An Analysis of the Practices of International Commercial Arbitration in Pakistan and the UK

The enforcement of international commercial arbitration (ICA) awards is a critical aspect of global trade and investment, ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the enforcement frameworks in Pakistan and the UK both signatories to the New York Convention (NYC), 1958. While the UK’s Arbitration Act, (AA) 1996 is widely regarded as arbitration-friendly and aligned with international best practices, Pakistan’s arbitration regime, governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 (REFA, 2011), has faced challenges in achieving similar efficiency and predictability. The study examines the grounds for refusing enforcement under both jurisdictions, including invalid arbitration agreements, procedural irregularities, excess of authority, and public policy considerations. It highlights the UK’s pro-enforcement stance, characterized by minimal judicial intervention and narrow interpretation of public policy, as seen in cases like Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. OJSC Rosneft Oil Company (2012). In contrast, Pakistan’s enforcement framework has historically been hindered by procedural delays, inconsistent judicial interpretations, and a broader application of public policy, as demonstrated in Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan (2003). However, recent developments, such as the Broadsheet LLC v. Pakistan (2021) case, indicate progress toward aligning Pakistan’s arbitration practices with international standards. The paper concludes that while the UK serves as a model for effective enforcement, Pakistan’s ongoing reforms under REFA, 2011 offer a promising foundation for improvement. By addressing existing challenges and adopting best practices, Pakistan can enhance its arbitration framework and strengthen its position as a reliable jurisdiction for enforcing international arbitral awards.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Indus journal of social sciences.
Published
2025-03-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.59075/ijss.v3i1.749
Primary Topic
International Arbitration and Investment Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Analysis of the Practices of International Commercial Arbitration in Pakistan and the UK

Sadaf Khan, Salman Saeed, Aliza Naeem, Jamil Ahmad Khokhar
Indus journal of social sciences.
International Arbitration and Investment Law
article

An Analysis of the Practices of International Commercial Arbitration in Pakistan and the UK

Sadaf Khan, Salman Saeed, Aliza Naeem, Jamil Ahmad Khokhar
article en

Abstract

The enforcement of international commercial arbitration (ICA) awards is a critical aspect of global trade and investment, ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the enforcement frameworks in Pakistan and the UK both signatories to the New York Convention (NYC), 1958. While the UK’s Arbitration Act, (AA) 1996 is widely regarded as arbitration-friendly and aligned with international best practices, Pakistan’s arbitration regime, governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 (REFA, 2011), has faced challenges in achieving similar efficiency and predictability. The study examines the grounds for refusing enforcement under both jurisdictions, including invalid arbitration agreements, procedural irregularities, excess of authority, and public policy considerations. It highlights the UK’s pro-enforcement stance, characterized by minimal judicial intervention and narrow interpretation of public policy, as seen in cases like Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. OJSC Rosneft Oil Company (2012). In contrast, Pakistan’s enforcement framework has historically been hindered by procedural delays, inconsistent judicial interpretations, and a broader application of public policy, as demonstrated in Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan (2003). However, recent developments, such as the Broadsheet LLC v. Pakistan (2021) case, indicate progress toward aligning Pakistan’s arbitration practices with international standards. The paper concludes that while the UK serves as a model for effective enforcement, Pakistan’s ongoing reforms under REFA, 2011 offer a promising foundation for improvement. By addressing existing challenges and adopting best practices, Pakistan can enhance its arbitration framework and strengthen its position as a reliable jurisdiction for enforcing international arbitral awards.

Indus journal of social sciences.Vol. 3(1)
W. L. Gore & Associates (Germany) (DE), Lahore Leads University (PK), College of Law (LV)
Openalex Percentile: Top 95%
International Arbitration and Investment Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.