At the outset, in order to understand the concepts of recognition and enforcement,

certain distinctions must be emphasized. Firstly, it is important to distinguish

between recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards at the seat of the arbitra-
tion and recognition and enforcement of foreign awards made outside the territory
where recognition is sought. Many states treat the recognition of awards rendered
within their boundaries in the same way as recognition and enforcement of foreign
arbitral awards. Looked at from the perspective of the legislative technique
employed, some systems follow Article 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which
provides for a self-contained national regime for the recognition and enforcement
of foreign awards. Others, by contrast, just refer to the New York Convention.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is — at least outside the
European Union — obviously a more important topic than the recognition and
enforcement of court judgments, because court proceedings often take place in
the country of the defendant's domicile or principal place of business. In arbitral
proceedings this will be much rarer, as they will frequently be held in a neutral
jurisdiction. Practitioners must therefore consider enforcement rules in other
jurisdictions more frequently and more thoroughly, because an unenforceable
award is worthless.
Secondly, there is a fundamental distinction between recognition and enforce-
ment, as becomes apparent if one considers the matter in light of the objectives of
any procedure and the parties' strategic options. Recognition is a defensive
process, the aim of which is to obtain recognition of an arbitral award with a
view to preventing an attempt to bring new proceedings raising the same issues
as those dealt with in the award in respect of which recognition is sought.
Enforcement goes a step further than recognition. In an enforcement proceeding,
the successful party seeks the court's assistance in order to ensure that the award is
complied with and to obtain the redress to which it is entitled. The widely used
metaphor of a "sword" (here) and a "shield" (there) illustrates the distinct func-
tions perfectly. Authoritative commentators have, therefore, correctly pointed out
that the New York Convention's predecessor, the 1927 Geneva Convention on the
Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards, was more precise on this point where it
referred to "recognition or enforcement."" An award may be recognized without