7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
1/80
DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School ofLaw
LLM Theses and Essays Student Works and Organizations
8-1-2003
Interim Measures in International CommercialArbitration: Past, Present and Future
Sandeep AdhipathiUniversity of Georgia School of Law
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works and Organizations at DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School of
Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in LLM Theses and Essays by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School
of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Repository CitationAdhipathi, Sandeep , "Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration: Past, Present and Future" (2003).LLM Theses andEssays. Paper 1.http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llm/1
http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llmhttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_worksmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_workshttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llmhttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://www.law.uga.edu/http://www.law.uga.edu/7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
2/80
INTERIMMEASURESININTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATION:
PAST,PRESENTANDFUTURE
by
SANDEEPADHIPATHI
(UndertheDirectionofProfessorGabrielM.Wilner)
ABSTRACT
Thisworkisacomparativestudyoftheavailabilityandhandlingofinterimmeasuresininternationalcommercialarbitrationindifferentlegalsystems.Itstudiesthe
differenceinhandlingofinterimmeasuresandtheneedforaharmonizedstructure.ItalsocontainsareviewoftheproposeddraftamendmenttotheUNCITRALModelLaw
andfurthersuggestsadifferentversionfortheamendment.
INDEXWORDS: InterimMeasures,InternationalCommercialArbitration,ProvisionalMeasures,InterimRelief,UNCITRALModelLaw
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
3/80
INTERIMMEASURESININTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATION:
PAST,PRESENTANDFUTURE
by
SANDEEPADHIPATHI
B.A.,B.L.,UniversityofMadras,India,2000
AThesisSubmittedtotheGraduateFacultyofTheUniversityofGeorgiainPartial
FulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegree
MASTEROFLAWS
ATHENS,GEORGIA
20003
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
4/80
2003
SandeepAdhipathi
AllRightsReserved
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
5/80
INTERIMMEASURESININTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATION:
PAST,PRESENTANDFUTURE
by
SANDEEPADHIPATHI
MajorProfessor: GabrielM.Wilner
Committee: CharlesR.T.OKelley
ElectronicVersionApproved:
MaureenGrasso
DeanoftheGraduateSchoolTheUniversityofGeorgia
August2003
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
6/80
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
IwouldliketothankandexpressmygratitudeandappreciationtoProf.Gabriel
M.WilnerforguidingmethroughthisthesisandtheLLMProgramasmyMajor
ProfessorandProgramAdvisor.IwouldalsoliketothankProf.CharlesR.T.OKelley
forhispromptappraisalofmythesisasthesecondreaderandcommitteechair.
Itakethisopportunitytoexpressmygratitudetomyparentsandmybrotherwho
havealwaysstoodbymeandencouragedmeinallmyendeavors.
MycousinSowmiyaR.K.SikalandherhusbandRameshSikaldeservespecial
mentionforallthesupportandguidancetheyhaveextendedthroughout.
IwouldliketothanktheDeanRuskCenterInternational,Comparativeand
GraduateLegalStudiesandtheUniversityofGeorgiaSchoolofLawforprovidingme
withtheopportunitytopursuemyMastersdegreeatthisprestigiousinstitution.Iwould
alsoliketothankallthewonderfulpeopleattheDeanRuskCenterwhowerealways
readyandwillingtohelpmethroughouttheMasterprogram.
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
7/80
v
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................ iv
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
A.InternationalCommercialArbitrationandTrade ...................................1
B.InterimMeasuresinInternationalArbitration ........................................ 4
2 INTERIMMEASURESININTERIMMEASURESCOMPARATIVE
STUDYOFTHENATIONALLEGISLATIONSANDCOURT
RULINGS ................................................................................................. 8
A.PowerofCourtstoOrderProvisionalRelief..........................................8
B.PowerofArbitratorstoGrantInterimRelief........................................23
C.EnforcementofInterimMeasuresOrderedbyArbitrators ................... 28
3 PROVISIONSFORINTERIMMEASURESUNDERVARIOUS
INSTITUTIONALRULESANDINTERNATIONALCONVENTIONS 36
A.CourtOrderedReliefUnderInstitutionalRulesandConventions ........ 36
B.PowerofArbitratorstoGrantInterimReliefUnderInstitutionalRules
andConventions ................................................................................ 41
C.EnforcementofInterimMeasuresOrderedbytheArbitrators..............46
4 UNCITRALRULESANDMODELLAWPRESENTANDPROPOSED.47
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
8/80
vi
A.UNCITRALModelLawandRulesonInterimMeasuresTheCurrent
Position..............................................................................................48
B.ProposedDraftforUNCITRALModelLaw........................................50
5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 65
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 67
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
9/80
CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION
A. InternationalCommercialArbitrationandTrade
1.Arbitrationasanalternativedisputeresolutionmethod
Evolutionofarbitrationasamethodofdisputeresolutioncanbecountedbacktothe
earlydaysofbusiness,whentraderslookedtoathirdpartytosolvedisputesbetweenthem1.The
processhasundergonealotofchangesfromthen,butthebasicnatureofarbitrationremainsthe
same2.Itdependsonacontractualagreementbetweenpartiestoresolvetheirdisputebeforea
selectgroupofnon-governmentalbodyandacceptingitsdecisionasbinding.3Buttheprocess
hasundergonealotofchangesandasincaseofevolutionhasadaptedtothechangingtimes 4.
Enterprisesallovertheworldhavestartedconductingbusinessonaninternationalscale.
Producersandsuppliersfromdifferentcontinentscontractproduceandsellproductsintheglobal
marketthroughbranchesandagents.Firmshavebeguntoincreasinglylookabroadformerger
partners,distribution,franchiseetc.Allthesetransactionsarebasedoncontractsbetweenthe
partiesandthereforethereareboundtobequestionsoninterpretationofclausesandothersuch
issuestobesettledamongtheparties.Arbitrationhasfrequentlybeenthechoiceofthese
1RobertB.vonMehren,FromVyniorsCaseToMitsubishi:TheFutureofArbitrationandPublicLaw,12
BrooklynJ.IntlL583(1986);BretFulkerson, AComparisonofCommercialArbitration:UnitedStates&
LatinAmerica,23Hous.J.Int'lL.537,539(2001);WilliamM.Howard,EvolutionofConstitutionallyMandatedArbitration,48SepARBJ27(1993);ALANREDFERN&MARTINHUNTER,INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCIALARBITRATION2(1996)2SeeREDFERNsupranote13GARYB.BORN,INTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATIONINTHEUNITEDSTATESCOMMENTARY&
MATERIALS1(1994)4J.Schaefer,NewSolutionsforInterimMeasuresofProtectioninInternationalCommercialArbitration:
English,GermanandHongKongLawCompared,vol2.2ElectronicJournalofComparativeLaw,(August
1998),availableathttp://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/22/art22-2.html
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
10/80
2
enterprisesindealingwiththeircounterparts.Ithasbecomethedominantmethodsofsettlement
ofinternationaltradedisputesandhenceitsimportancehasincreased 5.Arbitrationcanprovidea
highlyefficientalternativemeansofdisputeresolutionforbanksandfinancialinstitutionsandis
sometimespreferabletolitigation6.
2.DevelopmentsintheInfrastructureforInternational
Arbitration
Thedebateaboutarbitrationasaviablealternativetolitigationisstillcontinuing.But,
nowinthetimesavvyworldofentrepreneurs,arbitrationwithitstimesavingfeatureandthejust
andfairresultshasmadeitlookappealingtothebusinessworld 7.Combinedwiththis,theneed
foraneutraldecisionmakerwiththeknowledgeandskillinaspecificareaandthefreedomtoset
thestagehasstrengthenedthepopularityforarbitration8.Asthebusinesscommunityembraces
arbitrationandotheralternatedisputeresolutionmethods,therehasbeenalotofconcentrationon
theproceduralaspectsofarbitration.Ithassetoffthedevelopmentofaninternationallegal
systemforcommerce9.Thougharbitrationisaprocessoutsidethecourtstructure,itneedsstrong
legislationsandcourtassistanceforitseffectivefunctioning 10.Thenationstateshavetocome
forwardtoestablishanetworkandprovidemeanstothewillingpartiestooptoutofthejudicial
systemandadopttheirowndisputeresolutionforum 11.Specificallyintheinternationalarena,
5ThomasE.Carbonneau,TheBalladofTransborderLitigation,56U.MiamiL.Rev.773,778(July2002)6PREAMBLETOCONVENTIONONTHESETTLEMENTOFINVESTMENTDISPUTESBETWEENSTATESAND
NATIONALSOFOTHERSTATES,ICSID(W.Bank)availableathttp://www.worldbank.org/icsid/basicdoc-
archive/11.htm7RichardW.Naimark&StephanieE.KeerWhatDoPartiesReallyWantFromInternationalCommercialArbitration?,57-JANDisp.Resol.J.78,80,81(20022003)82002AnnualReport4,ICSID(W.Bank)availableat
http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/pubs/1998ar/2002_ICSID_ar_en.pdf;PeterK.Yu,CharlesH.BrowerII,WhatITellYouThreeTimesisTrue:U.S.CourtsandPre-AwardInterimMeasureUnderTheNewYork
Convention,35Va.J.Intl.L971(1995);RichardAllanHorning InterimMeasuresofProtection;SecurityforClaimsandCosts;AndCommentaryontheWIPOEmergencyReliefRules(InToto)Article46,9Am.Rev.Int'lArb.155,156(1998)9Carbonneau,Supranote510BORNSupranote3at3
11CatherineA.Rogers,ContextandInstitutionalStructureinAttorneyRegulation:Constructingan
EnforcementRegimeforInternationalArbitration,39Stan.J.Int'lL.1(2003)
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
11/80
3
wherejurisdictionalissuesplayanimportantrole12,lawssupportingarbitrationareamust.
Though,initiallythestateswerereluctanttorelinquishcontrol,overthecourseofthelastfew
decadesmoreandmorenationshaveenactedlegislationssupportingtheinstitutionof
arbitration13.Variousinternationaltreaties,conventions,nationallegislations,andeven
institutionshavebeenformedtoprovidetheframeworkforinternationalarbitration 14.Apartfrom
thatUNCITRALdraftedamodelcodeforcountriestofollow.Sofarmorethan40countrieshave
enactedlegislationsbasedonthemodelcode15.ApartfromtheModelLaw,UNCITRALhas
comeupwiththeArbitrationRulestosupportpartieswhopreferad-hocarbitration.Evenmany
institutionsofferarbitrationservicesbasedontheUNCITRALArbitrationRules.
Themostimportantandarguablythestartoftheorganizeddevelopmentprocesswasthe
UnitedNationsConventiononRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(the
NewYorkConvention).ThemainpurposeoftheNewYorkConventionwastoobligate
membernationstorecognizeandenforceforeignarbitralawards 16.Thiseffortwasfollowedby
variousotherconventionsincludingtheEuropeanConventiononInternationalCommercial
Arbitration(theGenevaConvention)andInter-AmericanConventiononInternational
CommercialArbitration(theInter-AmericanConvention).UNCITRAL,thelegalbodyofin
U.N.intheinternationaltradelawhasdoneagreatdealofworkinharmonizingthelegalsetup.
UNCITRALfirstintroduceditsArbitrationRulesandlaterondraftedtheModelLaw,whichhas
provedinvaluable17.EvenoutsidetheUnitedNations,alotofinstitutions,bothdomesticand
12BORNSupranote3at213ThomasE.Carbonneau,ArbitralJustice:TheDemiseofDueProcessinAmericanLaw,70Tul.L.Rev.
