Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Comparative Analysis of China and Pakistan

Abstract

This study examined at how foreign arbitral awards are enforced in China and Pakistan, emphasizing the regulations involved, how smoothly the process goes and how courts handle them. The main goals were to check the shortcomings in Pakistan’s ways of enforcing IP compared to China, research the reasons for rejecting some enforcement cases and suggest ways to better align Pakistan’s procedures with worldwide customs. The main difficulty is that Pakistan does not enforce arbitration properly, its judicial processes move slowly and its laws have many loopholes which brings down its reputation for favoring arbitration as a member of the New York Convention (NYC). Unlike the China’s system of hierarchy in reporting, strict policy reading and distinct judicial courts operate very dependably. The method involved surveying 60 Pakistani legal experts (judges, lawyers and PhD Law scholars) and studying the statutes and case law from both countries. Respondents unanimously stated that Pakistan's judicial procedures are not adequate because of unpredictable results, increase in delays and judicial meddling (20 judges mentioned this). A significant number of lawyers and scholars, to be specific 83.3%, feel that adopting China’s reporting system assisted in resolving disagreements in court. The commentary describes how China’s support for international arbitration, including strict monitoring by the SPC, makes enforcement easier, while Pakistan’s REAAFA Act 2011) could help limit possible avoidance of referral. Some suggestions are to train judges, make the procedures more efficient and incorporate the tough rules in China’s public policy. The study says that Pakistan should take structural action to encourage foreign investment and comply with the arbitration requirements connected to CPEC.