Over the last few years, the international legal community has become increasingly interested in anti-arbitration injunctions, which are analogous to antisuit injunctions except that the former prohibits the initiation or continuation of an arbitration while the latter focuses on judicial actions. At this point, very few courts have actually issued an injunction of this type. Nevertheless, a number of commentators have expressed concern about these mechanisms, since they can wreak havoc with contractual or treaty-based expectations about how a particular dispute is to be resolved. Indeed, some scholars and practitioners would prefer that these sorts of injunctions be made universally unavailable. However, other people believe that there are times when a court may enjoin arbitral procedures without damaging any of the core principles of arbitration law and practice. Theoretical debates about the relative merits of anti-arbitration injunctions will likely continue for years. However, the more practical question is whether and to what extent courts are currently willing and able to grant orders prohibiting international arbitrations from proceeding. Interestingly, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has recently addressed precisely this issue in British Caribbean Bank Ltd v. The Government of Belize.
S. I. Strong,
Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Cases Involving Investor-State Arbitration: British Caribbean Bank Ltd. v. the Government of Belize, 15 Journal of World Investment and Trade 324
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/861