Kazakhstan is a serious player in international arbitration. The Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) has built an independent court and arbitration centre that has genuinely attracted international business from across Central Asia, the Middle East, and China.
I have been advising clients on commercial disputes in Kazakhstan and the surrounding regions for many years, and the pace of change at the AIFC has been striking. When the centre launched in 2018, it was an ambitious project. Today, the International Arbitration Centre (“IAC”) has handled nearly 5,000 cases, with around 90% of those cases having no direct connection to the AIFC itself. This means parties are actively choosing Astana as their arbitration seat.
This article sets out how the AIFC arbitration framework works, what the interim measures regime looks like in practice, and the practical issues any legal adviser working on Kazakhstan disputes should understand before proceeding.
The AIFC Framework in Brief
The AIFC Constitutional Statute gives the AIFC Court exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between AIFC participants, disputes governed by AIFC law, and any commercial dispute that the parties agree to refer. That last category matters. Any two parties, regardless of whether they have any connection to the AIFC, can opt into the AIFC Court and IAC by contract. It is a deliberate feature of the system, designed to attract international business.
The AIFC Court and IAC operate entirely in English. Proceedings are conducted under English common law principles, and where a moot point arises, the AIFC reverts to English law as its primary source of law. Most of the judges on the court have trained in English law, and that is the tradition they work within. The court will also take account of the law of other common law jurisdictions, including decisions from Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia, which makes the AIFC’s jurisprudence genuinely familiar to international practitioners.
The interest in English law is real and growing. Kazakhstan’s legal community has invested substantially in understanding it. This gives UK lawyers acting for parties in the region a practical advantage, as the procedural rules are the same or very similar.
Availability of interim measures
The AIFC Arbitration Regulations 2017 (the “Regulations”) contain an unusually clear and well-structured interim measures regime. Under Article 17, it is expressly stated to be compatible with an Arbitration Agreement for a party to apply to the AIFC Court for interim relief, before or during arbitral proceedings. The Tribunal’s constitution does not need to be complete before a party can seek protection from the Court. That is a meaningful difference from many domestic systems.
Article 27 of the Regulations grants the Arbitral Tribunal the power to order interim measures. Those measures can cover four purposes:
- Maintaining or restoring the status quo pending the outcome of the dispute
- Preserving assets from which a future award might be satisfied
- Taking action to prevent harm to a party or to the arbitral process itself
- Preserving evidence relevant to resolving the dispute
Where the Tribunal has already issued an interim order, a party can apply to the AIFC Court of First Instance to enforce it, provided that the Tribunal has given its written permission. Under AIFC Rules 27.30 and 27.31, the application must be made by Arbitration Claim Form, and the Court will not grant enforcement unless the applicant files written evidence of that permission. This is a sensible safeguard against parties using the court to bypass the Tribunal’s authority.
In practice, the AIFC Court’s interim measures regime compares favourably with Kazakhstan’s domestic civil procedure rules. Under standard domestic practice, interim relief can only be obtained after proceedings have commenced, and a freezing order, once granted, may remain in place for six to eight months with little prospect of the respondent obtaining a discharge before then. The AIFC Court takes a different approach: it is required to schedule a review hearing at the point of granting relief, so the respondent’s position receives prompt consideration.
The AIFC has developed a body of case law on interim measures. Cases include JSC Astana International Financial Centre Authority v Onyx Heavy Machinery Ltd (AIFC-C/CFI/2020/0004), Metallinvestatyrau LLP v Aksaystroy-2020 LLP (AIFC-C/CFI/2021/0013), LLP “TEMIR ZAT” v Joint Venture “Alaygyr” LLP (AIFC-C/CFI/2023/0046), and, most recently, Caspian Holding FZ-LLC v Gazexport Limited (AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0018). The 2025 energy sector case is particularly telling; it shows that the court is willing to grant relief in commercially sensitive disputes involving gas export arrangements.
Enforcing Arbitration Awards In Kazakhstan
The AIFC Court itself has an excellent enforcement record: 205 judgments delivered, with a 100% enforcement rate at the time of writing. AIFC Court orders carry the same legal force as judgments from Kazakhstan’s general jurisdiction courts. For disputes resolved within the AIFC system, enforcement has been reliable.
The picture is more complicated when it comes to enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Kazakhstan’s domestic courts. Kazakhstan has acceded to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which in principle means that awards made in other Convention states are enforceable in Kazakhstan. In practice, the position is more nuanced. A significant practical rule applies: in general, Kazakh courts will not enforce a foreign arbitration award if the debtor lacks an address or registered presence in Kazakhstan. Enforcement has occurred in some cases, but it is the exception rather than the standard outcome.
There is also a structural tension in how the New York Convention operates in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan joined the Convention by Presidential Decree in 1995 rather than by parliamentary ratification, and some Kazakh lawyers argue this means it does not automatically take priority over domestic law under the Kazakh Constitution. Others take the view that the decree still incorporates the Convention into national legislation, and it applies directly.
Some argue that the mandatory public policy ground for refusal under Article 52(2) of the Law on Arbitration can be applied more broadly than the Convention’s permissive wording allows. From an international law perspective, Kazakhstan is bound by its accession obligations. From the perspective of a creditor trying to enforce in a Kazakh domestic court, that theoretical obligation may offer limited comfort.
The AIFC is a genuine option for commercial dispute resolution, and for cross-border disputes with a Central Asian focus, it is increasingly the most practical one. The alignment with English law makes it accessible to UK-trained practitioners. The court’s independence, its interim measures framework, and its track record give clients reasonable grounds for confidence.
