The theoretical and practical landscape of international arbitration continuously evolves fueled by the constant debate about the nature and ultimate purpose of arbitration. Part of the discussion among scholars and practitioners alike echoes the question raised by Professor George Bermann about what it means to be “pro-arbitration”. Answering that question necessitates a careful inquiry into the delicate balance among competing interests that come into play when examining the overall arbitration friendliness of a given policy or practice. One of the main issues central to that inquiry is the role of the courts over the life cycle of an arbitration.
Courts play different roles at various stages of the arbitral process that may affect the overall accuracy, efficiency, and enforceability of the arbitral awards. In that regard, judicial treatment by national courts of arbitral awards set aside at the seat is an important consideration when evaluating whether certain policy or practice is arbitration friendly.
As can be expected, courts in different jurisdictions have different views on whether an arbitral award set aside at the seat survives and retains its legal effect in another jurisdiction.