Turning a blind eye to internationally-awarded interim measures

Following the dramatic development of economic globalisation, numerous commercial disputes began to arise from the increasingly complicated nature of international trade. Arbitration has become one of the most favourable methods for foreign investors to settle disputes because it is distinctively efficient and arbitral awards are uniformly enforced. But the question remains regarding which arbitration body to go to: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Cietac), International Court of Arbitration (ICC), American Arbitration Association (AAA), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) or any other international arbitration institutions? Due to cultural gaps, enhanced trust in their familiar arbitration institutions or even concerns about China's legal environment, foreign investors or businessmen tend to choose foreign arbitration institutions rather than Cietac as the forum to resolve disputes among parties to relevant agreements.

Although Cietac is becoming more mature and sophisticated in its practice, admittedly some of the foreign institutions enjoy larger reputations in the arbitration arena. Awards complied with in the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) shall be recognised and enforced in China. However, arbitration with a bigger-brand institution has its own limitations. One of the limitations is the insurmountable hurdle for recognition and enforcement in China of the interim measures granted by arbitral tribunals against the respondent if the interim measures have to be enforced in China. This article is a short introduction on this limitation with the expectation that foreign investors or businessmen are properly advised of this when selecting a foreign arbitration institution.