Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Comparing the UK’s Pro-Arbitration Approach with Pakistan’s Judicial Trends

Abstract

This comparative study examines the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the United Kingdom and Pakistan, analyzing the divergent approaches to implementing the New York Convention of 1958. While both jurisdictions formally comply with international arbitration standards, their practical application reveals significant disparities in judicial philosophy, procedural efficiency, and enforcement outcomes. The UK's pro-arbitration regime, exemplified by the Arbitration Act 1996, demonstrates minimal judicial intervention and predictable enforcement procedures. Conversely, Pakistan's enforcement framework, despite the Recognition and Enforcement Act 2011, faces challenges including inconsistent judicial interpretation, broader public policy exceptions, and systemic procedural delays. Through doctrinal analysis and comparative methodology, this research identifies institutional capacity, legal culture, and judicial training as critical determinants of enforcement effectiveness. The study concludes that Pakistan requires comprehensive legal reform, specialized judicial education, and procedural modernization to enhance its arbitration enforcement regime and attract international commercial investment.