1945;RogersSupranote11at214RogersSupranote11at3
15SchaferSupranote4
16ConventiononRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAward,June7,1959,ArticleI(1),9USCA201,ThisConventionshallapplytotherecognitionandenforcementofarbitralawardsmadein
theterritoryofaStateotherthantheStatewheretherecognitionandenforcementofsuchawardsaresought,andarisingoutofdifferencesbetweenpersons,whetherphysicalorlegal.Itshallalsoapplyto
arbitralawardsnotconsideredasdomesticawardsintheStatewheretheirrecognitionandenforcementare
sought17PieterSanders,UNCITRAL'sModelLawonConciliation,InternationalJournalofDispute
Settlement,Vol.12/2002,1(VerlagRechtundWirtschaft,Heidelberg,2002)
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
12/80
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
13/80
5
Theremaynotbeanythingleftforthesuccessfulpartytosatisfyhisclaim23.Areportsubmitted
bytheUNSecretaryGeneralonSettlementofcommercialDisputesclearlyoutlinesthe
importanceofinterimmeasuresandalsothegrowingneedforinterimrelieffromthetribunals,
amongtheparties24.Asarbitrationmovesintofieldslikeenvironmentaldisputesandintellectual
property,wherequickdecisioncouldmeanalot,theneedforinterimmeasuresinarbitrationis
goingtoincrease25.Inthereport,theSecretaryGeneralalsonotesthevariouslegislationsand
amendmentsthathavebeenmadebythenationsandalsointheModelLaw 26.Thethreemain
issueswhendealingwithinterimmeasuresinarbitrationarepowerofthecourtstograntinterim
orders,powerofthearbitratorstoorderinterimreliefandthepossibilityofenforcementof
interimordersgrantedbythetribunal.Enforcementissuestakeawholenewmeaningwhenthe
interimordersinvolvethirdparties.
23RichardW.Naimark&Keer,Supranote19
24SettlementofCommercialDisputes-Possibleuniformrulesoncertainissuesconcerningsettlementof
commercialdisputes:conciliation,interimmeasuresofprotection,writtenformforarbitrationagreement,
ReportoftheSecretaryGeneral,UnitedNationsCommissiononInternationalTradeLawWorkingGroup
onArbitration,32ndSess.,at24(Para.104),A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.108(Jan.2000)Reportsfrom
practitionersandarbitralinstitutionsindicatethatpartiesareseekinginterimmeasuresinanincreasing
numberofcases.Thistrendandthelackofclearguidancetoarbitraltribunalsastothescopeofinterim
measuresthatmaybeissuedandtheconditionsfortheirissuancemayhindertheeffectiveandefficientfunctioningofinternationalcommercialarbitration.Totheextentarbitraltribunalsareuncertainabout
issuinginterimmeasuresofprotectionandasaresultrefrainfromissuingthenecessarymeasures,thismay
leadtoundesirableconsequences,forexample,unnecessarylossordamagemayhappenorapartymayavoidenforcementoftheawardbydeliberatelymakingassetsinaccessibletotheclaimant.Suchasituation
mayalsopromptpartiestoseekinterimmeasuresfromcourtsinsteadofthearbitraltribunalsinsituations
wherethearbitraltribunalwouldbewellplacedtoissueaninterimmeasure;thiscausesunnecessarycost
anddelay(e.g.becauseoftheneedtotranslatedocumentsintothelanguageofthecourtandtheneedto
presentevidenceandargumentstothejudge).25BernardoM.Cremades,IsExclusionofConcurrentCourtsJurisdictionoverConservatoryMeasuresto
beIntroducedThroughaRevisionoftheConvention, J.ofIntlArb.;Dr.FrancisGurry,TheNeedfor
Speed,WIPOArbitrationAndMediationCenterBiennialIFCAIConferenceOctober24,1997,Geneva,Switzerland;DavidE.Wagoner,InterimReliefinInternationalArbitration:Enforcementisasubstantialproblem,51-OCTDisp.Resol.J.68,72(1996)26SettlementofCommercialDisputes,ReportofSecretaryGeneral, Supranote24at24(Para103);See
alsoUNCITRALMODELLAWONINTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATIONArticle17.Powerofarbitraltribunaltoorderinterimmeasures:Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmay,
attherequestofaparty,orderanypartytotakesuchinterimmeasureofprotectionasthearbitraltribunal
mayconsidernecessaryinrespectofthesubject-matterofthedispute.Thearbitraltribunalmayrequireany
partytoprovideappropriatesecurityinconnectionwithsuchmeasure,availableatwww.uncitral.org
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
14/80
6
Thepushtowardsinterimmeasureshasnotbeenwithoutcriticism.Themajorargument
againstinterimreliefisthatbeingacontractualrelationship,thereisnoneedforinterimrelief.
Also,thecriticspointoutthatmorethan80%ofawardsareexecutedwithoutanyproblemand
theprovisionalmeasureswillonlyserverasatooltodelaytheprocedure.Anothermajorconcern
formanyisthetribunalslackofpowertoenforceitsinterimorders.
2.Developmentsinthefieldofinterimmeasuresininternational
arbitration
Availabilityofinterimmeasureslargelydependsoninternationalconventions,national
legislationsandinstitutionalrules.Though,interimmeasuresarebeingusedfrequentlyinthe
recenttimesinarbitration,noneoftheconventionshaveprovisionstoregulateitshandling 27.But
themanynationshaveamendedtheirlegislationstoprovideforinterimmeasures.Manynations
likeSwiss,Germany,Argentina,haveeitheramendedthespecificprovisionsorhaverepealedthe
oldlawandenactednewlegislations.Incommonlawcountries,includingUnitedStates,United
KingdomandIndia,courtshavedealtwiththisissueandhavesetprecedentsonewayortheother
onthissubject.Likewisethethirdsetofproceduresthathaveadirectbearingonthisissueisthe
institutionalrules.Mostoftheinstitutionalrulesintheircurrentform,addressthesubjectof
interimmeasures.ChapterIIofthisarticlediscussesthehandlingofinterimmeasuresby
Nationalcourtsandlegislations.ChapterIIIdealswiththeprovisionsavailableininternational
conventionsandinstitutionalrules.
SpecificmentionhastobemadeoftheUNCITRALmodellaw.Article17oftheModel
Lawprovidestheauthorityforthetribunalstograntinterimrelief.Butitdoesnothavea
provision,whichprovidestheexactprocedurefortherecognitionandenforcementoftheinterim
awards.Therehasbeenalotofconfusiononwhetherthedefinitionofawardinthemodellaw
includestheinterimawardsandtheprocedureprescribedfortheenforcementofawardsmaybe
usedforinterimawardsalso.UNCITRALrecognizedthissituationandisdiscussingthe
27BORNSupranote3at756,757
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
15/80
7
possibilityofaharmonizedlawfortheenforcementofInterimawards.Aworkinggrouphasbeen
setuptospecificallyaddressthisissue.InChapterIV,IhavediscussedthepresentformofModel
Lawandproposalsoftheworkinggroup.Inconclusion,Ihavetriedtopointoutthebestwayof
handlingallthethreeissuesconcerninginterimmeasures.
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
16/80
8
CHAPTERII
INTERIMMEASURESININTERNATIONALARBITRATIONCOMPARATIVE
STUDYOFTHENATIONALLEGISLATIONSANDCOURTRULINGS
InternationalArbitrationdependsonawidevarietyoflegalsetupforitsfunctioningviz.,
nationallegislations,internationalconventionsandinstitutionalrules.Asitreliesonsuchavaried
structure,thereisalwaysdifferenceinthewayarbitrationprocessishandled.International
conventionsforthemostpartaresilentontheissueofinterimmeasures.Butnationallegislations
andinstitutionalruleshavedifferinginterpretations.Theprimaryissuesarethepowerofthe
courtstosupport(somepreferinterferein)arbitration,powerofarbitratorstoprovideinterim
reliefandtheenforcementoftheorders.Enforcementofinterimordershavesomeinteresting
areaslikeordersinvolvingthirdpartiesandordersbyforeigncourts.
A.PowerofCourtstoOrderProvisionalRelief
Itishasincreasinglybeenacceptedthatthesupportofnationalcourtsinhighlyimportant
forthesuccessofarbitration.Butthequestionsthatneedtobeansweredarewhenandhowmuch
shouldthecourtsstepin28.UsuallytheCourtsarecalleduponeitheratthestartoftheprocessto
enforcearbitralagreementorattheendtoenforceawards.Buttherearecircumstanceswherethe
Courtsarerequiredtousetheirauthoritytosupporttheprocess29.Mostlythesecircumstances
arisewhenthereisaninvolvementofthirdparty 30.Anotherusualtimingofcourtinterventionfor
28PrathibaM.Singh&DevashishKrishnan,TheIndian1996ArbitrationAct-SolutionsforaCurrent
Dilemma,JournalofInternationalArbitration(insertfootnotefromlib.)29REDFERNSupranote1at233
30REDFERNSupranote1at234;SeeBORNSupranote3at771
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
17/80
9
interimreliefisatthestartoftheproceedingswhenthetribunalhasnotbeenformed31.Thetime
takentoinitiatetheprocess,appointthearbitratorsandsettlejurisdictionalissues,ifany,willtake
aconsiderabletime.32Sointhemeantimepartieshavetoapproachthecourtstomaintainstatus
quo,protecttheproperty,evidence,etc33.Thecourtsinextraordinarycircumstanceshavebeen
knowntointerfereevenwhentheproceedingsareinprogress,ifapartyshowsproofofpartiality
orcorruptiononthepartofarbitrators.Infact,someviewthispowerofthecourtstobeso
importantthattheythinkwithoutsuchbackingfromthecourtsmanywillnotchoosearbitration 34.
Thenationalpositiondependsonthelegislationsandcourtrulings.Mostofthecountries
havelegislationsdealingwitharbitration.IntheUnitedStates,FederalArbitrationAct(FAA)
governstheconductofarbitration.ButthereisnoprovisioninFAAeitherallowingorprohibiting
provisionalmeasures.Sothecourtrulingsaretheonlyguidelinesavailabletostudythe
availabilityofcourtorderedinterimmeasures.ButinUK,theArbitrationActof1996hasa
specificprovisiongoverningthecourtpowersexercisableinsupportofarbitration 35.The
31CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupman,Court-OrderedProvisionalMeasuresUnderTheNewYork
Convention,,80Am.J.Int'lL.24,25(1986)32SeeUNCITRALARBITRATIONRULES(1982)Article6&7;SeeRULESOFPROCEDUREFOR
ARBITRATIONPROCEEDINGSUNDERINTERNATIONALCENTERFORSETTLEMENTOFINVESTMENTDISPUTESRules1433CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31
34CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8at972
35ArbitrationAct,1996c.2344-(1)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thecourthasforthepurposesofandinrelationtoarbitralproceedingsthesamepowerofmakingordersaboutthematterslisted
belowasithasforthepurposesofandinrelationtolegalproceedings.(2)Thosemattersare-
(a)thetakingoftheevidenceofwitnesses;(b)thepreservationofevidence;(c)makingordersrelatingto
propertywhichisthesubjectoftheproceedingsorastowhichanyquestionarisesintheproceedings-(i)
fortheinspection,photographing,preservation,custodyordetentionoftheproperty,or(ii)orderingthatsamplesbetakenfrom,oranyobservationbemadeoforexperimentconductedupon,theproperty;andfor
thatpurposeauthorisinganypersontoenteranypremisesinthepossessionorcontrolofapartytothe
arbitration;(d)thesaleofanygoodsthesubjectoftheproceedings;(e)thegrantingofaninteriminjunctionortheappointmentofareceiver(3)Ifthecaseisoneofurgency,thecourtmay,ontheapplicationofa
partyorproposedpartytothearbitralproceedings,makesuchordersasitthinksnecessaryforthepurpose
ofpreservingevidenceorassets(4)Ifthecaseisnotoneofurgency,thecourtshallactonlyonthe
applicationofapartytothearbitralproceedings(uponnoticetotheotherpartiesandtothetribunal)madewiththepermissionofthetribunalortheagreementinwritingoftheotherparties.(5)Inanycasethe
courtshallactonlyifortotheextentthatthearbitraltribunal,andanyarbitralorotherinstitutionorperson
vestedbythepartieswithpowerinthatregard,hasnopowerorisunableforthetimebeingtoact
effectively.(6)Ifthecourtsoorders,anordermadebyitunderthissectionshallceasetohaveeffectin
wholeorinpartontheorderofthetribunalorofanysucharbitralorotherinstitutionorpersonhaving
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
18/80
10
provisionliststhematterswheretheCourtscanexercisepowers.Thewordingsoftheprovisions
suggestthatthelistisexhaustive.Thecourtscanactonlytotheextentthatthetribunalhasno
powerorisunabletoactandalsothecourtorderwillceasetohaveeffectassoonasthetribunal
actsonsuchmatter.Themostnotablefeatureofthissectionistheopting-outoptionforthe
partiesdraftingthearbitrationagreement.ButreadingfromtheArbitrationActaswhole
includingSecs.38&39,whenthepartiesopt-outofSec.44,theywillnothaveaccesstothe
traditionalmarevainjunctions.Becausewhentheyrestricttheauthoritytograntinterim
measurestothearbitrators,therangeofthepowerswillbeconfinedtothislistedin38&39 36.
