Enforcement

TL;DR: Enforcement of arbitral awards is primarily governed by the New York and ICSID Conventions, ensuring enforceability as long as awards are rendered pursuant to certain procedural safeguards.

Abstract: This chapter addresses enforcement in international arbitration. The ready enforceability of arbitral awards is the single strongest component of the architecture that undergirds international arbitration. Two conventions are the primary mechanisms ensuring that enforceability: the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, colloquially known as the New York Convention; and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, colloquially referred to as the ICSID Convention or the Washington Convention. The regime for enforcement of arbitral awards is based on a structure that prioritizes enforcement so long as awards are rendered pursuant to certain largely procedural safeguards. This approach is an attempt to balance the principle of party autonomy with concern on the part of national courts that they not be co-opted into enforcing awards not consistent with at least rudimentary principles of fair play. Judgment debtors can thus resist enforcement should the arbitration have failed to comport with fundamental notions of due process. In the case of the New York Convention, two other grounds for resisting enforcement have to do with policy considerations in the enforcing state.