You are on page 1of 21

International Commercial Dispute Settlement Law Course 2015/2016

RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN

INTERIM MEASURES IN INTERNATIONAL


COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

Luka Pregelj S3022242 luka.pregelj@gmail.com Grivka Pot 25d


Ajdovina Slovenia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 2

II.

INTERIM MEASURES AS LEGAL INSTRUMENTS.........................................................3

III.

AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN INTERIM MEASURE.......................................................4

1.

AUTHORITY OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.....................................................4


1.1. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT...........................................................................4
1.2. THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES............................................................................5

2.

AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS...................................................................................6


2.1. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT...........................................................................6
2.2. THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES............................................................................7
2.3. APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAW.................................................................................7
2.4. DETERMENING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT..........................................8

3.
IV.

CONCURENT JURISDICTION.....................................................................................8
THE GRANTING OF AN INTERIM MEASURE............................................................9

1.

CONDITIONS OF INTERIM MEASURES....................................................................9

2.

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF THE INTERIM MEASURES.............................9

3.

EX PARTE REQUEST FOR INTERIM MEASURES...................................................10

4.

FORM......................................................................................................................... 10

V.

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF INTERIM MEASURES...........................11

VI.

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 12

VII.

SOURCES..................................................................................................................14

I.

INTRODUCTION
Teams participating in the 22 Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot came across
several interesting issues. One of them was related to the grant of an interim measure of an emergency
arbitrator provided for by the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration. This particular remedy allows the parties
to be granted an order resembling the final award, by an emergency arbitrator, prior to the constitution
of their respective arbitral tribunal. The issue of interim measures 1 immediately spiked my interest.
While this particular case is entirely fictional, the real life disputes, settled by the international
commercial arbitration, may be just as complex. They arise between parties who operate on an
international level, sometimes deal with goods on volatile markets and are more often than not related
to business transactions of great monetary value.
Even though the arbitration procedure is often said to be considerably less time consuming and speedy
than court litigation it still takes the arbitrators more than two years, on average, to render the final
decision.2 Hence the parties confronted with an immediate threat to their rights must seek a remedy of
interim measures allowing them to mitigate such threats.
There is however many legal issues related to such remedies that will be further explored herein. This
paper first explores the legal nature and purpose of interim measures. It then further explores the issue
of authority of the arbitration tribunals and national courts to grant interim measures and their
enforcement. It explains the conditions under which such measures can be granted to the requesting
party and what form they should take. It also explores different safeguards that prevent abuse of
interim measures and aims to provide answers to abovementioned questions trough analysis of
different legal systems, multilateral agreements, practice of the arbitration tribunals and legal theory
developed by some of the most respected commentators in the field of international commercial
arbitration.

1 Different authors and legal systems provide different terms for interim measures such as provisional measure,
interim relief and precautionary measure. I will only use the term interim measure herein in order to avoid any
misunderstandings.

2 See Born B. Gary, International Commercial Arbitration - Comentary and Materials, 2nd edition,
Kluwer Law International, Transitional Publishers, Hague, 2001, p. 935 [hereinafter Born,
International Commercial Arbitration].
2

The aim of the paper is to provide any interested person with the knowledge essential to understand
how the interim measures can be obtained and what difficulties a requesting party may face on the way
from application for such remedy all the way to its enforcement.

II.

