Satya Talwar Mouland
An Inquiry on International Arbitral Authority: Common Principles of Enforcement Jurisdiction in National Courts (working title)
Summary of research
The proliferation of international courts and tribunals has created increasingly complex interactions between the international and national legal spheres (Enrica Lexie, Arrest Warrant). This raises the question of what the lawful scope of a state’s adjudicative jurisdiction is, and ought to be, as a matter of international law. This question arises in light of a growing number of national court decisions in the area of international arbitration. International arbitral tribunals are considered, according to orthodoxies in the arbitration literature, as bodies which operate outside of state structures on the basis of party consent to the discrete dispute. However, national courts have authority – at least to a certain extent – to render interim relief, enforce arbitration awards and execute against the subject matter under the award. Viewing public and private international law together, this study examines whether, and if so, to what extent, national court decision-making authority may be constitutive of, or parasitical of any common international rules or principles of enforcement jurisdiction in this context. This, in turn, contributes to what the lawful scope of an international arbitral tribunal's decision-making authority is, or ought to be, as a normative matter.
- Enforcing International Arbitral Authority in National Courts (2020) 86(1) Arbitration 39
- Rethinking Adjudicative Jurisdiction in International Law (2019) 29 Wash. L. Rev. 173
- Comparing the role of the courts in English and German arbitration law (2016) 1 The European Law Students Association Law Review pp. 169 - 184