The panel, titled “Realising Arbitral Justice: Access to International Arbitration and Enforcement of Awards,” brought together leading voices from the judiciary and academia to examine the growing gap between arbitral decisions and their effective enforcement. Moderated by Paul MacMahon and co-organized with Dr. Can Eken of Durham University, the discussion highlighted the critical role national courts play once arbitral proceedings conclude.
Speakers emphasized that the journey from award to execution remains uneven across jurisdictions. While arbitration is often praised for its efficiency and neutrality, participants noted that without robust court support, enforcement can become a bottleneck—undermining confidence in the system. Courts, they argued, must strike a careful balance: respecting the autonomy of arbitral tribunals while providing timely and effective mechanisms to recognize and enforce awards.
Beyond enforcement, the panel turned to a broader concern—access to justice. Arbitration, traditionally seen as a tool for commercial elites, is increasingly scrutinized for its cost and complexity. Panelists called for reforms to make arbitration more inclusive, warning that without meaningful access, its legitimacy could erode.
The discussion reflected a wider shift in international arbitration discourse, where efficiency alone is no longer sufficient. As one participant noted, the true measure of arbitral success lies not just in delivering awards, but in ensuring those awards translate into tangible outcomes for parties across borders.
With arbitration continuing to expand globally, the message from London was clear: the future of arbitral justice depends as much on national courts as it does on arbitral tribunals themselves.