One of the distinctive features of arbitration is that it is regulated by a consistent framework of law that allows arbitration to function effectively across state boundaries, enabling the free flow of international trade. In addition, the effective enforcement mechanism of arbitral awards is currently guaranteed by a harmonised international and domestic framework of law. It might be fair to state that a foreign arbitral award is enforceable unless one of the grounds for refusal listed in art V of the 1958 New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (NY Convention) exists. This research focuses on one of the grounds for refusal listed in the NY Convention and which has been subject to considerable debate in practice. It relates to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award that has been set aside by the court of the country in which or under the law of which that award was made. There is case law in which some national courts of the NY Convention states parties grant enforcement of foreign arbitral awards even though they have been set aside by the court of the country where they were made. The purpose of this research article is to answer two central questions: first, whether it is possible under the detailed reading of the NY Convention to enforce an annulled arbitral award. Secondly, is it beneficial for the development of international commercial arbitration to enforce an annulled arbitral award? The article concludes that although the literal reading of the NY Convention, particularly art VII(1), suggests the possible enforceability of a foreign arbitral award that has been annulled by the court of the place of arbitration (lex arbitri), this practice might not be beneficial for the development of international commercial arbitration.