Pavel, RepyeuskiAlfadhel, Musaed Hamad2025-12-212025https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14154/77603This study critically assessed the enforcement of international arbitral awards in the United States, analysing the conflict between arbitral autonomy and judicial intrusion. It examines whether arbitration promotes finality and predictability while assessing the role of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the 1958 New York Convention. Using doctrinal legal research, the study evaluates landmark U.S. cases such as TermoRio v. Electranta, Pemex v. Corporación Mexicana, and Parsons v. RAKTA. The findings reveal that although the U.S. is widely seen as arbitration-friendly, judicial discretion—particularly concerning annulled awards and the public policy exception—creates uncertainty and limits arbitral autonomy. The study suggests the need for clearer boundaries on judicial review to enhance predictability while maintaining fairness, and recommends future comparative research across jurisdictions to support global harmonisation of enforcement standards.41enInternational ArbitrationEnforcement of Arbitral AwardsNew York ConventionFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Judicial ReviewPublic Policy ExceptionCross-Border Trade DisputesUS Arbitration LawThesis