INTERIM MEASURES AS LEGAL INSTRUMENTS


The final award may be of little value to the successful party if the other party renders the outcome of
the proceedings ineffectual by, for example, dissipating its assets. 3 To avoid such harm the parties need
an adequate remedy that can be obtained quickly and enforced effectively. This is the precise purpose
of the interim measures which in essence are procedural instruments, aimed at protecting parties
rights, pending final resolution of a dispute. 4 The practical importance of interim measures is
recognized by most national legal systems and made part of respective national legislation governing
the litigation procedure. 5
Such relief may be all the more crucial in the context of international commercial arbitration due to the
special risks involved in such disputes; such as an increased danger that vital evidence will be taken
out of reach of a tribunal or that assets will be moved to a jurisdiction where enforcement of the final
award is unlikely to be successful.6
Interim measures include a variety of different orders and may serve different purposes. They are
usually designed to either maintain the status quo, preserve the assets, preserve the necessary evidence
or protect the arbitral process.7 The litigating parties may for example seek to sequester property in the
hands of the adversary, preserve status quo via injunctive relief, seek orders requiring adverse party to
provide security or attachment for satisfying the final judgement in the matter and appoint neutral third
parties to take specified actions such as inspection of goods.
It is important to note that interim measures only provide a party to arbitration with a temporary
protection of rights or property and are hence limited to the period of time, necessary for the tribunal
to reach its final decision or less if the threat to the rights subsides before that. 8
3 Roth Marianne, Interim measures, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1st issue, 2012, p. 425
[hereinafter Roth Marianne, Interim measures].
4 Ibid.
5 See Born, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 919.
6 Id, p. 920.
7 See Roth Marianne, Interim measures, p. 425 427.
8 Id, p. 426.
4

III.

AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN INTERIM MEASURE


The party that wants to move for an interim measure, during the course of commercial arbitration
proceedings, in order to prevent dissipation of assets, destruction of evidence, loss of market value of
the property or goods or misuse of intellectual property, must rely that the arbitration tribunal has a
proper legal basis on which its authority to grant such measures is built. Such legal basis may be
embodied in different instruments that may influence one another as described hereinafter.
Notwithstanding the foregoing the arbitral tribunals are not the only entity authorised to issue interim
measures. In some circumstances the national courts may in fact be able and willing to grant such
measures as well, in order to aid the arbitration proceedings. Moreover, the national courts may in
some cases be the only entity able to issue the interim measures even though the parties agreed to
settle their dispute via international arbitration.

1. AUTHORITY OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS


The power of an arbitration tribunal to issue an interim measure may be derived either from the
arbitration agreement concluded between the litigating parties, an applicable arbitration treaty or
provisions of applicable national law.9
1.1. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
The parties may include provisions governing the arbitration procedure in their respective arbitration
agreement. Such provisions my specifically allow or deny the arbitration tribunal the right to grant
interim measures. It is not likely however for the parties to include such specific provisions in their
agreement. More likely they will refer to the rules governing the procedure of institutional arbitrations.
Such rules governing the procedure of institutional arbitrations usually contain provisions that grant
the arbitration tribunal an authority to issue interim measures explicitly. The article 32.1. of the
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules for instance provides that the arbitration tribunal shall be entitled to
make interim, interlocutory or partial awards in addition to making the final award. Similar provision
can also be found in the ICC Rules where the term award is defined in such a way that interim and
partial award is also included besides the final award.
The authority of the arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures may be more hazy and even limited in
case of ad hoc arbitration since specific procedural rules are rarely contained in the arbitration
9 Alan Redfern, M. Hunter, Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides, Law and
Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 4th edition, Sweet & Maxwell,
2004, p. 373.
6

agreement and the tribunal must therefore rely on applicable provisions of international treaties or
national law.
1.2. THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
International arbitration conventions have little to say about the authority of the arbitration tribunal to
issue such interim measures. 10 Provisions addressing the question of whether and when can an arbitral
tribunal grant such measures can neither be found in the New York convention nor 1961 European
Convention on International Commercial Arbitration for example.
1.3. APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAW
The applicable national law plays an important role in the tribunals decision to grant interim
measures. Different legal systems provide certain limits to the authority of arbitrators to issue orders
for interim measures. Some legal systems 11 for example contest the authority of arbitration tribunals to
grant an interim measure altogether, or explicitly state that the courts will not aid in enforcement of
such awards.12 Other legal systems 13 provide for an exhaustive list of possible interim measures that an
arbitration tribunal may issue, or provide that arbitration tribunal has the same authority to issue
interim measures as a national court, which would have the jurisdiction in the dispute at hand. Some
legal systems on the other hand go a step further and allow the arbitration tribunals to be quite creative
with the issuing of the interim measures providing them with an authority to fashion any remedies that
they believe will do justice between the parties. 14
The parties to the arbitration agreement must hence pay due consideration to the applicable national
law. In fact, an arbitrator will seldom grant an interim measure unless the applicable national
legislation applicable to the arbitration procedure allows them to do so since such measure may
otherwise not be enforceable in a national court. This is where the national law may trump the
contractual provisions included in the arbitration agreement and render them either invalid or de facto
useless.
10 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 922.
11 See for example Thailand on p. 776, Italy on p. 448 and Israel on p. 435 in Newman W. Lawrence,
Colin Ong, Interim Measures in International Arbitration, Juric, cop, New York, 2014 [hereinafter
Newman and Ong, Interim Measures in International Arbitration].
12 See for example Japan in Newman and Ong, Interim Measures in International Arbitration, p. 477.
13 See for example Vietnam on p. 901, England on p. 275 and Hong Kong on p. 375 in Newman and
Ong, Interim Measures in International Arbitration.
14 See for example USA on p. 869, Norway on p. 577 and Mexico on p. 526 of Newman and Ong,
Interim Measures in International Arbitration.
7

2. AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS


As briefly mentioned above the national courts may also be authorised to assist the arbitration
procedure by issuing interim measures. In cases where the arbitration tribunal is not yet constituted 15
or it lacks the authority to issue an interim measure the national courts may in fact be the only option
for the party to secure its position by obtaining an order for interim measure. 16 Same is true in cases
where the national legislation does not enable the parties to seek enforcement of such interim awards
at the national courts since such interim measures are de facto useless.
The assistance of the national courts is also of great importance in cases when one of the parties in the
dispute pursues a grant of an interim measure that would in one way or another bind any third parties
that are not part of the respective arbitration agreement. Due to the fact that such agreements can only
be binding inter partes arbitrators can virtually never grant any such interim measures.
The courts authority to issue an interim measure depends first and foremost on the provisions of the
applicable national law. The New York convention and other applicable treaties as well as the
applicable institutional rules agreed upon by the parties however may as well play an important role.
2.1. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
The parties that concluded an agreement in order to settle any disputes arising from the underlying
relationship may reasonably expect that such disputes will indeed be resolved by the elected
arbitration tribunal.17 Notwithstanding the foregoing the parties may have to resort to the national
courts in cases described above or in cases where the applicable national law, governing the arbitration
proceedings, either explicitly denies the arbitration tribunals an authority to grant interim measures or
their enforcement.
In addition parties right to submit a request for an interim measure to the court may be further limited
by the choice of institutional arbitration. Under the ICC Rules for example, the parties may apply to
local courts only in "appropriate circumstances" after the file has been transmitted to the tribunal. The
LCIA Rules are narrower still, as they require "exceptional cases" in order to apply to state courts after
the formation of the arbitral tribunal.18

15 Some exceptions such as appointing an emergency arbitrator however may allow for the party to
obtain an interim measure prior to constitution of a proper arbitration tribunal.
16 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 935.
17 Redfern D. Alan, Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of Protection--Is the Tide about to
Turn, Texas International Law Journal, 30.1.1995, p. 72.
9

2.2. THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES


While the New York Convention does not contain any provisions dealing expressly with the interim
measures as described above, it does require the courts to enforce arbitration agreements. 19 The article
II (3) is of particular importance in that regard. It provides that the court of a Contracting State, when
seized of an action in a matter in respect of which the parties have made an arbitration agreement,
shall refer the parties to arbitration on request of one of the parties, unless it finds that the respective
agreement is null and void, inoperable or incapable of being performed. The article can be interpreted
to encourage jurisdiction of the courts in cases where the arbitration tribunals cannot issue the interim
measures since the arbitration agreement is in such case inoperable. 20 In the case Cooper v. Ateliers de
la motobecane SA the US Supreme Court stated: not only does the Convention not preclude the court
ordered attachment in aid of execution of an arbitral award, it arguably requires such action.21 The
interpretation of the article however differs between courts and legal systems and a claim that courts
are bound to enforce interim awards and even issue interim measures when respective arbitration
tribunals fail to do so due to for example lack of authority it is not uncontested. 22
2.3. APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAW
The courts, unlike arbitration tribunals are established by national law and it is indeed the national law
that gives and defines their authority. Hence the power of a court to grant an interim measure can very
well be limited or contested by national arbitration legislation regardless of the abovementioned article
II(3) of the New York convention.23

