Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

XXII Annulment, Set Aside, and Refusal to Enforce

Sabahi Rubins

From: Investor-State Arbitration (2nd Edition)

Borzu Sabahi, Noah Rubins, Don Wallace, Jr.

From: Investment Claims (http://oxia.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. date: 19 October 2021

Subject(s):
Review of arbitral awards — UNCITRAL Model Law

This chapter discusses the procedures for challenging the validity of a final or interim arbitration award. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention calls this procedure ‘annulment’, which takes place before a three-member arbitral tribunal known as an ad hoc or annulment committee. In a non-ICSID context, the parties may try to ‘set aside’ investment treaty arbitration awards at the seat of arbitration. The set aside proceedings are governed by the relevant legislation at the seat of arbitration, which normally adopts grounds for setting aside of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. National arbitration legislation, including those based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, also contain grounds for refusing enforcement of arbitral awards. The UNCITRAL Model Law grounds for refusal to enforce are almost identical to the grounds for set aside. However, a refusal to enforce, unlike the set aside that takes place at the seat, can take place in any jurisdiction where an award-creditor tries to enforce the award.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.