International arbitration has emerged as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border commercial disputes, offering a neutral, efficient, and internationally enforceable alternative to national court litigation. In an increasingly globalized economy, parties to international transactions often belong to different legal systems and cultural backgrounds, making litigation in one party’s home jurisdiction unattractive due to concerns of bias, unfamiliar procedures, or difficulty in enforcing judgments abroad. Arbitration, on the other hand, allows parties to resolve disputes before independent and impartial arbitrators of their choice, in a forum and under procedural rules that they agree upon, ensuring both neutrality and flexibility. Unlike litigation, arbitral proceedings are generally confidential, protecting sensitive commercial information and preserving business relationships. Moreover, arbitration awards enjoy near-universal recognition and enforceability under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,1958 (“New York Convention”)1958, which binds over 172 countries (UAE became a contracting party on August 21, 2006), thereby providing far greater certainty of execution than foreign court judgments. The process also benefits from the expertise of arbitrators who often have deep knowledge of the relevant industry or area of law, leading to more informed decisions in complex disputes. Combined with the finality of awards given the very limited scope for appeal these features have made arbitration the preferred method of dispute resolution in modern international commerce, as it balances efficiency, fairness, and enforceability in a way that traditional litigation often cannot.
Arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism is grounded in a combination of international conventions, model laws, and domestic statutes. Among the most influential instruments as pointed out earlier are the New York Convention the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and the various national arbitration laws that implement and adapt these principles. Together, they form the backbone of modern arbitration practice, facilitating cross-border dispute resolution while balancing party autonomy with judicial oversight.
This Article is a Part of Our Global Arbitration Services and International Commercial Arbitration Pillar Post.
New York Convention
The New York Convention remains the cornerstone of international arbitration. Adopted in 1958 and now ratified by more than 170 States, it obliges national courts to recognize and enforce arbitration agreements and foreign arbitral awards, subject to limited exceptions. Article II requires courts of Contracting States to uphold valid arbitration agreements, while Article III obliges them to enforce awards as binding. The defences available under Article V such as incapacity, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, ultra petita awards, improper tribunal composition, or conflict with public policy are exhaustive and narrowly interpreted. Courts worldwide have consistently emphasized the Convention’s pro-enforcement bias, ensuring that parties who have opted for arbitration receive the benefit of their bargain. As such, the Convention has become one of the most successful multilateral treaties in private international law, transforming arbitral awards into readily enforceable judgments across a vast number of jurisdictions.
Complementing the Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted in 1985 and amended in 2006, provides States with a legislative template for developing their domestic arbitration frameworks. While not binding per se, the Model Law has been widely adopted in whole or in part, thereby promoting harmonization of arbitration legislation. One of its most important contributions is the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, empowering arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement (Article 16).
Importantly, however, in CC/Devas et al. v. The Republic of India [2025] EWHC 964 (Comm), the English High Court clarified that a State’s ratification of the New York Convention does not itself constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity under Section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act, distinguishing it from the express enforcement obligation under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention.
UNCITRAL Model law
The Model Law also sharply limits judicial intervention, preserving the tribunal’s autonomy while recognizing a supervisory role for national courts in matters such as the appointment and challenge of arbitrators, interim measures, and the setting aside of awards. The 2006 amendments modernized the Law by liberalizing the formal requirements for arbitration agreements allowing electronic communications to satisfy the “in writing” requirement and by strengthening provisions on interim measures. These reforms ensured that the Model Law continues to reflect evolving arbitral practice and technological realities (UNCITRAL Model Law, 2006 amendments).
The Model law try to reduce the separation between national models that were complicating factors in international arbitration by presenting a harmonious framework for legislation. The Model Law also seeks to reduce the fragmentation caused by divergent national laws by providing a harmonized legislative framework that can be adopted across jurisdictions. Its primary objective is to unify and modernize the law of international commercial arbitration, thereby ensuring predictability and consistency in cross-border disputes. Key features include the principle of party autonomy, recognition of the validity and separability of arbitration agreements, the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz empowering tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction, and a narrow set of grounds on which national courts may set aside or refuse enforcement of awards. By balancing arbitral independence with limited judicial oversight, the Model Law enhances the credibility of arbitration as a neutral and reliable dispute resolution mechanism. Its widespread adoption by more than 120 jurisdictions has been instrumental in promoting uniform standards, reducing procedural uncertainty, and strengthening the enforceability of arbitral awards worldwide.
While the New York Convention and the Model Law provide the international architecture, arbitration is ultimately conducted within the framework of national arbitration laws, which govern the procedural aspects of arbitration seated in their jurisdictions and provide the mechanisms for recognition and enforcement of awards.