Priortothe1996Act,thelawonarbitrationinIndiawasgovernedbythreedifference
legislationsviz.theArbitrationAct,1940,theArbitration(ProtocolandConvention)Act,1937
andtheForeignAwards(RecognitionandEnforcement)Act,196137.ThepresentIndian
ArbitrationAct,1996modeledontheUNCITRALModelLaw,hasprovisionforcourt
interventionincommercialarbitrationforpurposesofinterimmeasures 38.Thereisalsoaspecific
provisionregardingcourtsupportforthetribunalintakingevidence39.Section9providesalist
powertoactinrelationtothesubject-matteroftheorder.(7)Theleaveofthecourtisrequiredforany
appealfromadecisionofthecourtunderthissection.36SchaferSupranote4
37AIR1999SupremeCourt565at567,568
38ArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996-Interimmeasuresbycourt9Apartymay,beforeorduring
arbitralproceedingsoratanytimeafterthemakingofthearbitralawardbutbeforeitisenforcedin
accordancewithsection36,applytoaCourt(i)fortheappointmentofaguardianforaminororapersonofunsoundmindforthepurposesofarbitralproceedings;or(ii)foraninterimmeasureofprotectionin
respectofanyofthefollowingmatters,namely:-(a)thepreservation,interimcustodyorsaleofanygoods
whicharethesubject-matterofthearbitrationagreement;(b)securingtheamountindisputeinthe
arbitration;(c)thedetention,preservationorinspectionofanypropertyorthingwhichisthesubject-matter
ofthedisputeinarbitration,orastowhichanyquestionmayarisethereinandauthorisingforanyoftheaforesaidpurposesanypersontoenteruponanylandorbuildinginthepossessionofanyparty,or
authorisinganysamplestobetakenoranyobservationtobemade,orexperimenttobetried,whichmaybe
necessaryorexpedientforthepurposeofobtainingfullinformationorevidence;(d)interiminjunctionortheappointmentofareceiver;(e)suchotherinterimmeasureofprotectionasmayappeartotheCourttobe
justandconvenient,andtheCourtshallhavethesamepowerformakingordersasithasforthepurposeof,
andinrelationto,anyproceedingsbeforeit.39ArbitrationandConciliationAct,199627(1)Thearbitraltribunal,orapartywiththeapprovalofthearbitraltribunal,mayapplytothecourtforassistanceintakingevidence(2)Theapplicationshallspecify-
(a)thenamesandaddressesofthepartiesandthearbitrators;(b)thegeneralnatureoftheclaimandthe
reliefsought;(c)theevidencetobeobtained,inparticular,-(i)thenameandaddressofanypersontobe
heardaswitnessorexpertwitnessandastatementofthesubject-matterofthetestimonyrequired;(ii)the
descriptionofanydocumenttobeproducedorpropertytobeinspected.(3)Thecourtmay,withinits
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
19/80
11
ofissuesonwhichtheCourtcanprovideinterimrelief.Section9(e)reservestotheCourtthe
authoritytograntsuchotherinterimreliefthatmayappeartobejustandconvenient.Thewhole
setupoftheSection9lookslikeacatchallclausegivingtheCourtswideandsweepingpowersto
grantinterimrelief40.
InFrance,thelegislativepositionissimilartoUSinthattheNewCodeofCivil
Proceduredoesnotmentionabouttheprovisionalmeasuresavailablefromthecourts.But,in
practicethepartiescanapplytotheFrenchCourtsforinterimmeasures41.Article809oftheNew
CivilProcedureCode42dealswiththeprotectivemeasuresavailablefromtheCourtsinordinary
circumstances.Thisprovisioncanalsobeusedwhenarbitrationispendingtoobtaininterim
relief.TheGermancivilProcedureCode(GCP)Sec.1033statesthatitisnotincompatiblewith
thearbitrationagreementforthecourtstoorderinterimmeasuresinmattersinvolvingthe
dispute43.ThisprovisionisverysimilartotheonefoundintheIndianArbitrationAct.Butthe
provisionismorelikeadeclarationratherthanaprovisionauthorizingthecourts.Thenatureand
extentofthejurisdictionavailabletothecourtsarereadfromtheGCPprovision914-945,which
competenceandaccordingtoitsrulesontakingevidence,executetherequestbyorderingthattheevidence
beprovideddirectlytothearbitraltribunal.(4)Thecourtmay,whilemakinganorderundersub-section(3)issuethesameprocessestowitnessesasitmayissueinsuitstriedbeforeit.(5)Personsfailingtoattendin
accordancewithsuchprocesses,ormakinganyotherdefault,orrefusingtogivetheirevidence,orguiltyof
anycontempttothearbitraltribunalduringtheconductofarbitralproceedings,shallbesubjecttothelike
disadvantages,penaltiesandpunishmentsbyorderofthecourtontherepresentationofthearbitraltribunalastheywouldincurforthelikeoffencesinsuitstriedbeforethecourt.(6)Inthissectiontheexpression
"processes"includessummonsesandcommissionsfortheexaminationofwitnessesandsummonsesto
producedocuments, availableathttp://www.laws4india.com40V.Giri,InterimMeasuresAvailableinArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996,ICAArbitration
Quarterly,Vol.XXXXX,No.3,Oct-Dec2001,availableathttp://www.ficci.com/icanet/ICA-Oct/OCT6.htm41RichardH.Kreindler,CourtInterventioninCommercialandConstructionArbitration,13-OCT
ConstructionLaw.12,1642N.C.P.C.Art.809-Thepresidentmay,atanytime,evenwhereconfrontedwithseriousobjections,
providebywayofsummaryinterlocutoryproceedingsforsuchprotectivemeasuresorsuchmeasuresasto
keepthestatusquoofthemattersasrequired,eithertoprotectfromanimpendingdamage,ortoabatea
nuisancemanifestlyillegal.Whereliabilityresultantfromanobligationcannotbeseriouslychallenged,hemayawardaninterimpaymenttothecreditorororderthemandatoryperformanceoftheobligationeven
whereitshallbeinthenatureofanobligationtoperform,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org431033BookTenZPO-Arbitrationagreementandinterimmeasuresbycourt: Itisnotincompatiblewith
anarbitrationagreementforacourttogrant,beforeorduringarbitralproceedings,aninterimmeasureof
protectionrelatingtothesubject-matterofthearbitrationuponrequestofaparty.
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
20/80
12
dealingeneralwithinterimmeasuresofprotection44.GCPalsoprovidesforCourtassistancein
thematteroftakingevidence45.ThisisconsistentwiththetraditionalGermanviewthatinterim
reliefcanbegrantedonlybythecourts.GermanLawdoesnotevenrequiretheplaceofthemain
proceedingtobeinGermany.Evenifarbitrationhasnotstartedatthetimeoffilingforthe
interimrelief,ifthepartiesconvincethecourtthatthefinalawardisenforceableinGermanyand
thereisanimmediateneedforrelief,itwouldbegranted46.TheGermanCourtscanusetwotypes
ofinterimmeasuresprovidedforbyGCP914945.OneisthefunctionalequivalentofMareva
InjunctioninUK.Thisisusedtopreventthedissipationofproperty.Theotherremedycoversthe
restofthereliefincludingconservationofevidence,etc.IfthepreconditionintheCodeis
satisfiedtheCourtsareobligedtogranttherequiredremedy 47.
Switzerlandisinanotherextremeposition48,wheremostofthepowerstograntinterim
reliefarevestedwiththearbitrationtribunal49.Further,thelocalcourtscanassistintaking
evidence,assistinestablishingthetribunalandruleonthechallengeofthearbitrators.Thecourts
44Schaefersupranote4451050BookTenZPO-CourtAssistanceinTakingEvidenceandOtherJudicialActs:Thearbitral
tribunalorapartywiththeapprovalofthearbitraltribunalmayrequestfromacourtassistanceintaking
evidenceorperformanceofotherjudicialactswhichthearbitraltribunalisnotempoweredtocarryout.
Unlessitregardstheapplicationasinadmissible,thecourtshallexecutetherequestaccordingtoitsrules
ontakingevidenceorotherjudicialacts.Thearbitratorsareentitledtoparticipateinanyjudicialtakingofevidenceandtoaskquestions.46EricSchwartz&JurgenMark,ProvisionalMeasuresinInternationalArbitration-PartII:Perspectives
FromTheICCandGermany,6WorldArb.&MediationRep.52,5647SchaeferSupranote4
48WerbickiSupranote20at67
49CharlesPoncet&EmmanuelGaillard,IntroductoryNoteonSwissStatueonInternationalArbitration
III(B)(TheIntroductoryNoteandtranslationwerepreparedforInternationalLegalMaterialsbyCharles
Poncet,I.L.M.CorrespondingEditorfor-Switzerland,LawOfficesofCharlesPoncet,Geneva,andEmmanuelGaillard,I.L.M.CorrespondingEditorforFrance,ProfessorofLaw,UniversityofParisXII,
EuropeanCounsel,Shearman&Sterling,Paris)Swisscourtsmaygrantprovisionalmeasuresbuttheir
jurisdictionisclearlysubordinatetothatofthearbitraltribunal.IncontrasttotheConcordat,thefederalstatuteprovidesthatprovisionalremedies,includingthefreezingofassets,shouldbereferredtothearbitral
tribunalitself.Itisonlyintheeventthat,apartyrefusestocomplywiththearbitraltribunal'sorderthatthe
arbitraltribunalmayaskacourtwithproperjurisdictiontointervene(article183).
Article183SwissStatuteonInternationalLaw-1.Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmayissueprovisionalorconservatoryordersifrequestedbyoneoftheparties.2.Iftheopposing
partydoesnotvoluntarilycomplywiththeorderissuedbythearbitraltribunal,thelattermayseekthe
assistanceofthecourt,whichshallapplyitsownlaw.3.Thearbitraltribunalorthecourtmaygrant
provisionalorconservatorymeasuressubjecttothereceiptofadequatesecurityfromtherequestingparty,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
21/80
13
candoalltheseonlyifthepartiesorthetribunalrequestsittodosoandthesepowershavenot
specificallybeentakenawaybythearbitrationagreement 50.TheNetherlandsArbitrationAct
Article102251providesforcourtorderedinterimmeasuresofprotection.Itauthorizestheparties
toapproachthedistrictcourtofnecessaryorders.Itspecificallystatesthatsuchanapproachto
thecourtsisnotcontrarytothearbitrationagreement 52.Furtheritprovidesforinterimmeasures
fromtheCourtsevenincaseswheretheseatofarbitrationinoutsideNetherlands53.
Havingseenthelegislations,itisinterestingtostudythecourtinterpretationsofthese
legislations.UnitedStatesCourtssofarhavenotcomeupwithauniformposition.Therearelots
ofopposingviewsthatitbordersonconfusion.Startingfromthedifferenceinhandlingbetween,
domesticandinternationalarbitration,thecircuitcourtshavegivendifferingdecisions.InUS,the
courtshavedrawnadistinctionbetweencasesarisingunderChapterIofFederalArbitrationAct
(FAA),i.e.domesticarbitrationandtheinternationalarbitrationcasesdealtwithunderChapterII
ofFAA.Sec.3inChapterIofFAAempowerstheCourtstostaytheproceedingsuntil
arbitrationiscomplete.WhiledealingwithcasesarisingoutofthisSection,majorityofthe
Courtsinterpretedthisasgivingjurisdictionforthemtointerfere.Priortotheincorporationofthe
NewYorkConventionintoFAA,thesecondcircuitcourtwasoneofthefirsttoaddressthis
50IdatIII(A)
51Article1022ARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDSUBSTANTIVECLAIMBEFORECOURT;
ARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDINTERIMMEASURESBYCOURT 1.Acourtseizedofadisputeinrespectofwhichanarbitrationagreementhasbeenconcludedshalldeclarethatithasnojurisdictionifa
partyinvokestheexistenceofthesaidagreementbeforesubmittingadefense,unlesstheagreementis
invalid.2.Anarbitrationagreementshallnotprecludeapartyfromrequestingacourttograntinterim
measuresofprotection,orfromapplyingtothePresidentoftheDistrictCourtforadecisioninsummary
proceedingsinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle289.InthelattercasethePresidentshalldecidethecaseinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle1051,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org52Id
53Article1074FOREIGNARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDSUBSTANTIVECLAIMBEFOREDUTCHCOURT;FOREIGNARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDINTERIMMEASURESBYDUTCH
COURT1.AcourtintheNetherlandsseizedofadisputeinrespectofwhichanarbitrationagreementhas
beenconcludedunderwhicharbitrationshalltakeplaceoutsidetheNetherlandsshalldeclarethatithasno
jurisdictionifapartyinvokestheexistenceofthesaidagreementbeforesubmittingadefence,unlesstheagreementisinvalidunderthelawapplicablethereto.2.Theagreementmentionedinparagraph(1)shall
notprecludeapartyfromrequestingacourtintheNetherlandstograntinterimmeasuresofprotection,or
fromapplyingtothePresidentoftheDistrictCourtforadecisioninsummaryproceedingsinaccordance
withtheprovisionsofarticle289,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
22/80
14
issueininternationalarbitration.InMurrayOilcase54,JudgeLearnedHandupheldanattachment
grantedbythelowercourtwhilestayingthecourtproceedingsinsupportofarbitration 55.Many
circuitcourtsincludingFirst,Third,Fourth,SeventhandNinthCircuitshaveheldasimilar
positiontotheMurrayCase56.ButaftertheNewYorkConventionwasincorporatedintothe
ChapterIIofFAA,theCourtsinterpretedthatactdifferentlyfromtheChapterI.Secs.3,4and8
oftheFAA,whichprovideforCourtinterferenceinarbitration.
