•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The availability of interim measures can be of paramount importance for parties in arbitra-tion proceedings – especially in complex cross-border settings where several jurisdictions and judicial systems might be involved. Particularly orders not to dispose of or to relocate assets often prove to be crucial for securing the economic basis of an award. According to the principle of ‘concurrent’ jurisdiction, parties generally have the option to request inter-im relief from state courts as well as from arbitral tribunals. However, the practices in dif-ferent jurisdictions and under different arbitration rules vary considerably regarding the specifics of requesting and enforcing interim orders in the context of arbitration proceed-ings. These differences become particularly evident with respect to questions concerning limitations to the principle of ‘concurrent’ jurisdiction and in the context of the recognition and enforcement of orders issued by emergency arbitrators and by foreign-seated arbitral tribunals. The article analyses the current situation in England and Wales, Germany, and India, particularly with respect to the enforceability of arbitral-ordered interim measures. The authors conclude that – especially in light of the ongoing reforms in the arbitration laws of these jurisdictions – a more uniform approach to enforcing interim measures on the international level would be beneficial.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.