18 Roth Marianne, Interim measures, p. 433.


19 Ibid.
20 See Cooper v. Ateliers de la motobecane SA, 442, N.E.2d 1239.
21 Lessing Adam, Cooper v. Ateliers de la motobecane SA: Pre-Award
Attachement under the New York Convention, Berkley Journal of International
Law, 1st issue, 1983, p. 250.
22 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 936.
23 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 950.
10

Some legal systems24 in fact choose to do just that, whereas other 25 give the national courts the right to
aid arbitration proceedings by granting interim measures explicitly. Some 26 do so at the exclusion of
the authority of the arbitration tribunals to issue such remedies. It is therefore important that the parties
consider that when for example choosing the seat of arbitration.

24 See for example Japan on p. 477 at Newman and Ong, Interim Measures in International
Arbitration.
25 See for example Australia on p. 24, Finland on p. 281 and Ireland on p. 397 at
Newman and Ong, Interim Measures in International Arbitration.
26 See for example Argentina on p. 2 at Newman and Ong, Interim Measures in
International Arbitration.
11

2.4. DETERMENING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT


Assuming that the parties seek an interim measure in front of a court instead of the arbitration tribunal,
the question of which court to address with such claim has to be answered. May the parties request
interim measures in a national court outside of the jurisdiction of the national courts where the
arbitration is seated? The answer was given for example in a Channel tunnel case where the English
House of Lords concurred with the Court of appeal that while the court had jurisdiction to grant an
injunction in support of a domestic arbitration it had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction to issue an
injunction relating to a dispute that was the subject of a foreign arbitration. 27
Notwithstanding the foregoing the Channel tunnel only illustrates that the answer is to be found in
national law of a country in which the parties request the interim measures at the competent courts
which then decides on its jurisdiction. Most institutional arbitration rules however allow the parties to
request an interim measure from the competent court in any country, regardless of where the
arbitration takes place. Quite often, the party will turn to the courts where the property in dispute or
the evidence is located.28

3. CONCURENT JURISDICTION
When two or more courts from different systems have jurisdiction over the same claim or dispute the
problem of concurrent jurisdiction arise. If permitted to pursue the same claim at more than one court
simultaneously, the parties may find themselves in an awkward legal position where the respective
courts issue contradicting decisions.
The same problem could arose if the parties to the arbitration agreement sought a remedy of interim
measure at the arbitration tribunal and national court simultaneously. To avoid such contradictory
decisions different measures are in place. Whereas the national legal systems usually solve the
problem by the implementation of the lis pendens doctrine into the national legislation on litigation
procedure, the procedural rules of international arbitration often impose measures such as an
obligation of disclosure on the party requesting an interim measure from a court. 29 The ICC rules for
example provide that the party must communicate any application submitted to the court as well as
any measure taken to the ICC Secretariat, which in turn has to inform the arbitral tribunal.

27 See Hon J. Edgar Sexton, Caught between Arbitrators and the Courts: Interim
Measures in the U.S. International Arbitration, Canadian Arbitration and Mediation
Journal, 2012, p. 1.
28 Roth Marianne, Interim measures, p. 433.
29 Ibid.
12

IV.

THE GRANTING OF AN INTERIM MEASURE

In addition to the fact that interim measures may play a crucial role in preserving the rights of parties
pending the final decision, the interim measure may also have a considerable effect on the outcome of
the proceedings and some authors even suggest that they may often decide the dispute. Hence the
conditions and standards for granting interim measures may play very important role in international
commercial arbitration proceedings.

