moscow has knocked on Chandrachud's door. The former Chief Justice was previously approached regarding other high-profile energy and infrastructure treaty disputes involving German firm Wintershall Dea and Ukrainian utility Ukrenergo.
While he was initially designated as an appointing authority by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Wintershall proceedings, he later stepped back from those specific roles following disclosures about direct communications from the Russian state. Accepting the Oschadbank appointment now places him directly at the center of one of the most politically sensitive cross-border commercial tribunals active today.
What Happens Next
The tribunal will now move forward with preliminary procedural hearings, document production schedules, and jurisdictional arguments. Russia aims to contest the claims or minimize liability under the 1998 treaty framework, while Oschadbank pushes to enforce accountability for its seized regional footprint.
Expect intense scrutiny on how the tribunal interprets state responsibility, asset expropriation, and treaty protections during active military conflict. The panel's eventual rulings will set heavy precedents for how international law handles corporate asset losses in war zones.