Threeseminalcases,whichconsideredtheavailabilityofinterimmeasuresunderChapter
II,areMcCrearyTire&RubberC.vCEATS.p.A57,Cooperv.AteliersdelaMotobecane 58and
CarolinaPower&LightCo.v.Uranex59.ThirdcircuitinMcCrearybecamethefirstappellate
courttoconsiderthisissue 60.Itgrantedstayinsupportofanarbitrationclausebutliquidatedan
attachmentgrantedbythestatecourt.Thecourtreasonedthatthewordsreferthepartiesto
arbitrationcontainedintheNewYorkConventiontakesawayitsjurisdictiontograntinterim
measures.ItdifferentiatedbetweenSec.3ofFAAandChapterIIproceedingsbystatingthatthe
courtsretainsufficientpowerstograntinterimmeasuresunderSec.3,asitonlyrequiresastayof
theproceedings,whereasChapterIIproceedingsrequirethecourttorefertheparties 61.Italso
reasonedthatthepurposeoftheconventionwouldbedefeatedifpartiesareexposedtothe
54MurrayOilProdsCo.v.MitsuiCo.,146F.2d381(C.C.A.2NY.1944)
55Id.at384.JudgeLearnedHand:anarbitrationclausedoesnotdepriveapromiseeoftheusual
provisionalremedies,evenwhenheagreesthatthedisputeisarbitrable.56OrthoPharmaceuticalsCorp.v.Amgen,Inc.,882F.2d806,812(3dCir.1989);PMSDistrib.Co.,Inc.v.
Huber&Shuner,A.G.,863F.2d639,642(9thCir.1988);Teradynev.MostekCorp.,797F.2d43,51(1stCir.1986);MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.v.Bradley,756F.2d1048,1052(4thCir.1985);
CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8at977,97857McCrearyTire&RubberCo.v.CeatS.p.A.,501F.2d1032(3dCir.1974)
58Cooperv.AteliersdelaMotobecane,S.A.,442N.E.2d1239(N.Y.1982)
59CarolinaPower&LightCo.v.Uranex,451F.Supp.1044(N.D.Cal.1977)
60CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8at980;CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31
at2861McCrearyOilProds,501F.2dat1038Unlike3ofthefederalAct,articleII(3)oftheConvention
providesthatthecourtofacontractingstateshall'referthepartiestoarbitration'ratherthan'staythetrialof
theaction.'TheConventionforbidsthecourtsofacontractingstatefromentertainingasuit,whichviolates
anagreementtoarbitrate.Thusthecontentionthatarbitrationismerelyanothermethodoftrial,towhich
stateprovisionalremediesshouldequallyapply,isunavailable.
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
23/80
15
uncertaintiesofthestatelawingrantingattachments62.Further,itstatedthatattachmentwouldbe
anattempttobypasstheagreedmethodofdisputeresolution 63.NewYorkCourtofappeals
followedthisdecisioninCooper.Thecourtofappealsgaveanewreasoningbyinterpretingthat
sincetheNewYorkconventionspecificallyallowsforattachmentsinenforcementofawardsand
omitstotalkaboutthatinregardtointerimmeasures,theframersmusthaveintendedthatkindof
interventiononlyafterthefinaldecisionbythearbitrators64.
ThefirstfederalcourttorejecttheargumentsofthethirdcircuitwastheDistrictCourt
fortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia.InCarolinaPowers,theDistrictCourtitrefusedtofollow
McCrearyandgaveitsowninterpretationoftheConvention65.Followingthesedecisionsvarious
62IdTheobviouspurposeoftheenactmentofPub.L.91-368,permittingremovalofallcasesfalling
withinthetermsofthetreaty,wastopreventthevagariesofstatelawfromimpedingitsfull
implementation.Permittingacontinuedresorttoforeignattachmentinbreachoftheagreementisinconsistentwiththatpurpose.63IdThiscomplaintdoesnotseektoenforceanarbitrationawardbyforeignattachment.Itseeksto
bypasstheagreeduponmethodofsettlingdisputes.SuchabypassisprohibitedbytheConventionifone
partytotheagreementobjects64CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8;Cooper,442N.E.2d.at1242.TheUNConventionapparently
consideredtheproblemandsawnoneedtoprovideforprearbitrationsecurity.Thecourtalsogavesome
policyguidanceforitsdecisionseeCharlesH.BrowerIISupranote865Uranex,451F.Supp.at1051Thiscourt,however,doesnotfindthereasoningofMcCrearyconvincing.
Asmentionedabove,nothinginthetextoftheConventionitselfsuggeststhatitprecludesprejudgment
attachment.TheUnitedStatesArbitrationAct,9U.S.C.ss1etseq.(1970),whichoperatesmuchlikethe
Conventionfordomesticagreementsinvolvingmaritimeorinterstatecommerce,doesnotprohibitmaintenanceofaprejudgmentattachmentduringastaypendingarbitrationFirst,thecourtnotesthatthe
ArbitrationActonlydirectscourtsto"staythetrialoftheaction,"whiletheConventionrequiresacourtto
"referthepartiestoarbitration."501F.2dat1038.FromthisdifferencetheMcCrearycourtapparently
concludesthatwhiletheArbitrationActmightpermitcontinuedjurisdictionandevenmaintenanceofaprejudgmentattachmentpendingarbitration,applicationoftheConventioncompletelyouststhecourtof
jurisdiction.Theuseofthegeneralterm"refer,"however,mightreflectlittlemorethanthefactthatthe
Conventionmustbeappliedinmanyverydifferentlegalsystems,andpossiblyincircumstanceswherethe
useofthetechnicalterm"stay"wouldnotbeameaningfuldirective.Furthermore,section4oftheUnited
StatesArbitrationActgrantsdistrictcourtsthepowertoactuallyorderthepartiestoarbitration,butthisprovisionhasnotbeeninterpretedtodeprivethecourtsofcontinuingjurisdictionovertheaction.
Second,theMcCrearycourtfoundsupportforitspositioninthefactthattheimplementingstatutesofthe
Conventionprovideforremovaljurisdictioninthefederalcourts.See9U.S.C.s205(1970).TheThirdCircuitconcludedthat"(t)heobviouspurpose(ofprovidingforremovaljurisdiction)...wastopreventthe
vagariesofstatelawfromimpedingits(theConvention's)fullimplementation.Permittingacontinued
resorttoforeignattachment... isinconsistentwiththatpurpose."Itmustbenoted,however,thatanycase
fallingwithinsection4oftheUnitedStatesArbitrationActalsowouldbesubjecttoremovalpursuantto28U.S.C.s1441.Furthermore,removaltofederalcourtcouldhavelittleimpactonthe"vagaries"ofstate
provisionalremedies,forpursuanttoRule64oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurethedistrictcourts
employtheproceduresandremediesofthestateswheretheysit.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatinother
contextstheSupremeCourthasconcludedthattheavailabilityofprovisionalremediesencouragesrather
thanobstructstheuseofagreementstoarbitrate.SeeBoysMarket,Inc.v.RetailClerksUnion,398U.S.
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
24/80
16
courtshaveelectedtofollowthetwovaryingviews.Somecircuitshavegivenconflicting
opinionsoverthepasttwodecades.TheFirst,Third,FourthandEighthcircuitshavefollowedthe
McCrearyviewsalbeitsomedeviations.FourthCircuit,inI.T.A.D.Assoc.v.Podar66Bros
supportedtheMcCrearydecision.WhentheUSbuyerinthatcasebroughtasuitinSouth
Carolinaforbreachofcontractandsoughtattachment,theFourthcircuitonappealliquidatedthe
attachmentcitingMcCrearytosupportitsconclusion67.ThereaftertheFirstCircuitcitedboth
McCrearyandI.T.A.DAssoc.tosupportitsdecisioninLedeev.CeramicheRagno68.TheFifth
CircuitinE.A.S.T,Inc.ofStamford,Conn.V.M/VALAIA69andaTennesseeDistrictCourtin
SixthCircuitinTennesseeImports,Inc.v.Filippi70havemoreorlessgonewiththeCarolina
Powerslineofthinking.TheSeventhcircuitinamorerecentdecisionhasalsorecognizedthe
powerofcourtstograntinterimreliefpendingarbitration.Thiscourthoweverreversedthe
decisionofthedistrictcourtextendingtheinterimreliefaftertheconstitutionofthetribunal71.
SecondCircuitthattraditionallywentalongwiththeMcCrearyprecedenthoweverreversedits
235,90S.Ct.1583,26L.Ed.2d199(1970).InsumthiscourtwillnotfollowthereasoningofMcCreary
Tire&RubberCompanyv.CEAT,S.p.A.,supra.Thereisnoindicationineitherthetextortheapparent
policiesoftheConventionthatresorttoprejudgmentattachmentwastobeprecluded.66I.T.A.D.Assoc.v.PodarBros.,636F.2d75(4
thCir.1981)
67Idat76theattachmentobtainedbyI.T.A.D.andthesupersedingbondpostedbyPodararecontraryto
theparties'agreementtoarbitrateandtheConvention;therefore,thebondmustbereleasedandrefundedtoPodar.CitingMcCrearyTire&RubberCo.68Ledeev.CeramicheRagno,684F.2d184,187(1stCir.1982)
69E.A.S.T.,Inc.ofStamford,Conn.v.M/VALAIA,876F.2d1168(5
thCir.1989)
70TennesseeImports,Inc.,v.Filippi,745F.Supp.1314(M.D.Tenn.1990)
71MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.v.Salvano999F.2d211,214,215,7thCir.1993,We
agreewithMerrillLynch,however,thattheweightoffederalappellateauthorityrecognizessomeequitablepoweronthepartofthedistrictcourttoissuepreliminaryinjunctivereliefindisputesthatareultimatelyto
beresolvedbyanarbitrationpanel.Thecaselawdoesnotclearlyresolve,however,theextenttowhich
thedistrictcourt'sauthoritytograntinjunctivereliefextendedbeyondtheinitialNovember4TRO.AlthoughwedeclinetofollowtheapproachoftheEighthCircuit,whichfoundadistrictcourt'sgrantofanyinjunctivereliefinanarbitrabledisputetobeanabuseofdiscretion,seeHovey,726F.2dat1291-92,
wedonotgosofarastodeterminethatthatauthorityextendsadinfinitum.Areasonablelimitationisset
forthinMerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.v.Patinkin,1991WL83163at*4,6,1991U.S.Dist.LEXIS6210at*13,20(N.D.Ill.May3,1991),adistrictcourtcasewithfactssimilartothecasebeforeus.
Althoughthecourtgrantedtheplaintiff'srequesttoextendaTROthathadbeenimposedearlier,it
explicitlydidsoonly"untilthearbitrationpanelisabletoaddresswhethertheTROshouldremainin
effect."Id.at*6,1991U.S.Dist.LEXIS6210at*20.Onceassembled,anarbitrationpanelcanenter
whatevertemporaryinjunctivereliefitdeemsnecessarytomaintainthestatusquo.