1 CONDITIONS OF INTERIM MEASURES


Most sets of rules on arbitration procedures do not set any particular conditions under which interim
measures may be ordered.30 Trough established practice and gradual evolution of international
commercial arbitration proceedings the tribunals have hence developed some standards for granting
interim measures.
The usual requirements include imminent and irreparable harm and the likelihood of success on the
merits on part of the applicant 31. Another standard of consideration is also the equilibrium between an
imminent harm to one party and the potential harm caused by implementation of requested interim
measure to the other. The requesting party must demonstrate that the first outweighs the latter. This
standard of proportionality may however be swayed by the tribunal in cases where the interim
measures are aimed at the preservation of evidence and protection of the arbitration procedure itself. 32

4. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF THE INTERIM MEASURES


Most institutional arbitral rules provide for a number of safeguards to prevent that requests for interim
measures become a subject of abuse. 33 The tribunals may for example condition the requesting party to
provide an adequate security. They are empowered to modify, suspend or terminate the interim
measure put in place upon application of the party against which it was imposed. Tribunals may
sometimes do so on their own initiative. This is especially the case when the measure appears to be
granted on an erroneous of fraudulent basis 34. Finally the party that requested the interim measure is
liable to another to any costs and damages caused by the interim measure if it proves to be unjustified.
30 Roth Marianne, Interim measures, p. 429.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Roth Marianne, Interim measures, p. 431.
34 Ibid.
13

14

5. EX PARTE REQUEST FOR INTERIM MEASURES


As expressed on several times herein the requests for interim measures are by definition urgent with
the threat of an imminent and irreparable harm being suffered unless the partys request is granted. For
this reason they are often sought ex parte 35 - meaning without granting a prior hearing to the other
party against which the measure is directed. This may very well be contrary to the principle of fairness
and audiatur et altera pars principle.
This is perhaps one of the reasons why the authority of the arbitration tribunal to issue interim
measures is often further limited by the provisions of the respective national legislations when they are
to be granted ex parte. The rules of most institutional arbitrations do not provide for the grant of
interim measures ex parte and some commentator suggested that that would indeed be incompatible
with the consensual nature of the arbitration.36

6. FORM
In most cases, deciding upon the form of the provisional measures falls under the discretion of the
arbitration tribunal.37 They can be rendered either in a form of a procedural order or as an interim
award. In that regard the tribunals usually take into consideration the kind of measure being invoked
and the applicable procedural law. However, arbitrators are usually in favour of issuing an informal
procedural order because a more formal interim award may appear too similar to a decision on the
merits of the dispute38.
Form in which the requested interim measure is granted may however play an important role when a
party requests a recognition and enforcement of such measure by the competent court. When the
application of these interim measures is drawn up in the form of a written decision it is more likely to
be executed by the national court on the territory where the interested party that has made a relevant
application39.

35 Redfern D. Alan, Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of Protection--Is the Tide about to
Turn, Texas International Law Journal, 30.1.1995, p. 79.
36 Alan D. Redfern, M. Hunter, Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides, Law and
Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 4th edition, Sweet & Maxwell,
2004, p. 335.
37 Roth Marianne, Interim measures, p. 430.
38 Ibid.
39 Yu Prytyka, Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration, Law of Ukraine: Legal
Journal, 201, p. 152.
15

16

V.

RECOGNITION AND
MEASURES

ENFORCEMENT OF INTERIM

The very purpose of interim measures is to safeguard the rights of a party facing an imminent threat
during the course of a litigation procedure. Without a speedy acquisition and enforcement an interim
measure hence loses its value for the requesting party. In case of interim measures granted by the
courts in aid of the arbitration procedures the enforcement does not represent a particular problem. The
authority of the courts is established upon the sovereignty of the state and finds its legal basis in its
legislation. Since the state has a monopoly upon the use of any coercive means on its territory the
national courts as its body have no problem at enforcing the decisions even against the will of the
parties in the litigation proceedings.
There are however important limitations upon what an arbitral tribunal can do to enforce its decisions.
The authority of the arbitration tribunal is based on the consensual will of the parties to settle their
dispute by the use of its service. In addition the arbitration tribunal is composed of private individuals
and not state officials. While they may be persons of gravitas and will usually have considerable
powers conferred upon them by the parties, or by operation of law, they do not possess the same
powers to enforce their decision as does the court 40.
The lack of such power of the arbitration tribunal creates a need for assistance from the courts. In
order to make arbitration agreements effective, the parties must be able to force one another to comply
with the decision. This need has long been recognized in domestic legislation as well as the
international treaties, such as the Geneva Protocol and the New York Convention.
As already explained above 41 multilateral treaties do not deal with the interim measures specifically
but do empower the national courts of the Contracting Parties with an authority to enforce arbitration
awards. National legislation may however contest enforcement of the interim measures issued by the
arbitration tribunals.42

