Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in the Midst of Complex Boundaries and Exceptions : What is the extent of their impact?
type: CreativeWork
description: The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is of paramount significance for the success of arbitration in the international arena. In fact, the enforceability of arbitral awards throughout the world is perceived as one of the main advantages of arbitration. Since the inception of the New York Convention in 1958, nearly 150 states have acceded to the Convention, making it one of the most successful international conventions in history. By means of establishing a mechanism through which arbitral awards are easily enforceable worldwide, the New York Convention has empowered commercial parties with an effective method of resolving their disputes via a neutral forum and a process they confide in. However, the ultimate test of any arbitration proceeding is its ability to render an award which, if necessary, will be recognized and enforced in relevant national courts. The recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards entangle a potentially complicated succession of topics. In numerous cases, enforcement of an arbitral award implicates the national law of the state where an award is made, the national law of the state where enforcement is sought, and the stipulations of feasible international conventions or treaties. Essentially, the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law and other national arbitration statutes not only form a common presumption that international arbitral awards are legitimate and must be recognized, but also allow for non-recognition and enforcement of awards on the same enumerated and considerably limited substantive grounds. In a theoretical sense, perhaps the most intriguing facet of the New York Convention resides in the limitations placed on the grounds for resisting enforcement. It is inevitable that the grounds for non-enforcement as stipulated under the New York Convention are susceptible to be interpreted divergently by various dissimilar courts seized in any particular matter. In an ideal world, the provisions of the …
abstract: The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is of paramount significance for the success of arbitration in the international arena. In fact, the enforceability of arbitral awards throughout the world is perceived as one of the main advantages of arbitration. Since the inception of the New York Convention in 1958, nearly 150 states have acceded to the Convention, making it one of the most successful international conventions in history. By means of establishing a mechanism through which arbitral awards are easily enforceable worldwide, the New York Convention has empowered commercial parties with an effective method of resolving their disputes via a neutral forum and a process they confide in. However, the ultimate test of any arbitration proceeding is its ability to render an award which, if necessary, will be recognized and enforced in relevant national courts. The recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards entangle a potentially complicated succession of topics. In numerous cases, enforcement of an arbitral award implicates the national law of the state where an award is made, the national law of the state where enforcement is sought, and the stipulations of feasible international conventions or treaties. Essentially, the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law and other national arbitration statutes not only form a common presumption that international arbitral awards are legitimate and must be recognized, but also allow for non-recognition and enforcement of awards on the same enumerated and considerably limited substantive grounds. In a theoretical sense, perhaps the most intriguing facet of the New York Convention resides in the limitations placed on the grounds for resisting enforcement. It is inevitable that the grounds for non-enforcement as stipulated under the New York Convention are susceptible to be interpreted divergently by various dissimilar courts seized in any particular matter. In an ideal world, the provisions of the …
author: Zalmanovitch, Oded
language: eng
date published: 2014
date modified: 2026-07-27T19:55:56Z
provider: University of Helsinki
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Helsingfors universitet

PropertyValue
property ID: Handle
value: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/135328