ABSTRACT
This chapter considers three different theories purporting to explain what gives validity to an arbitral award. The three theories are: law of seat as source of validity, laws of enforcing states as source of validity, and transnational law as source of validity. It argues that a person acting as an international commercial arbitrator, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, will need to identify to which one of the three theories he or she subscribes. Professor Gaillard identifies the first theory as one that is strongly held within common law jurisdictions, having been defended by prominent lawyer-academics, such as Dr. F A Mann and Professor Roy Goode. The second theory takes its cue from the New York Convention. It posits that the validity of an award hinges on whether enforcing states will or will not recognize and enforce the award. Thus, the validity of an award stems from the sum total of the laws of enforcing states.
