Yet the enforcement
of international arbitral awards continues to be one of the key challenges of the international arbitration system, complicated further where the non-complying award debtor is a state.
Not exact matches
Almost 60 years after its creation, the New York Convention
continues to fulfil its objective
of facilitating the recognition and enforcement
of foreign
arbitral awards, and in the years to come, will guarantee the
continued growth
of international arbitration and create conditions in which cross-border economic exchanges can flourish.
However, even where statutory enforcement regimes like Alberta's Reciprocal Enforcement
of Judgments Act ensure procedural certainty for a certain delineated sub-set
of international arbitral awards, the unclear procedural status
of international arbitral awards, in general,
continues to affect
international arbitral awards not covered by the respective enforcement regime.
This decision has been the subject
of considerable discussion among arbitration practitioners: as was discussed several months ago on Slaw, the case raises a number
of difficult questions about how
international arbitration and Canada's treaty obligations in that respect interact with local procedural law — specifically limitation
of actions — when seeking to enforce the
award, and more generally whether foreign judgments and
arbitral awards should
continue to be treated, for limitations purposes, as mere contract debts.