Abstract
ABSTRACT: Presently, there is still a bias understanding that the ICSID enforcement formula has the best features to ensure full satisfaction of investment arbitral awards. However, as the number of non-ICSID awards has significantly increased throughout the last years, recent practice has allowed empirical comparisons between ICSID and non-ICSID enforcement mechanisms, which necessarily imply a comparison between the ICSID Convention enforcement mechanism and the rules of the New York Convention of 1958. This analysis has the purpose of verifying whether the ICSID enforcement formula is actually better prepared to give full satisfaction of the investment awards rendered against States. Hence, due to the fact this analysis is fundamental for the investors to decide either to resort to ICSID or non-ICSID tribunals for settling their investment disputes, this article aims at giving substantial elements to help with that choice by showing the different paths that ICSID and non-ICSID investment awards must walk through in order to be recognized and fully enforced, by analyzing the domestic case law of different countries and the applicable rules on the subject and by showing the respective advantages and disadvantages.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
