Konstantinos D. Kerameus, Athens; is Professor of Civil Procedure at Athens University School of Law. Since 1985 he is the Vice-President of the Greek Arbitration Association; and since 1986 the Vice-President of the Greek Association of Civil Procedure.
By their nature and purpose, anti-suit injunctions are disruptive of the coexistence of, and cooperation between judicial and arbitral instances around the globe.1 As the mutual interaction between these instances intensifies, the problem of anti-suit injunctions is bound to become more frequent and complex. Indeed, the problem is already manifest, and not only with respect to international arbitration, whether it be institutional or ad hoc.
We shall first recall the underlying normative framework of the 1965 Washington Convention, as we are considering anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitrators in ICSID arbitration. These injunctions may be addressed either to states or other parties. They purport to prevent parties from initiating or pursuing other judicial or arbitral proceedings, in order to protect the integrity and effectiveness of ICSID arbitration. The typical situation is where a party in ICSID arbitration requests the ICSID tribunal to prevent the other party from seeking more or less identical relief in its national courts.2 In essence, the aim is to foster ICSID arbitration, preventing interference by national courts.