After a warm welcome address by Michael E. Schneider, the president of ASA, and introduction by Pierre Tercier, the chair of the conference, Alexis Mourre commenced the presentations by outlining the various exceptions to the extinction of the arbitral tribunal's powers after the award has been rendered. These included residual powers such as correction and interpretation. In this regard, he observed that the arbitrator, unlike a state court judge, has a dual basis for his power: besides the empowerment by the state to render binding awards (judicial function) there is also the contractual basis between the arbitrator and the parties (so-called receptum arbitrii). Mourre considered that the duties and powers relating to the arbitral tribunal's "revived" or "prolonged" jurisdiction constitute ancillary obligations stemming from the contractual basis. The existence and scope of such obligations were to be a central theme throughout the conference.

Maria Hauser-Morel, former deputy counsel with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), provided a detailed and useful practical overview of the conditions for correction or interpretation of an award and for an additional award, primarily under the ICC Rules. After discussing the surprising decision of a sole arbitrator who, faced with a request for correction, chose of his own motion to amend his original award by reducing the amount of damages, she pointed out that requests for correction, interpretation or additional awards should not be used to attempt to obtain a substantive revision of the award.

Nathalie Voser examined the way in which the revision of arbitral awards is dealt with in different jurisdictions and then focused on two cases in which the Swiss Federal Supreme Court granted an application for revision, highlighting the problems which may arise when a case is remanded to the arbitral tribunal many years after the award was rendered. This subject arose again when the discussion was opened up to the floor, where it became apparent that because of the dual basis of the arbitrator's function, both judicial and contract-based, the extent of an arbitrator's post-award duties (for example, to accept a remand) cannot always be clearly defined.

Bernhard Berger then went on to tackle the highly relevant practical issues of notification, deposit and publication of the award, as well as post-award confidentiality and preservation of the file. He made some useful suggestions as to how to resolve problems such as, for example, ensuring that the award is notified to all parties at the same time.

Sébastian Besson then addressed the question of whether arbitrators have a duty to participate in subsequent court proceedings and depicted the dilemmas with which they may be confronted in such cases, caught in a balancing act between their duty of loyalty and confidentiality and the right of the parties to effectively challenge or enforce the award.

Andrew Foyle discussed further difficulties with which an arbitral tribunal may be faced when it is required to resume its functions or to extend them beyond the rendering of the final award. He illustrated these issues by vividly portraying a "saga" in which a sole arbitrator was faced with a number of requests for interpretation and correction of the awards he had rendered and thereby remained involved in the case for well over a decade.

Luca Radicati di Brozolo rounded off the presentations by analysing the thorny issue of res judicata in international arbitration. After highlighting the prevailing uncertainties in this area, he advocated the development of ad hoc rules on res judicata for international arbitration, in order to promote uniformity and predictability.

After a lively final discussion led by Pierre Tercier, Michael Schneider highlighted the main concepts raised and discussed throughout the day and provided some concluding thoughts, rounding off a well-organised and interesting conference.

The conference papers will be published later this year in a volume of the ASA Special Series.