Chapter 8 focuses on the enforcement of a final and binding award. It discusses the difference between orders and awards and when each is used in the arbitration proceedings. There are different types of awards that can be granted by tribunals, such as final awards, partial and interim awards, consent awards, and default awards. A tribunal has an obligation to make best efforts to produce an enforceable award. It is important that a tribunal make clear whether an award isa final award, and if so, that it ensures that the award deals with all issues in dispute between the parties. A lack of clarity could lead to requests for interpretation or even to attempts to vacate. In sum, to ensure the validity of an award, arbitrators need to take the time to craft the award carefully, to meet the legal requirements as to form and content, to make a clear representation of the substance of the award, and to ensure that the award does not exceed the scope of their authority. A highly valued aspect of international arbitration is that once an award is granted, it is enforceable and is not subject to being vacated or refused enforcement on the merits.

The chapter is based on a survey of state practice of CIL identification in connection with execution and annulment proceedings. The chapter proceeds in three main parts. Part I examines the nature of state practice in the form of judicial decisions, addressing, among others, the question of whether and to what extent a decision by a domestic court may be seen separately or concurrently as constitutive of practice, in the terms of ICJ Statute Article 38(1)(b), and/or as a subsidiary means, within the meaning of ICJ Statute Article 38(1)(d). Part II provides an overview of selected features of the surveyed body of state practice. This overview shows how domestic courts and states parties to execution and annulment proceedings before those courts approach CIL identification and rely on ICJ Statute Article 38(1)(a)-(c) to ascertain whether a certain source does constitute one of the sources of law recognised in those subparagraphs of ICJ Statute Article 38. Part III investigates the significance of the surveyed state practice, with a particular focus on some of the wider implications this state practice might have with respect to broader debates on CIL identification and the sources of international law, and shows a bi-directional interaction between general international law and international investment law.

Chapter 11 introduces the main features of investor–State arbitration from a threefold perspective: historical, institutional and procedural. For the history, it examines the origin of international arbitration and then focuses in succession on the emergence and consolidation of investor–State arbitration and the growing criticism it has been facing since the turn of the last century. With regards to institutional and procedural aspects, this chapter introduces the main dispute settlement centres operating in investor–State arbitration and the main arbitration rules that can be availed of, prior to analysing the key procedural features and phases of investor–State arbitration. More specifically, it examines in detail the proceedings that lead to the deliberation and award as well as post-award proceedings and enforcement, focusing on the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the SCC Arbitration Rules. Attention is also paid to the main features of treaty practice, which increasingly regulates the settlement of investor–State disputes. The following chapters delve into salient aspects of these proceedings in more detail.