Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2009
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272503700033553
Abstract
Problems of compliance with international arbitral and judicial decisions have been with us for as long as such tribunals have existed. In general, the consensual foundations for the jurisdiction of international tribunals have ensured that the parties were in principle willing to have their disputes resolved by the tribunal and thus were usually prepared to carry out the resulting award or judgment. Commentators on international arbitration generally characterize the compliance record as favorable.
Occasions when states refuse to carry out arbitral awards are rare, but when they do occur, states have sometimes asserted the nullity of the award on the basis of exces de pouvoir that the arbitrators had gone beyond the terms of the parties' consent to submit the dispute. When the United States refused for fifty years to carry out the arbitral award in the Chamizal Tract dispute with Mexico, the stated reason was that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority.
Disciplines
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | International Law | Law
Recommended Citation
Lori F. Damrosch,
A Comparative Look at Domestic Enforcement of International Tribunal Judgments,
103
Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc.
39
(2009).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4091
Comments
© 2009 American Society of International Law. This article has been published in the Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting and is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution or re-use.