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
25/80
17
decisioninBorden,Inc.v.MeijiMilkProdsCo.72toagrantpreliminaryinjunctioninaidof
arbitration.LaterinDavidL.Threlkel&Co.v.MetallgesellschaftLtd.73,itrefusedtobedrawn
intothecontroversyuntilthepositionisfurtherdeveloped.
WhereasintheUnitedKingdom,thecourtshavegenerallypreferredtoacknowledge
theirpowertoorderinterimmeasurespendingarbitration.PreviouslywhentheEnglish
ArbitrationActof1950wasinforce,thecourtsgrantedinteriminjunctionsbasedontheNippon
YusenKaishav.KarageorgisandMarevaCompaniaNaviera,S.Av.InternationalBulkcarriers.
But,RenaKwasoneofthefirstcasesinwhichtheEnglishcourtaddressedtheavailabilityof
interimmeasuresinarbitration74.InRenaK
75,thecourtdecidedthatwhilestayingthelitigation
infavorofarbitration,ithadpowerstoattachtheassetsoftheparty.Thispositionwasin
conformitywiththeArbitrationActof1975,whichincorporatedArticleII(3)oftheNewYork
Convention76.
TheCourtpositioninEnglandregardingtheinterimorprovisionalmeasurescanbe
clearlystudiedinthecasesconcerningsecurityforcosts.Till1994,theEnglishcourtsruledthat
theauthoritytoordersecurityrestssolelywithcourtsifthepartieshadnotpreviouslyagreed
otherwise77.Kerr.J.gavethetwoleadingjudgmentsinMavani
78andBankMellatv.Helliniki
TechnikiS.A79.InMavani,hecitedtheSec.12oftheArbitrationActof1950tosupporthis
position.LaterinBankMellatcaseheforwardedatwo-prongtesttoordersecurityforcostsin
casesconcerninginternationalarbitrationviz.theconnectionbetweendisputeandtheEnglish
72Borden,Inc.v.MeijiMilkProdsCo.,919F.2d822(2dCir.1990)
73DavidL.Threkeld&Co.v.MetallgesellschaftLtd.,923F.2d245(2dCir.1991)74CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at36
75RenaK,1LloydsL.R.545[1978]
76Id.
77ArbitrationAct1950,12(6),"TheHighCourtshallhave...thesamepowerofmakingordersinrespect
of...SecurityforCosts[inarbitrationcases]...asithasforthepurposeof...anactionormatterintheHigh
Court:Providedthatnothinginthissubsectionshallbetakentoprejudiceanypowerwhichmaybevested
inanarbitrator[bytheparties]ofmakingorders....",availableathttp://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/ddcaron/Documents/RPID%20Documents/rp04045.html;Noah
Rubins,InGodWeTrust,AllOthersPayCash:SecurityForCostsInInternationalCommercial
Arbitration,11Am.Rev.Int'lArb.307,323(2000)78[1973]1AllE.R.555
79[1984]Q.B.291
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
26/80
18
legalsystemandtheneedforsecurity80.ButlaterinKen-Rencase
81,thiswastakenastepfurther
bytheEnglishCourt.ThatcaseinvolvedadisputebetweenKenyanGovernmentownedcompany
andaBelgiumandAustriancompanytoberesolvedunderICCrules82.Nevertheless,theEnglish
Courtruledthatitcouldordersecurityforcosts83.Butaftertheenactmentofthe1996Act,now
thesecurityforcostshasbeenentirelyshiftedtothearbitratorsrealm 84.TheChannelTunnel
case85isanotherleadingprecedentinthismatterthoughitwasdecidedpriortotheArbitration
Actof1996.ThisinvolvesadisputebetweenTrans-MancheLink,thecontractor,andthe
Eurotunnel,theowner.Theyhadanarbitrationclauseintheircontract,whichprovidedfor
settlementbyDisputeResolutionBoardwithin90daysandafterthatbyarbitrationundertheICC
rulesinBelgium.WhenthedisputestartedTMLthreatenedtostoptheworkontheproject.
Immediately,EurotunnelapproachedtheEnglishcourtforanorderrestrainingTMLfrom
suspendingthework.Afteraspateofappeals,finallytheHouseofLordsruledonthismatter.
HouseofLordsagreedthattheEnglishCourtshavejurisdictiontograntinterimmeasures
pendingarbitration,butdecidedthatthepresentcasewasnotfittodoso86.ThedecisionbyMr.
JusticeBrendoninRenaK87isaleadingprecedentonthisissue.HegrantedaMarevaInjunction
inthatcaseandpointedoutthatifapartyiseligibletoobtainanorderforsecurityincasesthat
donotinvolvearbitrationclause,thereshouldbenoreasonforthepartytoobtainsuchorder
wherethelitigationisstayedpendingarbitration 88.Citingsomeunreportedcases,hesaidthere
80Id;NoahRubinsSupranote77
81SACoppeLavalinNVv.Ken-RenChemicalsandFertilizers,[1994]2W.L.R.631.
82Id.83Id.
84NoahRubinsSupranote77;SeeArbitrationAct,1996,c.23.38
85ChannelTunnelGroupv.BalfourBeatty[1993]AC334(HL).
86Id.;WerbickiSupranote20
87RenaK[1978]1LloydsL.R.545
88Idat561Mr.JusticeBrendonOnthefootingthattheprocedureisavailabletoprovideaplaintiff,ina
casewherenoquestionofarbitrationarises,withsecurityforanyjudgmentwhichhemayobtaininanaction,Iseenogoodreasoninprinciplewhyitshouldnotalsobeavailabletoprovideaplaintiff,whose
actionisbeingstayedontheapplicationofadefendantinorderthattheclaimmaybedecidedby
arbitrationinaccordancewithanarbitrationagreementbetweenthem,withsecurityforthepaymentofany
awardwhichtheplaintiffmayobtaininthearbitration;seeCharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at36,37
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
27/80
19
havebeenmanyoccasionswhenthecommercialcourtshavegrantedsuchinjunctions89.There
arenotmanyEnglishcaselawsregardingthisissuebecauseasseenbytheprecedingcasesitis
clearthattheEnglishCourtsdonotconsiderinterimmeasuresasincompatiblewiththe
arbitrationagreementsortheNewYorkConvention90.Thispositionisclearlyincontrasttothe
positionadoptedbysomeoftheUSCourts.
InIndia,theSupremeCourtinR.McDill&Co.(P)Ltdv.GouriShanker91heldthatthe
partiestoarbitrationhaverecoursetoalltheinterimmeasuresavailableundertheCivilProcedure
Codeof1908.LaterinM/s.SundaramFinanceLtd.V.M/s.NEPCIndiaLtd92,theSupreme
Courtconsideredthequestionwhetherapartycanapproachacourtforinjunctionevenbefore
arbitrationprocesshasactuallystartedandansweredintheaffirmative.ThisCourtrejectedthe
reasoningsgivenbythelowerCourtandheldthatinterimmeasuresofprotectioncanbegranted
evenpriortotheinitiationofarbitrationproceedings93.ThecourtreferredtotheArbitrationAct
of1940,theUNCITRALModelLaw,ArbitrationActof1996ofEnglandandtwoEnglishcases
viz.TheChannelTunnelCaseandFranceMancheS.A.v.BalfourBeattyConstructionsLtd.94
TheSupremeCourtinitsdecisionpointsouttherelevantsectionsoftheArbitrationActof1940
thatpermitinterimmeasuresduringarbitration95.TheDelhiHighCourtfollowedthisdecisionin
M/s.BuddhaFilmsPvt.Ltd.V.PrasarBharati96.Eventhoughitfinallyrejectedthepetitionfor
interiminjunctiononthemeritsofthecase,itheldthatapetitionforinterimreliefismaintainable
89CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at37TheRenaKinvolvedamaritimeandnot
acommercialcontract,butitsapplicationisnotlimitedtomaritimecases.[T]heCommercialCourt[also]hasgrantedinjunctionson[thebasisofsection12(6)]inanumberofunreportedcases.90CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at38
91R.McDill&Co.(P)Ltdv.GouriShanker,(1998)2SCC548.
92M/s.SundaramFinanceltd.,v.M/s.NEPCIndiaLtd.,AIR1999SupremeCourt565
93Id.at571InviewoftheaforesaiddiscussionsitfollowsthattheHighCourterredincomingtothe
conclusionthattheTrialCourthadnojurisdictioninentertainingtheapplicationunderSect.9because
arbitrationproceedingshadnotbeeninitiatedbytheappellant.94Id.at568,569,570
95Idat569ThepositionundertheArbitrationAct,1940wasthatapartycouldcommenceproceedingsin
CourtbymovinganapplicationunderSect.20forappointmentofanarbitratorandsimultaneouslyitcould
moveanapplicationforinterimreliefundertheSecondSchedulereadwithSect.41(b)ofthe1940Act.96AIR2001Delhi241
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
28/80
20
pendingarbitrationproceedings97.Butsomerecentdecisions,includingthelatestinthatlineby
DelhiHighCourthasraisedconcernsamongthearbitrationpractitionersinIndia 98.Somecourts
whenceasedwiththequestionwhethertheIndianArbitrationandConciliationActempowersit
toorderinterimreliefwhentheplaceofarbitrationisoutsideIndia,heldinthenegative99.As
notedearlier,Sec.9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,whichresidesinPartIoftheAct,
empowersthecourtstoorderinterimandconservatorymeasures.Sec.2(2)oftheActlimitsthe
applicationofPartIoftheActandhenceSec.9toarbitrationheldwithinIndia.DelhiHighCourt
inMarriottInternationalInc. 100decidedthatSec.2(2)wouldbecomeredundantifSec.9ofthe
ActisinterpretedtoapplytoarbitrationoutsideIndia101.TheSupremeCourtin2002hasputto
restalltheconfusionsthatarosebecauseoftheinterpretationgivenbytheLowercourts.In
BhatiaInternationalvs.BulkTradingS.A.andAnother102,itinterpretedSec.2(2)asnotlimiting
theapplicationofPartIoftheActtointernationalarbitrationinsideIndia.Itreasonedthatthe
objectiveoftheActwouldbenegatediftheinterpretationoftheDelhiHighCourtwereupheld.It
gavetheoptiontothepartiestodecidewhethertooptoutofPart-IoftheActincaseof
97Id.
98ZiaMody&ShuvaMandal,CaseComment,India,Int.A.L.R.2001,4(3),N19-20;V.GiriSupranote40;EastCoastShippingLimitedVs.M.J.ScrapPvt.Ltd.(CalcuttaHighCourt);CaventerCareLimited
Vs.SeagramCompanylimited(CalcuttaHighCourt);MyriadInternationalCorpnLtd.Vs.AnsonHotels
Limited,AIR2000Delhi377;ContraryviewtakeninOlexFocasPvt.Vs.KodeExportsco.Limted,AIR
2000Delhi161wasreversedinMyriad99Id;JyotiSagar,InterimMeasuresByLocalCourtsinArbitrationHeldOverseasDevelopmentsin
India,NewsandNotesFromTheInstituteforTransnationalArbitration,3Vol.16,No.4(Autumn2002);
Ramasamy,InterimMeasuresofProtectionundertheIndianArbitrationandConciliationAct1996,1999ArbitrationInternational;KitechnologyNVv.UnicorGmbHRahnPlastmaschinen,[1998]DelhiReported
Judgments397;SeagramCo.Ltd.v.KeventerAgroLtdAPONo.498of1997,orderdated27January
1998(unreported).ThesameviewwastakenbyJusticeSharmainDominantOffsetPvt.Ltd.v.
AdamovskeStrojirnya.s.,[1997]DelhiReportedJudgments313....Aconjointreadingofallthe
provisionsclearlyindicatesthatsub-section(2)ofSection2isaninclusivedefinitionandthatitdoesnotexcludetheapplicabilityofPartItothosearbitrations,whicharenotbeingheldinIndia.Theaforesaid
interpretationgetssupportfromtheprovisionsofsub-section(5)ofSection2whichprovidesthatPartI
shallapplytoallarbitrationsandtoallproceedingsrelatingtheretowhichwouldalso,inmyconsideredopinion,includeaninternationalcommercialarbitration...100MarriottInternationalInc.v.AnsalHotelsLtd,AIR2000DEL377
101ZiaMody&ShuvaMandal Supranote98
102BhatiaInternationalvs.BulkTradingS.A.andAnother,2002(4)SCC105
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
29/80
21
arbitrationheldoutsideIndia103.So,nowifthepartiesdonotspecificallyoptoutofPartIofthe
Act,theCourtsinIndiamayorderinterimorconservatorymeasureprovidedforbySec.9even
whenarbitrationispendingoutsideIndia104.
