International arbitrations are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the role of which is emphasized in our legal system. This was stated by Minister of Justice Srbuhi Galyan during a press briefing after the government Cabinet meeting Thursday—and regarding an international arbitration decision related to the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) company.

"That is, we [i.e. Armenia] have an obligation, in the event that we have joined certain specific conventions, to be guided by these conventions and, of course, to implement the decisions of international arbitration tribunals. Conventions or treaties are different, there are bilateral and multilateral international treaties.

In terms of the dispute related to the ENA, there is a bilateral investment treaty, in the event of disputes related to which there is a specific procedure for recognizing the decisions of the arbitration tribunal.

If you study the arbitral award, there is a reference there to the relevant New York Convention, which establishes the possibility of its enforcement in the event of the enforcement of that decision or award, if the party wishes to enforce it compulsorily or forcibly. And this procedure is also available within the framework of our domestic legislation. If I ‘translate’ [it] into plain language, I will say the following that the party has the right and full opportunity to apply to the domestic court of the Republic of Armenia, so that the court recognizes, and recognizes first the arbitrator's decision and only then it becomes subject to mandatory enforcement. Of course, under domestic legislation and not only under international conventions, there is a possibility not to enforce that decision if it contradicts public order.

I cannot say whether or not it may contradict or will contradict or be recognized as contradicting public order. I can say the following that the entry of the temporary administrator into ENA pursued a different objective than described in the other party’s petition. It pursued only an objective to avoid a possible crisis that actually threatened us,” she added.

To the remark that in its decision the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce did not record the aforesaid objective, Galyan responded: “The Stockholm arbitration could not have recorded any objective because at this phase we are dealing only with the application of a preliminary injunction, and we are not dealing with the examination of the dispute, in essence. Only when the international arbitration examines the arbitration dispute after X days, after 30 days, let’s say, will it reflect on all the circumstances of the case and assess the objective.”

Also, Galyan noted: “The Republic of Armenia is guided by domestic legislation and international conventions, and no violation of either legislation or international conventions is allowed.

Risks on all issues are always discussed multilaterally in the [Armenian] government, and the risks that were discussed and assessed in relation to the ENA were qualified as very high, and the making of this decision was aimed at overcoming these risks..

The autonomous body has made a decision of our state, and we are obligated to respect that decision.

As for the relevant decision of the international tribunal, we will very patiently wait for the examination of the merits of the dispute, of course the government will present its arguments, and we will see when the international arbitrator will address the content of the dispute, what response it will give, and in that regard, yes, we will assess the possible risks.”

Galyan added that this decision was made so that the Armenian citizens avoid sabotage, collapse, and crisis.