In a world enmeshed in geopolitics, commercial organisations and their legal advisers have to meander a myriad of obstacles in their contractual engagements with an eye to the unfortunate event of disputes. What would be the optimal jurisdictional choice? The traditional criterion for an optimal jurisdictional choice lies in efficiency, fairness, knowledge base, and ease of enforcement; however, it is now complicated by sanctions. In UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RussChem Alliance LLC (Appellant) [2024] UKSC 30, the UK Supreme Court faced a complex situation created by US sanctions against Russian entities. The Court upheld an anti-suit injunction restraining parties from proceeding with a Russian Court action (established by Russian Federation Law to circumvent the sanctions) in favour of ICC arbitration in Paris in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Will the Hong Kong Courts take a similar stance? Hong Kong stands as the nationally acknowledged international beacon for the Greater Bay Area (GBA) , with its legal system linking those of the PRC domestic jurisdiction and the Macao domestic jurisdiction. Exploring the advantages of the GBA as an optimal jurisdictional choice for dispute resolution are two well-known practitioners – Anthony Neoh SC JP, Co-Chair of the Asian Academy of International Law is a practicing international arbitrator and the Vice-Chair of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration. He will team up with Joanne Lau, Secretary General of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, to share their joint experience in international arbitrations in the GBA, in particular how the Courts have been supporting arbitrations and why the GBA will be able to meander the fog of geopolitics.