ThepropensityoftheFrenchCourtstoorderinterimmeasurespendingarbitrationwas
seeninthematterofAtlanticTritonv.RpubliquepopulairervolutionnairedeGuine 105.The
RennesCourtofAppeal,inthematterinvolvingICSIDArbitrationwentalongwiththeposition
takenbytheICSIDguide,interpretingArticle26&47oftheWashingtonConventiontogivethe
tribunalexclusiveauthoritytograntinterimrelief106.ButtheFrenchCourdeCassationreversed
thedecisionoftheRennesCourtbyinterpretingthatArticle26oftheWashingtonConvention
wasnotintendedtoprohibitapplicationstothecourtsforprotectivemeasuresaimedatensuring
theenforcementoftheforthcomingaward.107In1991,theParisCourtofAppealsinacaseruled
thatithastheauthoritytoorderinterimreliefpendingarbitrationonsubstantiveissues108.
AnotherCourtwhichretainedjurisdictionforafterdirectingarbitrationwasRouenCourtof
Appeals109.TheCourtsaidthatithadjurisdictiontoorderprotectivemeasuresregardlessof
whetherornotthearbitraltribunalisconstituted. 110ItisclearthatbutforUnitedStates,mostof
theStateCourtsgrantinterimmeasuresinsupportofarbitration,thoughtheproceduralaspects
differ.
103Id;JyotiSagarSupranote99
104JyotiSagarSupranote99
105Cass.leciv.,Rennes,Nov.18,1986,AtlanticTritonv.RpubliquepopulairervolutionnairedeGuine,
114J.D.I.125(1987);SeealsoFOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMANONINTERNATIONALCOMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION,PartIVCh.IIIPara1309(EmmanuelGaillard&JohnSavageeds.,1999)106AtlanticTriton,14J.D.I.125(1987)Supranote105
107AtlanticTriton,14J.D.I.125(1987)Supranote105;FOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMAN,Supranote105
108FOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMAN,Supranote105;CAParis,Dec.12,1990,Terexv.Banexi,1991
BULL.JOLY595109CARouen,Sept.7,1995,RotemAmfertNegevv.GrandeParoisse,1996REV.ARB.275
110Id;FOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMAN,Supranote105
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
30/80
22
1. Should Court Interference be Limited?
Though,thecourtdecisions,nationallegislationsandcommentatorsfavorthesupportof
interimmeasuresfromthecourts,criticshaveputforwardsomeargumentstorestrictthecourts
authoritytoorderinterimrelief.Onesuchargumentthathassomemerittoitisthatwhen
decidingtheinterimissue,courtsinvariablytreadontothemainissue,whichshouldbedecided
bythearbitrator111.Thecourtsinmostcountrieslooktothepossibilityofsuccessonmeritsasa
majorfactorintheirdecisionsoninteriminjunctions112.Thecriticsfeelthatifthecourtsdecide
onthepossibilityofsuccessonthemeritsinthefinalissueitwouldunderminetheworkofthe
arbitrators.Though,thisisalegitimateconcern,inmostcasesthenecessityforinterimrelief
wouldoutweighthenegativesofrefrainingfromorderinginterimmeasures113.Itisalsopointed
outthatsincemostnationsrecognizetheauthorityofarbitraltribunaltograntinterimmeasures,
theneedforoverlappingpowerstothecourtsisnotnecessary 114.Itisseenasinterferingwiththe
functionsofthetribunal.But,consideringthattherearemanycaseswheretheneedforinterim
measuresisreallyanurgentmatterandarisesevenbeforetheformationofthetribunal,ifthe
courtsarerestrictedinprovidinginterimreliefitwouldharmtheeffectivenessoftheultimate
resolutionofthedispute.Anotherconcernistheavailabilityofappealsforcourtordersand
consequentdelaysthatmaybecausedinresolvingthedispute 115.Thisisrealconcernandhasto
betakencareofbymakingnecessarylegislativeamendmentstoprovideforeffective
enforcementofcourtordersforinterimrelief.
111AlisonC.Wauk,PreliminaryInjunctionsinArbitrableDisputes:TheCaseforLimitedJurisdiction,44
UCLAL.Rev.2061,2073,2074,2075(1997)112MichaelE.Chionopoulos,PreliminaryInjunctionThroughArbitration:TheFranchisorsWeaponof
ChoiceinTrademarkDisputes,20-SUMFranchiseL.J.15(2000)113Teradyne,Inc.v.MostekCorp.,797F.2d43,51(1stCir.1986)Webelievethatthecongressional
desiretoenforcearbitrationagreementswouldfrequentlybefrustratedifthecourtswereprecludedfrom
issuingpreliminaryinjunctiverelieftopreservethestatusquopendingarbitrationand,ipsofacto,the
meaningfulnessofthearbitrationprocess.114WaukSupranote111at2075,2076,2077
115Id
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
31/80
23
B. PowerofArbitratorstoGrantInterimRelief
Thepowerofarbitratorstograntinterimmeasures,asthatoftheCourtsdependslargely
onthenationalsystems,internationalconventions,agreementbetweenthepartiesandtherules
adoptedbytheparty116.Inmostinstancespartiesdonotdealaboutthatintheircontract,soit
largelydependsonthenationallawandtherulesoftheinstitutionthattheyselect 117.Theeffect
ofinternationaltreatiesandinstitutionalrulesarediscussedindetailinthenextchapter.The
scopeofthissectionistheimpactofthenationallawonthearbitratorspowertograntinterim
relief.
Theacceptanceofarbitratorspowertograntinterimreliefhasseenachangeinthe
recenttimes.Increasinglymanystateshavestartedtorecognizetheneedforinterimrelieffrom
thearbitrators118.Manycommentatorsagreethatunlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,the
tribunalhaspowerstoorderinterimrelief119.Stateshaveadopteddifferingpositiononthiscrucial
issue.NationslikeArgentinaandItalyhadlawsprohibitingarbitratorsfromgrantinginterim
measures
120
.WhereassomenationslikeSwitzerland(whichhasbeendiscussedindetailbelow)
haveprovidedexpressauthorityforthearbitratorstograntinterimrelief 121.IntheUnitedStates,
FAAdoesnottalkaboutthepowersofarbitratorstoawardinterimrelief.Sothenationalposition
dependsheavilyontherulingsoftheCourts.ButtheCourtsasinthecaseoftheirpowerstogrant
interimmeasuresarealsodividedonthisissue.SomeCourtshaveheldthattheywouldrecognize
aninterimorderofthearbitratoronlyifthepartieshaveexpresslyauthorizedthetribunaltodoso
whilesomeothershaverecognizedthearbitratorsauthoritytograntinterimreliefifitis
116BORNSupranote3at756
117VivienneM.Ashman,TheUNCITRALArbitrationRulesandAReviewofCertainPracticesand
Procedures,648PLI/Lit765,780(2001)118TijanaKojovic,CourtEnforcementofArbitralDecisionsonProvisionalRelief,JournalofInternational
Arbitration18(5),p.511119BORNSupranote3at768
120BORNSupranote3at768
121BORNSupranote3at767
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
32/80
24
consistentwiththearbitrationagreement122.NinthCircuithasconsistentlyrecognizedthe
authorityofthearbitratorsandhasrefusedtoreviewtheirinterimawards.InPacificReinsurance,
whilecitingapreviouscase,JudgeWigginsnotedtheimportanceofrecognizingtheinterim
awardgrantedbythearbitrators123.AnumberofcircuitsincludingtheSixthCircuitandthe
SecondCircuithaverecognizedthispositionofjudicialreviewofnon-finalarbitrationawards
shouldbeindulged,ifatall,onlyinthemostextremecasesandalsohaveagreedthatunless
specificallyprohibitedbyparties,thearbitratorshavepowerstograntinterimrelief.124.Butatthe
sametimesomelowerUScourtshaveruledthatthearbitratorsdonothavethepowertoissue
provisionalreliefunlessthepartiesexpresslyagreetoprovidesointheiragreement125.TheThird
CircuitinSwiftIndus.,Inc.126,andotherlowerUScourtshaverequiredexpressprovisionsinthe
arbitrationagreementorcontrollingstatutetoconfertheauthorityonthearbitratorstogrant
interimrelief127.ButnoCourtinUShassofardeniedtherightofthepartiestoactuallyconfer
therightstothearbitrators128.
122BORNSupranote3at760123PacificReinsuranceManagementCorp.v.OhioReinsuranceCorp.,935F.2d1019,1022(9thCir.1991)
TheNinthCircuithassaidthatbecauseoftheCongressionalpolicyfavoringarbitrationwhenagreedtoby
theparties,judicialreviewofnon-finalarbitrationawards"shouldbeindulged,ifatall,onlyinthemost
extremecases."Aerojet-GeneralCorp.v.AmericanArbitrationAss'n,478F.2d248,251(9th
Cir.1973);at1022-1023Temporaryequitablereliefinarbitrationmaybeessentialtopreserveassetsorenforceperformancewhich,ifnotpreservedorenforced,mayrenderafinalawardmeaningless124IslandCreekCoalSalesCo.v.Gainesville,729F.2d1046(6thCir.1984);SperryInt'lTrade,Inc.v.
Israel,689F.2d301(2dCir.1982);SouthernSeasNavigationLtd.v.PetroleosMexicanos,606F.Supp.692(S.D.N.Y.1985).125BORNSupranote3at760
126SwiftIndus.,Inc.v.BotanyIndus.,Inc.,466F.2d1125(3rdCir.1972)
127CharlesConstructionCo.v.Derderian,586N.E.3d992(Mass.1992)Werejecttheowner'sclaimthat
thecontractor'sonlyavenueforobtaininginterimreliefisthroughacourtorderindependentofthearbitrationproceeding.Wehaveindeedupheldtheentryofprotectivecourtorderseventhoughadispute
betweenthepartiesissubjecttoarbitration.SeeHullMun.LightingPlantv.MassachusettsMun.
WholesaleElec.Co.,399Mass.640,648-649,506N.E.2d140(1987)(preliminaryinjunctionupheldrequiringcontractualpaymentstocontinuewhiledisputeisarbitratedpursuanttocourtorder);Salvucciv.
