- 22-Sep-2025
- public international law
Interim measures or provisional relief are temporary orders issued by arbitral tribunals to preserve the status quo, prevent harm, or ensure that the arbitration process remains effective. These measures may include injunctions, freezing orders, or security for costs. However, there are situations where a party may violate these interim measures by failing to comply with the tribunal's order. Such violations can undermine the arbitration process and raise legal questions about enforcement and the consequences for non-compliance. Both arbitral tribunals and national courts play essential roles in addressing such violations.
If a party violates an interim measure, the other party may apply to national courts for enforcement. The tribunal may not have direct authority to enforce the measures, but national courts are often tasked with ensuring compliance. Depending on the jurisdiction, contempt of court proceedings may be initiated against the non-compliant party.
If a party ignores an injunction issued by the tribunal, the other party may seek a court order to enforce the injunction. The court can impose penalties, including fines or sanctions, for non-compliance.
Arbitral tribunals have the authority to sanction a party that fails to comply with interim relief. This may include ordering the non-compliant party to pay the legal costs incurred by the compliant party, or in some cases, issuing a default judgment against the non-complying party.
Violating interim measures can influence the final outcome of the arbitration. Tribunals may consider a party’s non-compliance with interim relief when determining the merits of the case or awarding damages. For example, the tribunal may award costs or penalize the non-complying party in the final award.
In international arbitration, violating interim measures can have serious consequences, especially if the measures need to be enforced across borders. The tribunal may issue interim relief in one jurisdiction, but if a party violates it and the other party seeks enforcement in another jurisdiction, national courts may refuse enforcement if the interim relief is seen as inconsistent with the public policy of the enforcement jurisdiction.
In some jurisdictions, non-compliance with interim measures can trigger jurisdictional challenges. For example, the tribunal may lose its authority to continue proceedings if one party consistently fails to comply with its orders, which could delay or complicate the arbitration process.
In many jurisdictions, disobeying an interim measure can be considered contempt of court, particularly if national courts are involved in enforcing the order. Courts may impose fines, imprisonment, or other penalties for willful disobedience of interim orders.
The party in violation may also be ordered to compensate the other party for damages caused by their failure to comply with interim relief. This can include compensatory damages for losses suffered due to the non-compliance and the legal costs incurred by the compliant party.
If a tribunal orders a party to freeze assets to prevent asset dissipation during arbitration, and the party sells or hides those assets, the tribunal could impose penalties, including the awarding of additional costs or damages to the other party.
A party’s violation of interim measures can jeopardize the integrity of the arbitration process. For instance, a party that violates an injunction could cause irreparable harm to the opposing party or compromise the ability of the tribunal to deliver an effective award. This may prompt the tribunal to consider additional procedural safeguards or take stronger measures against the violator.
Non-compliance can cause delays in the arbitration process. If interim measures are violated and enforcement is contested, it can slow down the proceedings and lead to further disputes over the scope and legitimacy of the measures.
In some cases, a party that violates interim measures may face default judgments or partial awards in favor of the compliant party. This is often a result of the non-compliance being treated as a sign of bad faith or disregard for the arbitration process.
The tribunal may issue additional interim measures, such as punitive costs orders or further injunctions, to counteract the harm caused by the violation. In extreme cases, the tribunal may even terminate the arbitration if the violation is deemed to significantly affect the fairness of the proceedings.
Jurisdictions with civil law systems may have different approaches to enforcing interim measures than common law jurisdictions. Civil law countries may have more stringent procedural requirements for recognizing and enforcing interim relief, whereas common law jurisdictions might provide more flexible or broad enforcement options. This can complicate enforcement in international arbitration when parties are in different legal systems.
Some jurisdictions have public policy exceptions that may prevent the enforcement of certain types of interim measures if they are deemed to conflict with local laws or public policy. For example, an order for an asset freeze could be refused by courts if it conflicts with local bankruptcy laws or other statutory provisions.
A tribunal orders a party to refrain from selling certain intellectual property assets during the course of arbitration. The party sells the assets despite the injunction. The opposing party applies to a national court to enforce the order, and the court imposes penalties for contempt.
A tribunal orders a party to deposit funds as security for costs. The party refuses to deposit the required amount. As a result, the tribunal may issue a default award in favor of the other party or impose additional sanctions, such as requiring the non-compliant party to pay the other’s legal costs.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