Key Domestic frameworks
United Kingdom (UK)
The UK Arbitration Act 2025, introduced significant reforms aimed at modernizing the arbitral framework and aligning it with contemporary international practice. Notably, the Act expressly recognizes the powers of emergency arbitrators where the parties have adopted institutional rules permitting their appointment. Amendments to Sections 42 and 44 of the 1996 Act (dealing with court assistance to arbitral tribunals), together with the insertion of a new Section 41A, empower emergency arbitrators to issue peremptory orders with authority equivalent to that of a fully constituted tribunal.
In addition, the Act has introduced Section 39A, which enables arbitral tribunals to render summary awards in respect of particular claims or issues. This mechanism is designed to save time and costs by allowing a tribunal, after hearing both parties, to dispose of matters where it is satisfied that a party has “no real prospect of succeeding” on a claim or defence.
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
The United Arab Emirates provides another instructive example. Historically criticised for outdated arbitration rules, the UAE modernised its framework with the adoption of Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration, largely inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law. The statute clarified fundamental issues such as the writing requirement for arbitration agreements, the tribunal’s competence to rule on its jurisdiction, the scope of judicial intervention, and the grounds for annulment and enforcement of awards. Importantly, it aligned UAE practice more closely with international standards, thereby increasing the country’s attractiveness as an arbitral seat in the Middle East. The statute also coexists with arbitration rules in financial free zones such as the DIFC (DIFC arbitration law no.1 of 2008) and ADGM(Arbitration regulations 2015), both of which are themselves Model Law jurisdictions, creating a multi-layered but arbitration-friendly environment.
A recent decision by the UAE’s Commission for the Unification of Local and Federal Judicial Principles has reinforced the UAE’s growing reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. On 4 August 2025, the Commission held that in order for an arbitral award to be enforceable under UAE law, it is not necessary for all arbitrators to sign every page of the award. Rather, signatures on the final page by all arbitrators, in a document that clearly reflects their consensus and outcome, suffice. This ruling removes an earlier area of uncertainty and formalism (where some panels of the Court of Cassation had demanded signatures on every page) and so streamlines the process of arbitration awards. It thereby reduces unnecessary procedural burdens, accelerates enforceability, and demonstrates the UAE judiciary’s commitment to facilitating efficient, fair, and predictable arbitration.
Taken together, these three frameworks operate in tandem. The New York Convention ensures international enforceability of arbitral awards; the UNCITRAL Model Law harmonises domestic arbitration statutes by providing a tested legislative model; and national arbitration laws implement and adapt these principles to local contexts. For practitioners, the interplay between them highlights several critical considerations: drafting arbitration agreements with clarity to satisfy international enforceability standards; choosing the arbitral seat with careful attention to its national arbitration law and judicial attitude; and planning enforcement strategies with reference to both the New York Convention’s pro-enforcement mandate and the specific public policy considerations of the enforcement jurisdiction.
India
India’s arbitration regime is primarily governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, as amended in 2015 and 2019, and is modelled substantially on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Act distinguishes between domestic and foreign-seated arbitrations, with courts empowered to grant interim relief under Section 9 and to enforce tribunal-issued interim measures under Section 17(2). Although the statute does not expressly recognise emergency arbitrators, the Supreme Court of India in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd confirmed that emergency arbitration orders issued under institutional rules (e.g. SIAC) in India-seated arbitrations are enforceable under Section 17(2). This landmark ruling effectively integrated emergency arbitration into Indian practice, even in the absence of legislative provision. However, the enforceability of foreign-seated emergency awards remains uncertain, and forthcoming legislative proposals—including a draft Section 9A seek to codify this recognition. Recent judicial trends also reveal a more pro-arbitration stance, limiting excessive court intervention and promoting enforcement in line with the New York Convention. While challenges remain such as statutory silence on confidentiality and procedural inconsistencies—India’s evolving jurisprudence and proposed reforms demonstrate a strong intent to align with global best practices and establish itself as a credible arbitration hub in Asia.
Practitioners Checklist
When assessing the suitability of a jurisdiction for arbitration, a practitioner should carefully evaluate several strategic considerations. First, it is important to determine whether the chosen seat is a Model Law jurisdiction, as this ensures predictability and alignment with internationally recognised standards. Second, the country’s position on the New York Convention should be verified, particularly whether it has ratified the Convention without significant reservations, since this directly affects the enforceability of arbitral awards across borders. Third, attention must be paid to recent reforms to domestic arbitration laws or procedural rules, as modern legislative updates often reflect a pro-arbitration stance and can streamline both procedure and enforcement. In addition, the general judicial attitude toward arbitration, the consistency of enforcement track records, the presence of reputable arbitral institutions, and the scope of public policy exceptions are all critical factors. Together, these considerations provide a practical framework for selecting or advising on a reliable and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
Ultimately, arbitration’s effectiveness rests on this multi-level framework. The New York Convention provides the international enforcement guarantee; the UNCITRAL Model Law ensures legislative coherence across jurisdictions; and domestic statutes tailor arbitration to local needs while integrating it into the global system. This alignment of international treaty, model legislation, and national law is what gives arbitration its unique strength as the primary mechanism for resolving international commercial disputes.