40Redfern D. Alan, Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of Protection--Is the Tide about to
Turn, Texas International Law Journal, 30.1.1995, p. p73
41 See 2.2. The International Treaties herein.
42 Hereinafter MAL.
17

An important development in this respect is the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
designed to assist the states in reforming and modernising their laws on arbitral procedure. It was
amended in 2006 and provides that an interim measure shall be recognized as binding and enforceable
upon application to the competent court, irrespective of the country in which it was issued. 43 This is
especially important in cases where the seat of the arbitration is located in a neutral state where the
party who the interim measure is aimed to constrain does not have any assets in.
The MAL also imposes certain safeguards and obligations upon the party that requested the interim
measure. It must for example inform the court enforcing the measure of any termination, modification
or suspension of such remedy.44

VI.

CONCLUSION
Interim measures are the legal instrument that allows a party facing the imminent threat to its rights to
secure its position pending the final award. This remedy is all the more important in the context of
international commercial arbitration due to specific risks that parties face in such disputes. The aim of
the interim measures is to maintain the status quo, preserve the assets, preserve the necessary evidence
or protect the arbitral process itself.
The requesting party must show that it is facing imminent threat of irreparable harm unless the
proposed interim measure is granted. It must further show that this potential threat outweighs the harm
caused by implementation of the requested interim measure to the other party, unless the interim
measure aims at the protection of evidence or arbitral procedure itself. The party must also be mindful
of the fact that it may be liable for any damages caused to the other party by implementation of the
interim measure.

43 Roth Marianne, Interim measures, p. 434.


44 Ibid.
18

An analysis of the national legislations governing the arbitration proceedings shows that most systems
grant the arbitration tribunals an authority to issue interim measures. Resorting to the courts in order to
provide enforcement of such interim measures does not however preclude the parties right to
afterwards continue the proceedings in accordance with their respective arbitration agreement. 45 The
decision on whether to request such measures at the national courts or the arbitration tribunal is
therefore in the hands of the requesting party that must carefully consider all the important factors. In
general it may be preferable for the party to request interim measures from the national courts in cases
where they are to be granted ex parte, against third parties or prior the arbitration tribunal has been
constituted.
The authority of the tribunals and courts to grant such relief may be limited by the arbitration
agreement and subsequent choice of rules of the institutional arbitration, multilateral treaties and
applicable national law governing the litigation or arbitration process.
In cases where the interim measure was granted by the tribunal in the arbitration procedure the party
must make sure that the remedy can be enforced by a competent court in order for the measure to be
fully effective.

45 Yu Prytyka, Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration, Law of Ukraine: Legal


Journal, 201, p. 153.
19

VII.

SOURCES
-

Born B. Gary: International Commercial Arbitration - Comentary and Materials, 2nd

edition, Kluwer Law International, Transitional Publishers, Hague, 2001;


Roth Marianne: Interim measures, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1st issue, 2012;
Alan Redfern, M. Hunter, Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides: Law and Practice of

International Commercial Arbitration, 4th edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2004;


Newman W. Lawrence, Colin Ong: Interim Measures in International Arbitration, Juric,
cop, New York, 2014;

Lessing Adam: Cooper v. Ateliers de la motobecane SA: Pre-Award Attachement under


the New York Convention, Berkley Journal of International Law, 1st issue, 1983;

Redfern D. Alan: Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of Protection--Is the Tide
about to Turn, Texas International Law Journal, 1995;

Hon J. Edgar Sexton: Caught between Arbitrators and the Courts: Interim Measures in
the U.S. International Arbitration, Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal, 2012;

Yu Prytyka: Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration, Law of Ukraine:


Legal Journal, 201.

20