The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards that have been set aside at the seat of arbitration are becoming increasingly important in the evolution of international arbitration. In an attempt to provide a comparative outlook into today's landscape regarding the enforcement of such awards, this article seeks to both explain and critically analyze the application and interpretation given to the New York Convention throughout different jurisdictions, focusing on the French and the American. As the convention consents to the enforcement of foreign awards that have been previously set aside, by using relevant case-law, this article highlights the two different paths that national courts have undertaken: the first is favorable to the internationalization of arbitral awards whereas the second is a more controlling and restrictive approach, favorable to the idea of the sovereignty of foreign courts. In light of the Convention's travaux préparatoires, which clearly show the intent of the drafters to favor an ‘arbitral legal order’, this article concludes by stating that even though court decisions do not benefit from extraterritorial application, the Convention does indeed allow judges to deny enforcement of an award on the basis that it that has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the country in which that award was made.