P&K Interview: Introducing Elodie Dulac

Elodie Dulac joined the Peter & Kim partnership, based in Singapore, in June 2026. Welcome to the firm Elodie!

Welcome to P&K. What are you most excited to bring to clients through your practice and experience?

I am excited to bring my expertise blending civil law and common law and my extensive experience of arbitrations relating to Asia.  I have been fortunate to be based in Singapore for nearly 20 years, working on international arbitration throughout.  As such, I have worked on over 80 arbitrations with an Asia connection, for most seated in Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Seoul, or in Europe.  I am admitted both as an Avocate in Paris, France and as a Solicitor-Advocate in England & Wales, and I have worked on cases under the laws of almost all countries in the region.  I also sit as an arbitrator, which gives me a close knowledge of the leading arbitral institutions and their operation in the region.   Further, my practice covers both commercial and investment treaty arbitration.  I have worked on investment treaty arbitrations for Asian clients and/or involving Asian States for over 20 years, including some of the first, seminal, investment treaty cases.   My experience, has one common denominator, Asia, and allows me to best advise clients in their Asia-related disputes.

You have particular expertise in disputes arising from the energy sector.  How are geopolitical developments and changing regulatory frameworks affecting dispute risks in this industry and how can companies proactively mitigate those risks?

In the energy (and mining) sectors, geopolitical developments and changing regulatory frameworks are risks which need to be factored in, as they are always present, even if quieter times.  The counterparts are often States or State-owned entities.  On the contractual side, a neutral dispute resolution forum, i.e. avoiding a place of arbitration in the host State, is the first layer of protection.  Some form of stabilisation clause (whether freezing clause, economic stabilisation clause, tax assumption clause or some hybrid variant) is can be a powerful protection, when coupled with an effective dispute resolution clause.  I have experienced this in an arbitration in which I represented an oil major in relation to a potential tax liability in the billions of dollars, and in which my client prevailed with the arbitral tribunal enforcing a tax assumption clause.  In addition, the drafting of some clauses, in particular force majeure and hardship clauses, should adapt their drafting to changing times (e.g. consider the geopolitical situation in the drafting of the force majeure clause, such as, for instance, whether a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz should be considered a ‘foreseeable’ event or not going forward, if relevant to the contract; address sanctions, including sanctions affecting the supply chain).

A second layer of protection is investment treaty protection.  I increasingly advise clients on structuring their investment for investment treaty protection at the outset, alongside tax planning, or when buying in.  They key is not to wait for the dispute to arise to consider investment treaty coverage, as arbitral tribunals have deemed such late restructuring an abuse of process.   Further, it is important to keep in mind that investment treaties can offer a powerful protection against regulatory chances even in the absence of a contract between the investor and the host State or a State-owned entity.

Another focus for your practice is Investor-State disputes. What are the most common misconceptions businesses have about investment treaty protection?  What developments do you anticipate regarding Asia-related investment treaty arbitration (we have seen significant changes in other regions, starting with Europe)?

A common misconception is for a business involved in a large-scale investment to disregard investment treaty arbitration as something remote which will never concern them.  Especially if that business has been doing business in a given country relatively smoothly for a long time.   Investment treaties are a safety net.  For large-scale investments, and in politically sensitive sectors (especially, energy, mining), there may not be any other efficient dispute resolution mechanism in case of legislative, regulatory or judicial measures undermining the investment.   It is also a protection against a wide array of risks beyond the contractual sphere, if any, which cannot be fully anticipated at the time of making the investment (e.g. revocation of a licence or permit indispensable to operate the investment; unreasonable change in tax rate ; change in tariffs on which the financial viability of the investment was premised; host State remaining passive (or worse, instigating) riots by local communities against the investment; physical expropriation; bogus court proceedings, to name a few).

There has not been a continent-wide swing against investment treaty arbitration in Asia as has been seen in recent years in the European Union and in Africa (should the AfCFTA Investment Protocol enter into force and the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism ultimately be negotiated).  With the exception of India and Indonesia, which have taken a more restrictive approach and terminated many of their bilateral investment treaties (BITs), Asian countries still have over 1,500 investment treaties in force, most of which are still so-called first generation BITs, offering investors broad protections.  I would expect the number of BIT arbitrations brought by Asian investors to increase in the coming years, both intra-Asia cases, but also as a result of increasing outbound investments beyond Asia, notably in Africa in the energy, mining and construction sectors.

You have been based in Asia for the last 20 years, and have broad experience assisting with disputes in Asia, Africa and Europe, as well as being admitted in England & Wales, France and Cambodia. How do you think the perspective you have gained helps in dispute resolution?

I am French, spent most of my professional career in Singapore, also worked for a couple of years in Washington DC (in a US law firm’s arbitration team), and I have lived in Ethiopia.  This experience helps me, not only on the substance of the dispute, but also to, I hope, to be culturally versatile, and help client best navigate disputes.