LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF ENFORCING A FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD ANNULED IN THE COURT OF ORIGIN: ANALYSING COMMISA V. PEMEX CASE AND CHROMALLOY AEROSERVICES V. ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT

Abstract

This article looks into the problems that come with enforcing foreign arbitral awards that have been set aside, especially in U.S. courts, and looks at how this affects the international dispute resolution system. The article focuses on how U.S. courts have dealt with cases such as PEMEX, a state-owned oil company, and COMMISA, a subsidiary of KBR, Inc., a U.S. construction company, and Chromalloy Aeroservices v. Arab Republic of Egypt. Enforcing awards that have been set aside is still a big topic of debate, and it gets criticized by both legal experts and professionals. Some courts respect the decisions made at the place where the arbitration happened and choose not to enforce annulled awards, showing respect for international cooperation. Others use the rules from the New York Convention to check the validity of the awards on their own and might still enforce them even if they were set aside. The study looks at how different places handle this issue, especially recent U.S. court rulings. It ends by saying these differences might hurt the main ideas of international arbitration, like fairness and efficiency.