The United States has a federalist system of government in which

the fifty states and the federal government operate as (roughly speaking)

parallel sovereigns, each with its own set of laws. Under the U.S.

Constitution, however, state laws that conflict with or otherwise

undermine the purposes and objectives of federal law are invalid. The

United States also has a common-law legal system in which courts play a

significant role in making and interpreting laws. Courts often take great

liberties when interpreting legislation, adding glosses to the text and filling

gaps where the text is otherwise silent—this is usually done to help

effectuate the statute’s purpose. These two features (federalism and a

common-law legal system) contribute to the complexity of American law,

oftentimes resulting in multiple answers to a single legal question. This

is true for the law of interim measures in aid of international arbitration.

 

The main federal law that governs arbitration is the Federal

Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-307. Chapter 1 (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) governs

arbitrations involving interstate commerce and maritime disputes.

Chapter 2 (9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208) implements the Convention on the

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York

Convention” or “Convention” hereinafter) and is thus the key federal

legislation on international arbitration. The provisions of Chapter 1 apply

to international arbitration to the extent they do not conflict with either

Chapter 2 or the New York Convention. Both federal courts and state

courts are responsible for enforcing the Federal Arbitration Act.1

 

State statutes provide another important source of law. Since the

mid-1980s, a number of states have enacted laws to facilitate

international arbitration by authorizing court-ordered interim relief.2

These laws are discussed below.