##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 96 Download : 59

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

In recent years, many of the leading arbitral institutions have amended their rules in order to make arbitration more responsive to users' needs. A key development has been the introduction of emergency arbitrator procedures, which enable parties to obtain urgent relief before the substantive tribunal is formed. For good reason, these new mechanisms are receiving significant attention from parties and arbitrators. However, have enforcement mechanisms kept pace with these developments? Therefore, this article addresses the implementation of interim measures of relief issued by international arbitral tribunals through exploring current legal frameworks for such enforcement, foreign case law practices, examples of such measures that have been enforced and suggestions for drafting interim measures as well as alternatives for harmonizing into international framework to maximize their potential enforceability

Keywords

interim measures provisional measures arbitral order arbitral award

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Dilboboyev Nozimbek Shavkat ugli. (2022). Issues for Enforcement of Decisions of the International Investment Arbitration on Temporary Protection Measures. Texas Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 8, 243–250. Retrieved from https://zienjournals.com/index.php/tjm/article/view/1833

References

  1. ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules. Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitration Rules). International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA ICSID / 15 April 2006. - P. 118.
  2. . G. Kaufmann-Kohler and A. Antonietti, 'Interim relief in international investment agreements', in: K. Yannaca-Small (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, OUP (2010). - P. 507.
  3. . ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA ICSID / 15 April 2006. - P. 24.
  4. . A. de Nanteuil, C. Pauly, 'Provisional measures in ICSID Arbitration: to be (binding) or not to be?', Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage - The Paris Journal of International Arbitration, 2, 219–37 (2018) .
  5. . UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 with amendments as adopted in 2006. United Nations Publication. Sales No. E.08.V.4 //https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/ 19-09955_e_ebook.pdf
  6. . VV Veeder, 'Provisional and Conservatory Measures in Enforcing Arbitration Awards Under the New York Convention: Experience and Prospects' 21, UN Publication Sales No. E.99.V.2 (1999).
  7. . AJ van den Berg, 'The 1958 New York Arbitration Convention Revisited', in Karrer, P (ed), Arbitral Tribunals or State Courts: Who Must Defer to Whom? 125 (ASA Special Series No. 15, 2001).
  8. . Note that some of these are actually sub-national jurisdictions, such as Canadian provinces and US states. //https: // uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status
  9. . CE International Resources Holdings LLC v. SA Minerals Ltd et al., 2012 US Dist. LEXIS 176158, 6, 7 (SDNY).
  10. . 9 USC Section 1 et seq. (especially Chapter 2 thereof).
  11. . PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero TBK) v. CRW Joint Operation [2015] SGCA 30
  12. . E Tan and R Coldwell, 'Another (Unsuccessful) Challenge to the Finality of Interim Arbitral Awards in Singapore and Enforcing DAB Decisions on International Projects under FIDIC', Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 15 Jun 2015.
  13. . Vodacom Int'l Ltd. v. Namenco Energy Ltd, Commercial Court of Kinshasa, Order No. 123/2014 of 28 Mar 2014, cited in A Santens and J Kudrna, 'The State of Play of Enforcement of Emergency Arbitrator Decisions', in Maxi Scherer (ed), Journal of International Arbitration (Kluwer 2017, Volume 34 Issue 1) pp . 1 to 16
  14. . JKX Oil & Gas plc, Poltava Gas BV and Poltava Petroleum JV v. Ukraine, Decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, 24 Feb 2016, available athttps://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7391.pdf.
  15. . Cairo Court of Appeal, 7th Commercial Circuit, Case No. 44/134 JY, Decision dated 9 May 2018; see also 'Cairo court fills interim measures “void” in Egyptian law', Global Arbitration Review (23 May 2018), available athttps://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1169888/cairo-court-fills-interim-measures-void-in-egyptian-law.
  16. . Doo-Sik Kim, Jae Min Jeon, Seung Min Lee and Arie Eernisse, 'South Korea' in GAR Know-How: Commercial Arbitration, accessible athttps://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/know-how/commercial-arbitration/report/south-korea
  17. . Supreme Court No. 5468-2009, Western Technology Services International Inc. (Westech) v. a Chilean company, Cauchos Industriales SA (Cainsa), 11 May 2010 (case described in UNCITRAL's 'Case Law On Uncitral Texts (CLOUT)', dated 23 August 2011 (A / CN.9 / SER.C / ABSTRACTS / 111), at 5.
  18. . Living Consulting Group AB (Sweden) v. OOO Sokotel (Russian Federation), Presidium of the Highest Arbitrazh Court, Russian Federation, 5 October 2010, A56-63115 / 2009, in AJ van den Berg (ed.), XXXVI Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 317, 318 (Kluwer 2011).