Sheehan,349Mass.659,663,212N.E.2d243(1965)(billtoreachandapplyfraudulentlyconveyed
propertymaybemaintainedbeforearbitrationproceedingisconcluded).If,however,thereisanexpress
agreementthatauthorizesanarbitratortograntinterimrelief,includinganyauthorizationsetforthinarbitrationrulesincorporatedbyagreementoftheparties,thereisnoreasonwhyanarbitratormaynotact
underthatauthority.Indeed,insuchaninstance,thecourtmightbeobligedbothtodefertotheparties'
agreementtosubmitthematterofinterimrelieftoarbitrationandtogiveanysubsequentinterimorderthe
samedeferentialtreatmentthatmustbeaccordedtoanarbitrator'sfinalorder.Ofcourse,astatutecould
authorizeanarbitratortograntinterimrelief.Therefore,ifthearbitratorshadcontractualorstatutory
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
33/80
25
TheGermanCivilProcedurecodeSec.1041dealswiththisissue.Ithasadifferent
approachthantheUSposition129.Itgivesthepartiestheoptiontotakeawaythepowerofthe
arbitratorstograntinterimrelief.Priorto1998,whenthenewarbitrationlawcameintobeing,
theGermanlawdidnotrecognizethepowerofthetribunaltoorderinterimrelief130.Evenifthe
arbitratorsneededtogiveaninterimmeasureithadtobeintheformofanawardandnotan
order.Thisawardrequiredanorderofenforcementorexequator131.Butafterthenewarbitration
lawbasedontheUNCITRALModelLawcameintobeingmajorityofthecourtsrecognize
interimordersgrantedbytheTribunal 132.Apartfromtheprovisionalrelief,Germanlawalso
authorizesthearbitratorstoappointexpertsforguidance133.Asnotedearlier,Swisslawtakesan
entirelydifferentpositionthanthatofothernations 134.Art.183oftheSwitzerlandsCodeon
PrivateInternationalLaw,clearlygivespowertothetribunaltoorderinterimmeasures135.There
isnolimitationthathasbeensetinthelegislationtocontroltheauthorityofarbitratorstogrant
authoritytoissueaninterimorder,thecontractorproperlycouldhavesoughtsuchanorderfromthemandwasnotlimitedtoaskingforinterimrelieffromacourt.128BORNSupranote3at760
1291041BookTenZPO(GermanCivilProcedureCode)nowprovidesasfollows:-(1)Unlessotherwise
agreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmay,attherequestofaparty,ordersuchinterimmeasuresof
protectionasthearbitraltribunalmayconsidernecessaryinrespectofthesubjectmatterofthedispute.The
arbitraltribunalmayrequireanypartytoprovideappropriatesecurityinconnectionwithsuchmeasure.(2)
Thecourtmay,attherequestofaparty,permitenforcementofameasurereferredtoinsubsection1unlessapplicationforacorrespondinginterimmeasurehasalreadybeenmadetoacourt.Itmayrecastsuchan
orderifnecessaryforthepurposeofenforcingthemeasure.(3)Thecourtmay,uponrequest,repealor
amendthedecisionreferredtoinsubsection2.(4)Ifameasureorderedundersubsection1provestohave
beenunjustifiedfromtheoutset,thepartywhoobtaineditsenforcementisobligedtocompensatetheother partyfordamagesresultingfromtheenforcementofsuchmeasureorfromhisprovidingsecurityinorder
toavoidenforcement.Thisclaimmaybeputforwardinthependingarbitralproceedings.130EricSchwartz&JurgenMarkSupranote46;Schaefersupranote4131EricSchwartz&JurgenMarkSupranote46
132Id1331049BookTenofZPO(GermanCivilProcedureCode):EXPERTAPPOINTEDBYARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL(1)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmayappointoneormore
expertstoreporttoitonspecificissuestobedeterminedbythearbitraltribunal.Itmayalsorequireapartytogivetheexpertanyrelevantinformationortoproduce,ortoprovideaccessto,anyrelevantdocuments
orpropertyforhisinspection.(2)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,ifapartysorequestsorifthe
arbitraltribunalconsidersitnecessary,theexpertshall,afterdeliveryofhiswrittenororalreport,
participateinanoralhearingwherethepartieshavetheopportunitytoputquestionstohimandtopresentexpertwitnessesinordertotestifyonthepointsatissue.(3)Sections1036and1037subs.1and2apply
mutatismutandistoanexpertappointedbythearbitraltribunal134Seesupranote45
135Id.;seealsoMARCBLESSING,INTRODUCTIONTOARBITRATIONSWISSANDINTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVES,Basel(HelbingandLichtenhahn)1999,278
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
34/80
26
relief.TheEnglishLawliketheGermanlegislationtakesamiddlegroundbetweentheUnited
StatesandSwissposition.Sec.38&39oftheArbitrationActof1996providesforvarioustypes
ofinterimmeasuresavailablefromthearbitrators136.Sec.38(1)givesthepartiestherightto
choosethekindofordersavailabletothetribunal.Ifthepartiesfailtodosothearbitratorscan
providetheorderslistedinSec.38(3),(4),(5)&(6)137.Thesectiondealsprimarilywiththe
orderstoprovidesecurity,protectionandexaminationofproperty,preservationofevidence,etc.
Sec.39oftheActdealswithprovisionalmeasures.But,thepowerstograntprovisionalrelieflike
paymentonaccount,paymentofmoney,dispositionofproperty,etc.willbeavailableonlyifthe
partiesspecificallyagreetoprovidesuchpowerstothetribunal138.
Art.1460ofNewCivilProcedureCodeofFranceallowsthearbitratorstolaydownthe
rulesofprocedureunlessstipulatedbytheparties.SincethereisnootherprovisionintheCode,
whichdealswiththisissue,Art.1460maybetakenasthecontrollingauthority.Italsoprovides
136ArbitrationAct,1996c.23,38GENERALPOWERSEXERCISABLEBYTHETRIBUNAL (1)The
partiesarefreetoagreeonthepowersexercisablebythearbitraltribunalforthepurposesofandinrelation
totheproceedings.(2)Unlessotherwiseagreedbythepartiesthetribunalhasthefollowingpowers.
(3)Thetribunalmayorderaclaimanttoprovidesecurityforthecostsofthearbitration.Thispowershallnotbeexercisedonthegroundthattheclaimantis-(a)anindividualordinarilyresidentoutsidetheUnited
Kingdom,or(b)acorporationorassociationincorporatedorformedunderthelawofacountryoutsidethe
UnitedKingdom,orwhosecentralmanagementandcontrolisexercisedoutsidetheUnitedKingdom.
(4)Thetribunalmaygivedirectionsinrelationtoanypropertywhichisthesubjectoftheproceedingsorastowhichanyquestionarisesintheproceedings,andwhichisownedbyorisinthepossessionofapartyto
theproceedings-(a)fortheinspection,photographing,preservation,custodyordetentionofthepropertyby
thetribunal,anexpertoraparty,or(b)orderingthatsamplesbetakenfrom,oranyobservationbemadeof
orexperimentconductedupon,theproperty.(5)Thetribunalmaydirectthatapartyorwitnessshallbe
examinedonoathoraffirmation,andmayforthatpurposeadministeranynecessaryoathortakeanynecessaryaffirmation.(6)Thetribunalmaygivedirectionstoapartyforthepreservationforthepurposes
oftheproceedingsofanyevidenceinhiscustodyorcontrol
39.POWERTOMAKEPROVISIONALAWARDS (1)Thepartiesarefreetoagreethatthetribunalshallhavepowertoorderonaprovisionalbasisanyreliefwhichitwouldhavepowertograntinafinal
award.(2)Thisincludes,forinstance,making-(a)provisionalorderforthepaymentofmoneyorthe
dispositionofpropertyasbetweentheparties,or(b)anordertomakeaninterimpaymentonaccountofthe
costsofthearbitration.(3)Anysuchordershallbesubjecttothetribunal'sfinaladjudication;andthetribunal'sfinalaward,onthemeritsorastocosts,shalltakeaccountofanysuchorder.(4)Unlessthe
partiesagreetoconfersuchpoweronthetribunal,thetribunalhasnosuchpower.Thisdoesnotaffectits
powersundersection47(awardsondifferentissues,&c.).137Id.
138Id.;WerbickiSupranote20at67
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
35/80
27
thearbitratorsthepowertoenjoinanypieceofevidenceavailablewiththeparties139.TheIndian
ArbitrationActprovidesforthearbitratorstoorderinterimmeasuresofprotection,butlimits
theirauthoritytothesubjectmatterofthedispute.Italsogivesthepowertodemandsecurityfor
suchorders140.NetherlandsArbitrationActprovidesfortribunalordersinthematterof
appointingexpertsandexaminingwitnesses141.Butinthematterrelatingtoprovisionalor
conservatorymeasuresithasnospecificprovisionotherthantheoneauthorizingthearbitratorsto
grantinterimawards.ThereisnoexplanationintheActofthetypesorthelimitationsonthe
arbitratorstograntinterimrelief142.However,thepartiescanbyspecialagreementempowerthe
tribunalorthechairmantoorderprovisionalmeasuresinsummaryproceedings143.
139Art.1460NCPC-Thearbitratorsshalllaydowntherulesforthearbitrationproceedingswithoutbeing
boundbytherulesgoverningthecourtsoflaw,savewherethepartieshavedecidedotherwiseasstipulatedinthearbitrationagreement.Notwithstandingtheabove,thegoverningprinciplesofproceedingsasenacted
underArticles4to10,11(sub-article1)and13to21shallalwaysbeapplicabletoarbitrationproceedings.
Whereapartyhasinhispossessionanitemofevidence,thearbitratormayenjoinhimtoproducethesame,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org140ArbitrationandConciliationAct,199617.INTERIMMEASURESORDEREDBYARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL(1)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmay,attherequestofaparty,
orderapartytotakeanyinterimmeasureofprotectionasthearbitraltribunalmayconsidernecessaryin
respectofthesubject-matterofthedispute.(2)Thearbitraltribunalmayrequireapartytoprovide
appropriatesecurityinconnectionwithameasureorderedundersub-section(1),availableat
http://www.lexmercatoria.org141NetherlandsArbitrationActArticle1041EXAMINATIONOFWITNESSES1.Ifanexaminationof
witnessestakesplace,thearbitraltribunalshalldeterminethetimeandplaceoftheexaminationandthemannerinwhichtheexaminationshallproceed.Ifthearbitraltribunaldeemsitnecessary,itshallexamine
thewitnessesonoathoraffirmationasprovidedinarticle107(1).2.Ifawitnessdoesnotappear
voluntarilyor,havingappeared,refusestogiveevidence,thearbitraltribunalmayallowapartywhosorequests,withinaperiodoftimedeterminedbythearbitraltribunal,topetitionthePresidentoftheDistrict
Courttoappointajudge-commissarybeforewhomtheexaminationofthewitnessshalltakeplace.The
examinationshalltakeplaceinthesamemannerasinordinarycourtproceedings.TheClerkoftheDistrict
Courtshallgivethearbitratororarbitratorsanopportunityofattendingtheexaminationofthewitness.3.
TheClerkoftheDistrictCourtshallcommunicatewithoutdelaytothearbitraltribunalandthepartiesacopyoftherecordoftheexamination.4.Thearbitraltribunalmaysuspendtheproceedingsuntiltheday
onwhichithasreceivedtherecordoftheexamination,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org142NetherlandsArbitrationActArticle1049TYPESOFAWARDThearbitraltribunalmayrenderafinal
award,apartialfinalaward,oraninterimaward,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org143KojovicSupranote118;ArbitrationActArticle1051SUMMARYARBITRALPROCEEDINGS1.
Thepartiesmayagreetoempowerthearbitraltribunaloritschairmantorenderanawardinsummary
proceedings,withinthelimitsimposedbyarticle289(1).2.Intheeventthat,notwithstandingsuchagreement,thecaseisbroughtbeforethePresidentoftheDistrictCourtinsummaryproceedings,hemay,
ifapartyinvokestheexistenceofthesaidagreement,takingintoaccountallcircumstances,declaretohave
nojurisdictionbyreferringthecasetotheagreedsummaryarbitralproceedings,unlessthesaidagreement
isinvalid.3.Adecisionrenderedinsummaryarbitralproceedingsshallberegardedasanarbitralawardto
whichtheprovisionsofSectionsThreetoFiveinclusiveofthisTitleshallbeapplicable.4.Inthecaseofa
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
36/80
28
Animportantandinterestingissueraisedinthisregardistheconceptofresjudicata,
whenapartyafterdenialbytheCourttoorderforinterimmeasures,approachesthetribunalfor
suchameasure.Thisissuegetsaddedimportanceinareaswheretheconcurrentjurisdictionofthe
Courtsandtribunalisavailable.OneUScourt,whichwasceasedofsuchamatter,ruledthatthe
tribunalhastheauthoritytograntinterimreliefevenafterthedenialofsuchareliefbythe
Court144.SomeotherUSlowercourtshavealsostatedthatawardsmadebythearbitratorsarenot
reviewable,thoughthosedecisionswerenotrelatingtoprovisionalrelief145.