That said, the domestic enforcement environment in Kazakhstan remains a distinct issue from AIFC enforcement. If a client’s strategy depends on recovering against a debtor whose assets are in Kazakhstan but who has no registered address there, the enforcement route will need careful planning. There is no automatic path from an arbitral award to a satisfied judgment.
A few practical points worth keeping in mind:
- Check whether the AIFC or IAC is specified in the contract. If it is, the AIFC Court’s jurisdiction and the arbitration framework apply directly.
- For urgent asset protection, an application to the AIFC Court for interim relief before the tribunal is constituted has procedural advantages over domestic Kazakh courts.
- If enforcement against a debtor in Kazakhstan is needed, investigate the debtor’s registered presence at an early stage. This will significantly shape the enforcement strategy.
- Any matter involving Russian entities or judgments routed through Kazakhstan requires sanctions law review before any steps are taken.
- The AIFC’s openness to other common law authorities means that English law arguments, properly framed, will be heard and understood.
Kazakhstan’s Role in Enforcing Russian Judgments
One development that deserves close attention is the volume of Russian judgments now being enforced in Kazakhstan. Since the imposition of Western sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian entities have found themselves unable to enforce judgments in most European jurisdictions. Kazakhstan has become a practical alternative. Russian companies with commercial relationships in Central Asia or with assets in the region have been seeking enforcement in Kazakh courts.
For UK-based advisers, this creates a set of questions that require careful thought. Acting in connection with the enforcement of a Russian judgment can raise sanctions compliance issues depending on the identity of the parties, the nature of the underlying contract, and whether any relevant general licences or OFSI authorisations apply. The potential for conflict between Kazakhstan’s openness to Russian enforcement and the UK’s sanctions regime is an area where specialist legal advice is genuinely necessary.
At Eldwick Law, we advise clients on exactly these types of cases: Kazakhstan arbitration procedure, AIFC enforcement strategy, and the sanctions law questions that often arise alongside them. If you are handling a matter involving Russian entities and Central Asian assets, or if you are instructed in a dispute where Kazakhstan is the enforcement jurisdiction, please do get in touch.
Where Is Kazakhstan Headed?
The IAC has signed 125 memoranda of understanding with arbitration institutions across Central Asia, the Middle East, China, and internationally. Those agreements are the mechanism through which the IAC is building the recognition and reciprocal enforcement relationships that give arbitration seats their long-term credibility. The direction of travel is clear.
For the highest-value energy and infrastructure disputes, London, Geneva, and Stockholm remain the seats specified in legacy contracts, and they continue to attract the most complex cases. For example, the Kashagan oilfield arbitration, with claims now exceeding $160 billion, is registered with the Permanent Court of Arbitration and is being heard by a tribunal in Geneva, with hearings expected to continue into 2028. Kazakhstan also recently won the Karachaganak gas condensate arbitration before the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, with the consortium of Eni, Shell, Chevron, and Lukoil potentially facing a payout of up to $4 billion.
The disputes mentioned above concerned older contracts. New agreements, particularly those involving Chinese and Middle Eastern investors in the region, are increasingly selecting the IAC, DIAC, SIAC, or HKIAC. As the AIFC Court’s jurisprudence develops and its reputation outside Central Asia grows, there is every reason to expect the IAC’s share of mid-market and complex regional disputes to increase.
Get in Touch
If you are involved in a dispute with a Kazakhstan element, or if you are advising a client on a contract that may give rise to one, I am happy to discuss the legal and procedural options with you. You can reach the team at Eldwick Law by calling +44 (0) 203 972 8469 or emailing mail@eldwicklaw.com. We advise on AIFC arbitration, interim measures applications, enforcement strategy, and the sanctions law issues that frequently arise in Central Asian commercial disputes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can any party use the AIFC Court, or is it restricted to AIFC members?
Any party can opt into the AIFC Court by agreement, regardless of whether they have any connection to the AIFC or Kazakhstan. Article 13(4) of the AIFC Constitutional Statute expressly allows parties to transfer disputes to the AIFC Court by consent, making it accessible to international commercial parties as a chosen seat.
How does the AIFC interim measures regime differ from domestic Kazakh courts?
The AIFC Court allows a party to apply for interim relief before arbitral proceedings have even started, and it schedules a review hearing at the point of granting relief. Under the AIFC Arbitration Regulations 2017, Articles 17 and 27, this dual-track system is expressly preserved. Domestic Kazakh courts can only grant interim measures after proceedings commence, and freezing orders can remain in place for up to six to eight months without readily available discharge.
Will a foreign arbitral award be enforced in Kazakhstan?
Kazakhstan is a party to the New York Convention, so foreign arbitral awards are in principle enforceable. In practice, Kazakh courts generally require the debtor to have a registered address or presence in Kazakhstan before granting enforcement. This has been the prevailing approach, though enforcement has been achieved in some cases without it. The position should be assessed carefully based on the facts.
What law does the AIFC Court apply?
The AIFC Court applies English common law as its primary reference point. Where a legal question is not resolved by AIFC legislation or rules, the court turns to English law. It will also take into account decisions from other common law jurisdictions, including Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia. Full details of the court’s legal framework are available at court.aifc.kz.
How does the enforcement of Russian judgments in Kazakhstan affect sanctions compliance?
Russian entities unable to enforce in European courts have been seeking enforcement in Kazakhstan. If a UK-based adviser or party is involved in such proceedings, they need to assess whether acting in connection with the Russian judgment or entity raises issues under the UK sanctions regime. Whether a relevant OFSI licence is required will depend on the specific facts, the identity of the parties, and the nature of the underlying transaction. OFSI guidance is available at gov.uk/ofsi.
