- 22-Sep-2025
- public international law
Interim relief or provisional measures are temporary measures granted by arbitral tribunals to protect the parties' interests during the course of arbitration. These measures may include actions like freezing assets, issuing injunctions, or ordering parties to take or refrain from specific actions. However, since arbitral tribunals generally do not have the inherent authority to enforce such measures, the enforcement mechanism typically involves judicial support. Courts play a critical role in ensuring compliance with interim orders issued by arbitral tribunals, especially when the relief has cross-border implications in international arbitration.
While arbitral tribunals can issue interim orders, the actual enforcement typically requires the assistance of national courts. Many national arbitration laws, including those following the UNCITRAL Model Law on international commercial arbitration, empower courts to assist in enforcing interim relief ordered by arbitrators. This allows tribunals to issue provisional measures, which are then enforced by the courts of the jurisdiction where the relief is sought.
Under the New York Convention (1958), which governs the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, courts in contracting states are required to recognize and enforce arbitral awards, including interim relief, as long as they meet certain conditions. This means that if an interim measure is granted by a tribunal seated in a different jurisdiction, national courts may still provide enforcement support.
Common forms of interim relief include injunctions (ordering a party to do or refrain from an act), freezing orders (preventing the dissipation of assets), and security for costs (requiring one party to deposit funds to cover potential future costs).
The UNCITRAL Model Law provides a framework for the enforcement of interim measures in many jurisdictions. For instance, Article 17 of the Model Law empowers national courts to enforce interim measures, even if they were granted by an international arbitral tribunal. Courts in countries that have adopted this law are bound to provide assistance, ensuring that interim relief is respected.
In a case where a party seeks a freezing order to prevent asset dissipation, the tribunal may issue the order. The party can then apply to a national court in the jurisdiction where the assets are located to seek enforcement of that order.
Although the New York Convention primarily focuses on the enforcement of final arbitral awards, its provisions can be extended to interim measures in some jurisdictions. Some courts have held that interim relief can be enforced in the same manner as a final award if the relief is part of the arbitral award or interim award.
In cross-border disputes, where the interim relief issued by an arbitral tribunal in one country needs to be enforced in another, the New York Convention helps by requiring recognition and enforcement of such orders by courts of contracting states, subject to local public policy exceptions.
The ability of national courts to enforce interim relief may vary depending on the local jurisdictional rules and the court’s discretion. Some courts may be reluctant to enforce interim measures if they perceive a lack of jurisdiction or if the measures are inconsistent with the local legal framework.
National courts may refuse to enforce interim measures that they believe violate public policy or local law. For instance, an injunction requiring a party to act in a manner inconsistent with local law may not be enforceable in some jurisdictions, even if the measure was ordered by an arbitral tribunal.
In some cases, delays in obtaining judicial assistance can undermine the effectiveness of interim relief. Courts may be slow to act, particularly when complex legal issues are involved, or the tribunal’s orders are contested by the party against whom the relief is sought.
Some arbitral institutions, like the ICC, provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator to grant interim relief before the formation of the full tribunal. In such cases, the relief granted by the emergency arbitrator may also need to be enforced by national courts.
Many international arbitration institutions (such as LCIA, HKIAC, SIAC) have procedures for emergency arbitration, and interim orders issued in such proceedings can often be enforced in the same manner as those issued by a full tribunal.
When interim measures are granted by tribunals in one country and enforcement is sought in another, jurisdictional challenges can arise. Courts in the enforcement jurisdiction may question whether the tribunal had the authority to issue the relief or whether it is binding in that jurisdiction.
Different countries may have varying approaches to interim relief in arbitration, leading to inconsistencies in how interim orders are treated. Some countries may be more willing to enforce interim relief than others, depending on their local arbitration law or their stance on international arbitration.
A party in an international commercial dispute obtains an interim injunction from an arbitral tribunal to prevent the other party from selling certain assets. The tribunal’s seat is in London, but the assets are located in New York. The party seeking enforcement applies to a New York court, which grants the order and ensures the injunction is complied with, demonstrating how national courts assist in enforcement.
A tribunal orders a freezing order on the assets of a party in a cross-border dispute. The party seeking the relief applies to a court in the jurisdiction where the assets are located (e.g., Switzerland). The Swiss court recognizes the arbitral tribunal's decision and enforces the freezing order, ensuring the integrity of the arbitration process.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