C. EnforcementofInterimMeasuresOrderedbyArbitrators
Asarbitrationinitselfisavoluntarysubmissiontothetribunalbasedonanagreement
betweenparties,theenforcementoftheprovisionalrelieforderedbythetribunalreliesheavilyon
voluntarycomplianceoftheparties146.Buttheproblemariseswhenapartyrefusestocomply
withtheseorders.Oneoftheobviouslimitationsinapproachinganarbitraltribunalfor
provisionalmeasureistheirinabilitytoenforcesuchorders 147.Mostofthestatelegislationsdo
notgiveanypowertothearbitratorsintheissueofenforcement148.Butthearbitratorsdohave
certainwaysofenforcingtheirordersinpractice.Forexampleinmattersrelatingtoevidence,the
tribunalmaypresumenegativeinferenceifapartyrefusestoproduceevidencebeforethe
tribunal149.Likewise,itcanalsousesanctionstoforcethecomplianceorifithascontroloverany
propertyinvolvedinthedispute,itmaypossessthesametoenforceitsorders 150.Alltheseare
subjecttojudicialchallengeinthenationalcourts.Thetribunalsandinsomecasesthepartiescan
referraltothesummaryarbitralproceedingsmentionedinparagraph(2)above,noappealmaybelodged
againstthedecisionofthePresidentoftheDistrictCourt,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org144SperryInt'lTrade,Inc.v.Israel,689F.2d301(2dCir.1982)TheSperrycaseisdiscussedindetailin
thesectiononenforcementofawards.145BORNSupranote3at820;Michaelsv.MariforumshippingSA,624F.2d411(2ndCir.1980)
146KojovicSupranote118
147DavidBrynmorThomas,InterimReliefPursuanttoInstitutionalRulesUndertheEnglishArbitration
Act1996,ArbitrationInternational1997148Id;BORNSupranote3at820
149HorningSupranote8at111150BORNSupranote3at820
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
37/80
29
alsoseektheassistanceofthenationalcourtsfortheenforcementoftheirawards151.Therefore,
thepositionofthenationalcourtsandthenationallegislationsauthorizingtheenforcementof
interimordersmadebythearbitratorsbecomeimportant.Further,otherimportantissueswhen
dealingwithenforcementarethescopeforreviewoftheorderandthegroundforrefusalto
enforce.CantheCourtsdenyenforcingtheinterimordersiftheyareex-parteorders?
Thesystemofenforcementofprovisionalorderscanbestudiedintwotopics,viz.,the
systemwheretheprovisionalremedyisconsideredanawardandexecutedassuchandthesystem
whereitisconsideredasanorderandthecourtsprovideassistancefortheenforcement.Inthe
formerapproachthechanceforjudicialreviewoftheawardislimitedwhileinthelatterthereis
scopeforreviewoftheorder.Netherlands,UnitedStates,FranceandBelgiumsubscribetothe
formerapproachwhereasSwissandGermanlawtakethelatterapproach152.InNetherlands,the
CourtswillenforceprovisionalmeasuresorderedbytheTribunalpursuanttoArticle1051ofthe
ArbitrationAct,astheywouldenforceaglobalorpartialaward153.InUSandsimilarcountries,
whichviewtheprovisionalreliefasanawardandseektoenforcethemassuchhaveconsidered
theinterimawardasfinalinrelationtothematteritseekstoaddress 154.TheSixthCircuitin
IslandCreek155caseandNewYorkdistrictcourtinSouthernSeas
156havetakenthisviewwhile
enforcingtheprovisionalawardsgrantedbythetribunal 157.AsfarasUSisconcernedtheleading
151KojovicSupranote118;WagonerSupranote24at72
152KojovicSupranote118
153Id.
154Id;BORNSupranote3at820
155IslandCreekcoalSalesCo.v.CityofGainesville,Florida729F.2d1046(6thCir.1984)156SouthernSeasNavigationLimitedofMonroviav.PetroleosMexicanosofMexicoCity606F.Supp.
692(S.D.N.Y.1985)157IslandCreekCoalSalesCo.v.CityofGainesville,Fla.,729F2d1046,1049(6thCir.1984)Chief
JudgeAllenconcludedthat"[t]heinterimawarddisposesofoneself-containedissue,namely,whetherthe
Cityisrequiredtoperformthecontractduringthependencyofthearbitrationproceedings.Th[is]issueisa
separate,discrete,independent,severableissue."MemorandumOpinion,July24,1983,at8.Wedonot
findthisconclusiontobeinerror.;SouthernSeasat693,694Giventheequitablereliefgranted,thisCourtcannotacceptPemex'sargument.Thisawardisnotapartialresolutionoftheparties'claimsasan
intermediatestepinanongoingarbitralprocessbut,ineffect,agrantofapreliminaryinjunction.Asnoted
above,thearbitratorsthemselvesperceivedtherequestinsuchtermsSuchanawardisnot"interim"in
thesenseofbeingan"intermediate"steptowardafurtherend.Rather,itisanendinitself,foritsvery
purposeistoclarifytheparties'rightsinthe"interim"periodpendingafinaldecisiononthemerits.The
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
38/80
30
caseonthissubjectarisingfrominternationalarbitrationwastheSperrycase158.Inthiscase,the
USCompanySperryInternationalTrade,Inc.enteredintoacontractwiththeGovernmentof
Israel,whichhadanarbitrationclause.Whenadisputearosebetweentheparties,Sperry
approachedtheDistrictCourttocompelarbitrationandforinjunctionrestrainingIsraelfrom
drawingonaletterofcreditpendingarbitration.TheDistrictCourtcompelledarbitrationand
enjoinedIsraelfromdrawingontheletterofcredit.IsraelappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,
whichreversedthepreliminaryinjunctiongrantedbytheDistrictCourtstatingthatSperryhad
notshownirreparableinjurytowarranttheinjunction.Israelimmediatelystartedtodrawonthe
letterofcredit.Butbeforethedispersalofthefunds,SperrymovedtotheNewYorkState
SupremeCourtandobtainedanorderofAttachment.IsraelremovedtheactiontotheFederal
Courtandmovedtovacatetheattachment.Sperrymovedacrossmotiontoconfirmthe
attachmentandalsoarguedbeforethetribunaltoenjoinIsraelfromdrawingontheletterof
credit.TheArbitratorsacceptedSperrysargumentandprovidedaprovisionalaward.Sperry
informedthistotheFederalcourtandalsobroughtamotiontoconfirmtheaward.TheDistrict
Courtconfirmedtheaward.OnAppealtheCourtofAppealsrecognizedtheauthorityofthe
arbitratorstoissueinterimawardsandenforcedit159.ItisinterestingtonotethattheCourtof
Appealswhendiscussingtheissueofenforcementandreview,tookintoaccount9U.S.C9,10
and11160.TheseSectionsoftheFAAdealwiththeenforcementoftheawardsissuedbythe
onlymeaningfulpointatwhichsuchanawardmaybeenforcediswhenitismade,ratherthanafterthe
arbitratorshavecompletelyconcludedconsiderationofalltheparties'claims.158SperryInt'lTrade,Inc.v.Israel,689F.2d301(2dCir.1982)159Id
160Idat304,305Itisbeyondcavilthatthescopeofthedistrictcourt'sreviewofanarbitrationawardis
limited.Under9U.S.C.s9(1976),"thecourtmustgrant...anorder(confirminganarbitrationaward)unlesstheawardisvacated,modified,orcorrectedasprescribedin(9U.S.C.ss10and11(1976))."
Section10permitsthecourttovacateanawardonlyinspecificsituations,suchas"(w)heretheawardwas
procuredbycorruption,fraud,orunduemeans,"s10(a);"(w)heretherewasevidentpartialityorcorruption
inthearbitrators,"s10(b);"(w)herethearbitratorswereguiltyof(certaintypesof)misconduct...orofanyothermisbehaviorbywhichtherightsofanypartyhavebeenprejudiced,"s10(c);or"(w)herethe
arbitratorsexceededtheirpowers,"orfailedtomake"amutual,final,anddefiniteawarduponthesubject
mattersubmitted,"s10(d).Inaddition,anawardmaybesetasideon"thenonstatutorygroundof'manifest
disregard'ofthelaw,"Drayerv.Krasner,572F.2d348,352(2dCir.),cert.denied,436U.S.948,98S.Ct.
2855,56L.Ed.2d791(1978),but"thispresuppose(s)'somethingbeyondanddifferentfromamereerrorin
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
39/80
31
arbitrators.Thecourtreasonedthattheinterimawardthoughinterimintime,isfinalinregardto
thematteritaimstosolve.Soitappliedthereviewgroundsavailabletothefinalawardsunder
FAA161.EveninacasewheretheMassachusettsStateSuperiorCourtrefusedtoenforcethe
interimreliefgrantedbythearbitrators,itrecognizedtheauthorityofthetribunaltoorderinterim
reliefwhenitissupportedbystatuteorarbitrationagreementbetweentheparties 162.
Swissarbitrationstatuetakesaslightlydifferentapproachbyauthorizingthearbitrators
toseekassistancefromtheCourtsforenforcingtheirinterimorders163.Therearediffering
opinionsonthequestionwhetherthedecisiontoapproachthecourtsforenforcementliesentirely
withthearbitrators.SomeexpertshavesaidthatthepartiescanalsoapproachtheCourtfor
enforcementoftheorders164.Someexpertsalsoviewtheissuesofreviewofthesubstantive
conditionsunderlyingtheordersdifferently165.TheSwisscourtswillprovideassistancefor
enforcementoftheinterimorderseveniftheseatofarbitrationisoutsideSwitzerland.
thelaworfailureonthepartofthearbitratorstounderstandorapplythelaw,'"id.(quotingSanMartine
CompaniadeNavegacion,S.A.v.SaguenayTerminalsLtd.,293F.2d796,801(9thCir.1961)).
9USC9.Awardofarbitrators;confirmation;jurisdiction;procedure:Ifthepartiesintheiragreement
haveagreedthatajudgmentofthecourtshallbeenteredupontheawardmadepursuanttothearbitration,
andshallspecifythecourt,thenatanytimewithinoneyearaftertheawardismadeanypartytothe
arbitrationmayapplytothecourtsospecifiedforanorderconfirmingtheaward,andthereuponthecourtmustgrantsuchanorderunlesstheawardisvacated,modified,orcorrectedasprescribedinsections10
and11ofthistitle.Ifnocourtisspecifiedintheagreementoftheparties,thensuchapplicationmaybe
madetotheUnitedStatescourtinandforthedistrictwithinwhichsuchawardwasmade.Noticeofthe
applicationshallbeservedupontheadverseparty,andthereuponthecourtshallhavejurisdictionofsuchpartyasthoughhehadappearedgenerallyintheproceeding.Iftheadversepartyisaresidentofthedistrict
withinwhichtheawardwasmade,suchserviceshallbemadeupontheadversepartyorhisattorneyas
prescribedbylawforserviceofnoticeofmotioninanactioninthesamecourt.Iftheadversepartyshallbe
anonresident,thenthenoticeoftheapplicationshallbeservedbythemarshalofanydistrictwithinwhich
theadversepartymaybefoundinlikemannerasotherprocessofthecourt.Seealso9USC10&11161Sperry,689F.2dat306Inthefinalanalysis"Arbitratorsmaydojustice"andtheawardmaywell
reflectthespiritratherthantheletteroftheagreement....Thuscourtsmaynotsetasideanawardbecause
theyfeelthatthearbitrator'sinterpretationdisregardstheapparent,oreventheplain,meaningofthewordsorresultedfromamisapplicationofsettledlegalprinciples.Inotherwordsacourtmaynotvacateanaward
becausethearbitratorhasexceededthepowerthecourtwouldhave,orwouldhavehadifthepartieshad
chosentolitigate,ratherthantoarbitratethedispute.Thosewhohavechosenarbitration,astheirforum
shouldrecognizethatarbitrationproceduresandawardsoftendifferfromwhatmaybeexpectedincourtsoflaw.162SeeCharlesConstructionCo.v.Derderian,586N.E.3d992(Mass.1992)
163SeeArt.183ofSwissPrivateInternationalLawSupranote118
164KojovicSupranote118citingopinionsbyleadingexperts
165Id
7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration
40/80
32
TheGermanarbitrationstatuealsoauthorizesthecourtstoprovideassistancetoenforce
theinterimordersprovidedthatnosimilarapplicationforinterimreliefispendingbeforethe
court166.FurtherArt.1041(2)providestheCourtswiththeauthoritytoremodeltheinterimrelief
orderedbytribunalstofitthesystemavailabletotheGermancourtsundertheircivillaw167.This
issuewasraisedbeforeaGermancourtwhenenforcingaMarevainjunction.Thecourtwasfaced
withdifficultywhentryingtoimplementtheinjunctionandfinallyenforceditasaninjunction
availabletotheGermancourts168.InmatterswheretheGermancourtshavealreadyrefused
interimreliefandthesamewassubsequentlygrantedbythetribunals,theGermancourtswill
enforcetheordersasgrantedbythetribunal169.Enforcementofinterimordersgrantedbytribunal
sittingoutsideGermanyinGermancourtshasnotbeenclearlyaddressedbythestatute.Sections
1025(2)and(3)whichliststheprovisionsapplicabletoarbitrationwhentheseatisoutside
Germanydoesnotcontaintheprovisiondealingwi