Interim Measures in International Arbitration: Towards International Consistency

The availability of interim measures can be of paramount importance for parties in arbitration proceedings–specially in complex cross-border settings where several jurisdictions and judicial systems might be involved. Particularly orders not to dispose of or to relocate assets often prove to be crucial for securing the basis of an award. According to the principle of ‘concurrent’ jurisdiction, parties generally have the option to request interim relief from state courts as well as from arbitral tribunals. However, the practices in different jurisdictions and under different arbitration rules vary considerably regarding the specifics of requesting and enforcing interim orders in the context of arbitration proceedings. These differences become particularly evident with respect to questions concerning limitations to the principle of ‘concurrent’ jurisdiction and in the context of the recognition and enforcement of orders issued by emergency arbitrators and by foreignseated arbitral tribunals. The article analyses the current situation in England and Wales, Germany, and India, particularly with respect to the enforceability of arbitral-ordered interim measures. The authors conclude that – especially in light of the ongoing reforms in the arbitration laws of these jurisdictions – a more uniform approach of enforcing interimmeasures on the international level would be beneficial.