There has been a growing consensus that emergency arbitration is here to stay.

Emergency arbitration has proliferated in major arbitral institutions, including the DIFC-LCIA in Dubai.

One of the concerns with emergency arbitration decisions is its enforceability under the New York Convention and under domestic arbitration regimes.

The vast majority of jurisdictions, except for Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, lack explicit legislation, supporting the recognition and enforcement of emergency arbitration decisions.

Eight of the nine cases deciding the enforceability of emergency arbitration decisions have ruled positively for emergency arbitration, except one court in India, which refused to enforce an emergency arbitral decision rendered in a foreign jurisdiction.

There are three types of potential challenges to the enforceability of emergency arbitration decisions:

• the nature of emergency arbitration decisions,

• the finality of the decision, and

• the nature of the emergency arbitrator.

Arbitral institutions: A centre or institute to resolve disputes through conciliation and arbitration.

Emergency arbitrator: A solo arbitrator usually appointed under the rules of an arbitral institution to provide urgent provisional or interim relief prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.