CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

ZDENĚK NOVÝ CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ There are of course counterarguments. International arbitral awards should not be automatically treated as judgment of national courts. 71 Hence, as a pro-arbitration environment, which has been created in the international society, they should be maintained and developed. 72 At any rate, states must comply with their international obligations in good faith. 73 If a treaty provides for binding mechanism of resolution of dispute in case of its breach, here arbitration, then it is the part of the pacta sunt servanda principle that also the decisions arising thereof are respected. 74 This is even clearer where the investment treaty expressly lays down such obligation, like the abovementioned article 54 (1) ICSID Convention or certain provisions in bilateral investment treaties. 75 Thus, they may not refuse the recognition and enforcement of arbitration award for reasons other than those foreseen under international, 76 in eventu national law.

71 International Law Association (ILA) Final Report on Lis Pendens and Arbitration. 72 See GAILLARD, Emmanuel, ‘The Urgency of Not Revising the New York Convention’ in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed) 50 years of the New York Convention : ICCA International Arbitration Conference ICCA Congress Series Vol 14 (Kluwer Law International 2009) 692. Available at: accessed 29 May 2017. 73 Article 26 VCLT. 74 The present author inclines to say that international investment arbitration awards ought to be generally put on equal footing with judgments of international courts as regards their effects in national legal order. The argument behind such conclusion is that the source of the binding force of both awards and judgments is the result of consent of the state. Their main legal effect is the same, meaning that both are binding between the parties. With regard to the binding nature of international judgments from the perspective of the Czech constitutional law see MOLEK, Pavel ‘Čl. 1 Základní principy’ in BAHÝLOVÁ, L., FILIP, J., MOLEK, P., PODHRÁZSKÝ, M., SUCHÁNEK, R., ŠIMÍČEK, V., VYHNÁNEK, L., Ústava České republiky. komentář. Linde, Praha 2010, p. 32. 75 See e. g. article 10 (2) Czechoslovak-German treaty on support and mutual protection of investments (Dohoda mezi Českou a Slovenskou Federativní Republikou a Spolkovou republikou Německo o podpoře a vzájemné ochraně investic). Available in both original versions at:< http://www.mfcr.cz/cs/legislativa/dohody-o-podpore- a-ochrane-investic/prehled-platnych-dohod-o-podpore-a-ochra#word_n> accessed 29 May 2017. 76 See art. V of the NY Convention.

528