I. INTRODUCTION

 

The fate of awards annulled at the seat has been the subject of well-known

case law from different countries1 and has spurred considerable scholarly debate.2

The traditional position was that awards annulled at the seat ceased to have legal

existence and could therefore not be enforced in other countries. Over time some

courts and many commentators have begun to consider that the annulment of an

award at the seat is not necessarily preclusive of the possibility of enforcement in

other countries.

 

As I have tried to argue in earlier pieces,3 legal as well as policy reasons

strongly militate in favor of the more open view. Specifically, the possibility of

enforcing awards annulled at the seat is one of the tools to insulate arbitral awards

from undue, or unpalatable, interferences by state courts with arbitration and to

deleverage the role of the state of the seat. The other tool is the recourse to

international courts and tribunals, particularly those constituted under bilateral

investment agreements, to sanction interference with arbitration potentially
amounting to violations of international law. 4