- 21-Sep-2025
- public international law
Conflicting arbitral awards occur when different arbitral tribunals issue contradictory decisions on similar or related issues, even when the parties, facts, or legal principles involved are largely the same. Such conflicts can arise in situations where parallel arbitration proceedings are ongoing or when separate arbitration cases involve overlapping legal or factual elements. Handling these conflicting awards is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process and ensuring a fair and consistent dispute resolution system.
One of the primary ways to address conflicting arbitral awards is through judicial review or annulment procedures. If an arbitral award is inconsistent with a previous award or violates public policy, the aggrieved party may seek to have the award annulled or set aside by a national court. For example:
Courts may annul an award on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, serious procedural irregularities, or violation of public policy.
Judicial review is generally limited to ensuring that the arbitral process was fair and that the award adheres to the principles of natural justice, and does not revisit the merits of the case itself.
In legal terms, res judicata means that once a final decision has been made on a particular matter, it cannot be re-litigated. However, conflicting arbitral awards may occur in cases where there is no clear res judicata effect between separate arbitration proceedings, particularly when multiple tribunals are involved. In such cases:
Courts may enforce the first arbitral award and prevent the enforcement of the second one if the issue at hand has already been resolved, provided that there is no contradiction with public policy.
In some jurisdictions, courts may look to ensure consistency between conflicting awards by considering the first decision as a guide, especially when parties involved are the same.
If conflicting awards arise, enforcement of an arbitral award becomes more complicated. The second award may be challenged on the grounds of inconsistency or conflict with the first one:
The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which governs international arbitration, provides for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, but it allows courts to refuse enforcement if the award is contrary to public policy or is inconsistent with previous awards.
National courts are usually tasked with enforcing arbitral awards, and they may decline to enforce an award if it conflicts with another arbitral decision on the same subject matter.
One way to avoid conflicting awards is through the consolidation of arbitration proceedings. If parties are involved in multiple arbitrations involving similar issues or facts, they can request that the proceedings be consolidated into one arbitration. This helps to ensure consistency in the rulings and avoids conflicting decisions. Some arbitration rules, like those of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce), allow for consolidation under specific circumstances.
Some arbitration institutions provide for the possibility of appealing an arbitral award. For example, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) provides a limited mechanism for the appeal of awards, though this is uncommon in most arbitration systems. If an appeal system is available, conflicting arbitral awards may be resolved by a higher tribunal.
In some cases, the parties involved may agree to resolve the conflict between conflicting arbitral awards through negotiation or mediation. If both parties are motivated to reach an amicable solution, they may attempt to reconcile the decisions themselves or seek third-party assistance to mediate a resolution.
If an arbitral award conflicts with the public policy of the country where enforcement is sought, the national court may refuse to enforce the award. Public policy is a broad concept that may encompass fundamental principles of justice, fairness, or national interests. In cases where two awards conflict, courts may have to decide which award aligns better with the prevailing public policy.
Suppose two companies, A and B, are involved in two separate arbitration proceedings. In one arbitration, they dispute the interpretation of a contract, and in the other, they argue about damages resulting from a breach. Both tribunals issue awards on the same legal issue, but the decisions are inconsistent.
Conflicting arbitral awards pose significant challenges in international arbitration, including risks of inconsistent rulings and difficulties in enforcement. Legal frameworks, such as judicial review, annulment, and res judicata, provide mechanisms to address these conflicts. However, preventive measures such as consolidation of arbitration proceedings and appeal mechanisms can help avoid such issues. In cases of conflicting awards, parties and courts must balance efficiency, fairness, and consistency to ensure a stable and reliable 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.
