Scrutiny of the Award - Is It Really Helpful?

Scrutiny of the Award - Is It Really Helpful?

The scrutiny process of arbitral awards has been highly discussed for years, due to the divergent views on the subject in the arbitral practice. Nonetheless, arbitral institutions have not shied away from this process. Quite to the contrary, this process has been, and remains, used by arbitral institutions. All the more so, the scrutiny process is becoming more and more established, as a rise in its codification and implementation has been seen in arbitral institutions' rules. Whether its benefits truly outweigh its disadvantages remains nevertheless questioned. It is undeniable that the scrutiny process of arbitral awards offers greater certainty by promoting an award's legal effectiveness and enforceability. This is essentially why such a process exists (putting aside the reputational aspect for arbitral institutions that comes by ensuring high enforceability rates of awards rendered under their aegis). However, from a practical angle, this review process is not without potential repercussions on the award itself. Arbitral institutions must hence remain careful as to not get carried away and refrain from an overambitious application of this process. In other words, arbitral institutions should not see this process as a way to point out every aspect of an award that they may not (fully) agree with. This would lead to a counterproductive application of the scrutiny process. Rather, arbitral institutions should stick to a tempered approach and see this process as a way to assist arbitrators in the redaction of their award. In the end, this scrutiny process should still be considered a very helpful tool for arbitrators in order to maximize their award's enforceability.