5.3 The enforcement of arbitrator-granted interim relief 5. 4 On the restrictions of party=s choice as prescribed in the mandatory 6. Con provisions of the lex arbitri 1 Introduction The last few years have seen an increasing activity by legislators to improve the legal framework for arbitration both domestic and international. More than 30 countries all around the globe have reshaped their arbitration laws since the launch of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration(henceforth Model Law)in 1985. And yet, there are many more to follow. among the latest legislations are English, German and hong Kong laws. The Arbitration Act 1996, applicable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, came into force on 31 January 1997, the Arbitration Ord inance of Hong Kong as amended by the Arbitration( amendment) Ordinance 1996 on 27 June 1997 and the provisions on arbitration of the German Code of Civil Procedure on 1 January 1998. With regard to interim measures of protection they provide for solutions that go beyond any previous ones in sophistication and completeness The critical question with regard to interim relief in arbitration is: Who provides interim measures of protection? Shall it be the courts, the arbitrators or both? The answers given in national arbitration legislation and in arbitration rules have changed over the years. Some time ago it seemed to be a common understand ing that only courts provide any provisional relief. This was reflected in international instruments such as the >1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitratio Its article VI, paragraph 4 states that a request for interim measures to the courts is not a waiver of the arbitration agreement. Similar provisions are found in arbitration rules They ensure that a party can have recourse to the courts without fearing to chance the track of d ispute settlement by making the court application. No mention was made of an arbitrator=s competence to grant interim measures of protection. But a trend in favour of such an arbitrator=s competence emerged. It was first reflected in arbitration rules such as the >1976 UNcitraL Arbitration rules for International Commercial Arbitration=(henceforth UNCITRAL Rules), which provide for a choice of application. Article 26, paragraph 3 of the UNCITRAL Rules refers to court applications and deems them to be compatible with the arbitration agreement this reiterates the established view. But in paragraphs I and 2 of the article, the UNCITRAL Rules go further when making clear that arbitrators have contractual power to order certain kinds of interim measures such as the sale of perishable goods The arbitrators= order can be established in the form of an interim award under the rules. This prepared new ground and already addressed the three main issues that are at stake when interim measures of protection in arbitration are considered the relationship between court-ordered interim relief and arbitration, the competence of the arbitrator to order such measures and the enforcement of the arbitrators orders It is necessary to provide solutions for these issues in the lex arbitri as the national legislation plays the decisive part in making provisional remedies in the sphere of arbitration effective. It is the national legislator who provides for court assistance, a suitable legal framework with fall-back provisions and lays down the preconditions5.3 The enforcement of arbitrator-granted interim relief 5.4 On the restrictions of party=s choice as prescribed in the mandatory provisions of the lex arbitri 6. Conclusion 1. Introduction The last few years have seen an increasing activity by legislators to improve the legal framework for arbitration, both domestic and international. More than 30 countries all around the globe have reshaped their arbitration laws since the launch of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (henceforth Model Law) in 1985. And yet, there are many more to follow. Among the latest legislations are English, German and Hong Kong laws. The Arbitration Act 1996, applicable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, came into force on 31 January 1997, the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong as amended by the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 1996 on 27 June 1997 and the provisions on arbitration of the German Code of Civil Procedure on 1 January 1998. With regard to interim measures of protection they provide for solutions that go beyond any previous ones in sophistication and completeness. The critical question with regard to interim relief in arbitration is: Who provides interim measures of protection? Shall it be the courts, the arbitrators or both? The answers given in national arbitration legislation and in arbitration rules have changed over the years. Some time ago it seemed to be a common understanding that only courts provide any provisional relief. This was reflected in international instruments such as the >1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration=. Its article VI, paragraph 4 states that a request for interim measures to the courts is not a waiver of the arbitration agreement. Similar provisions are found in arbitration rules. They ensure that a party can have recourse to the courts without fearing to chance the track of dispute settlement by making the court application. No mention was made of an arbitrator=s competence to grant interim measures of protection. But a trend in favour of such an arbitrator=s competence emerged. It was first reflected in arbitration rules such as the >1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules for International Commercial Arbitration= (henceforth UNCITRAL Rules), which provide for a choice of application. Article 26, paragraph 3 of the UNCITRAL Rules refers to court applications and deems them to be compatible with the arbitration agreement. This reiterates the established view. But in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the article, the UNCITRAL Rules go further when making clear that arbitrators have contractual power to order certain kinds of interim measures such as the sale of perishable goods. The arbitrators= order can be established in the form of an interim award under the rules. This prepared new ground and already addressed the three main issues that are at stake when interim measures of protection in arbitration are considered: the relationship between court-ordered interim relief and arbitration, the competence of the arbitrator to order such measures and the enforcement of the arbitrator=s orders. It is necessary to provide solutions for these issues in the lex arbitri as the national legislation plays the decisive part in making provisional remedies in the sphere of arbitration effective. It is the national legislator who provides for court assistance, a suitable legal framework with fall-back provisions and lays down the preconditions