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.
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | International Law | Law
Lori F. Damrosch,
A Comparative Look at Domestic Enforcement of International Tribunal Judgments,
Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4091