Abstract: According to the provisions of bilateral investment agreements, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) can be submitted to ICSID or to International Commercial Arbitration. However, the recognition and enforcement mechanisms under the two arbitration awards are quite different as the former is based on the mechanism of The Washington Convention, and the latter is drawn from the rules of The New York Convention. In practice, a considerable part of ISDS is not settled through ICSID arbitration, resulting in the question whether some ISDS cases thus decided can be recognized and how to implement such cases. In view of this, the following three aspects are to be discussed: the feasibility of applying The New York Convention to investment arbitration, the judicial review of investment arbitration under The Convention, and the issue of state immunity in the enforcement of awards. The practice of international investment arbitration shows that investment arbitration and commercial arbitration are interrelated and independent. The current recognition and enforcement mechanism of investment arbitration awards are still mainly based on the mechanism of The Washington Convention, supplemented by that of The New York Convention.

Key words: international investment arbitration, The New York Convention, enforcement of awards, judicial review, State immunity