Key Insights from the Webinar Discussions

Editorial Note: This summary has been prepared by the organisers for information purposes only and reflects the general themes discussed; it does not necessarily reflect the exact views or positions of the individual speakers.

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, a critical and often complex phase of international dispute resolution, was the focus of a webinar held on 16 December as part of the Think Global Go Global (TGG) initiative. The session brought together speakers and participants from multiple jurisdictions, including arbitrators, legal practitioners, and academics, to examine enforcement challenges from the perspectives of the MENA region, the European Union, and Central Asia.

The webinar featured expert contributions from Prof. Dr. Mohamed Sameh Amr, Prof. Dr. Nikos Lavranos, and Ms. Nafisa Aslonova, each offering insights grounded in their respective regional and professional experience.

The Political Dimension of Enforcement

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Sameh Amr, an arbitrator and Dean of the Faculty of Law at Cairo University, kicked off the session by highlighting the crucial role that political considerations play in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, particularly in the MENA region. Dr. Amr emphasized that while an arbitral award is intended to resolve a dispute, the enforcement phase often uncovers deeper complexities, including the potential for parties to resist enforcement by leveraging political circumstances. A key strategy, he explained, is invoking public policy defenses under the guise of national interests.

 In many MENA jurisdictions, public policy can be broadly interpreted, and governments may resist enforcement if an award is seen as conflicting with national sovereignty or political objectives. The reluctance to enforce an award can also be tied to geopolitical factors, as some countries may be unwilling to recognize awards rendered against foreign entities or states. Dr. Amr's insights underscored how the underlying political environment can heavily influence the judicial approach to enforcement, adding a layer of unpredictability and challenge for international practitioners.

Treaty Arbitration and State Immunity in the EU

Next, Prof. Dr. Nikos Lavranos, an arbitrator and lecturer at Leiden University, provided a European perspective, focusing on treaty arbitration and the specific challenges involved in the post-award phase, particularly in cases involving EU Member States. Dr. Lavranos addressed the complex relationship between the recognition of an arbitral award and its eventual enforcement. He pointed out that while recognition of an award is a necessary first step, it does not guarantee that enforcement will follow.

 One critical issue he raised was State immunity—an area of law that becomes particularly relevant when enforcing awards against state-owned entities. In these cases, the sovereign immunity doctrine can shield a state from enforcement actions, posing significant hurdles for creditors seeking to collect on awards rendered against such entities. Dr. Lavranos highlighted the legal nuances and tensions between national and international legal frameworks that complicate enforcement in these situations. These issues are especially pertinent within the EU, where different member states may interpret and apply the enforcement standards of international treaties, such as the New York Convention, differently.

The Role of Domestic Procedures in Central Asia

The final speaker, Ms. Nafisa Aslonova, Deputy Director of the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (TIAC), offered a perspective from Central Asia, specifically focusing on Uzbekistan. Ms. Aslonova outlined the distinctive domestic procedures that impact the enforcement of arbitral awards in the region. One notable feature in Uzbekistan is the presence of specialized Economic Courts, which handle disputes related to the enforcement of both international and domestic arbitral awards.

 Ms. Aslonova discussed recent legal developments in Uzbekistan, particularly regarding the recognition and enforcement of awards issued by the TIAC. These developments include efforts to streamline the enforcement process and improve the predictability of outcomes, which is vital for fostering confidence in international arbitration. The establishment of dedicated courts for economic disputes, she explained, plays a key role in ensuring that arbitral awards are enforced efficiently, reducing the potential for resistance.

Conclusion

The webinar provided valuable insights into the procedural challenges faced in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards across three distinct regions. While the specifics of enforcement procedures vary, common themes emerged, such as the influence of national political factors, the complexities surrounding state immunity, and the importance of specialized domestic legal frameworks. These insights not only shed light on the barriers to enforcement but also underscored the need for greater harmonization and cooperation in the international arbitration community to overcome these challenges.

 The interactive session following the presentations allowed participants to engage directly with the speakers, further enriching the discussion and offering practical takeaways for practitioners in the field of international arbitration.