The goal of the use of a measure of securing a claim is the avoidance of an expected obstacle for the real execution of a decision to be adopted in the future on the claim. A measure of securing a claim is a means of the avoidance of an expected obstacle for the real execution of a decision. It represents a guarantee of the protection of property rights of physical and legal persons and serves the full and real restoration of the violated rights of the latter, that is, the importance of a measure of securing a claim is expressed in that it protects the lawful interests of the plaintiff in case of the dishonesty of the defendant. The goal of a measure of securing a claim is the prevention of the hindrance of the execution of a decision. It creates the expectation of a party that a court decision issued in his favor will have an appropriate effect, its execution will not be hindered. According to the practice of the Constitutional Court, the right to a fair trial, as an instrumental right, includes not only formally applying to the court, but also the possibility of the court to make an effective reaction to the fact of the violation of a right.

According to the law, for the purpose of using a securing measure, the applicant party can apply to both arbitration and the court. Both bodies have the possibility and appropriate competence to make a decision about the use of a securing measure, which is in full compliance with the regulation of the model law, which grants both bodies the authority to make a decision about the use of a securing measure. Correspondingly, the applicant party has the possibility, if this does not contradict the arbitration agreement, in each specific case to choose, the securing measure adopted by which body will be faster, more effective, and oriented on the result.

According to the general principle, it is not possible for a securing measure used by arbitration to be executed directly without recognition and execution by the court, and it is subject to court control. The authority of execution belongs to the competence of the court. The UNCITRAL Model Law and the domestic legislation of many other countries regulate the mentioned issue similarly. And in the case of the use of the securing of an arbitration claim applied by the court, the court itself possesses the authority to issue a writ of execution.

The recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Georgia is based both on the regime of the 1958 New York Convention, as well as on Georgian legislation; the competent court for the enforcement of an arbitral award issued abroad is the Supreme Court of Georgia, while the application, as a rule, is accompanied by the original or a certified copy of the decision and the arbitration agreement and their certified Georgian translation. As for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision, it is regulated by the Law "On Private International Law": the decision on recognition and enforcement is also in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the motion for enforcement must be accompanied by a certified copy of the decision, a certified translation, and a document confirming entry into force/enforceability (if it is not apparent from the text).