It is not a novelty that the alternative means of dispute resolution are gaining ground in comparison with the ordinary or administrative litigation, hence the fact of opting for arbitration as a means of settling disputes and requesting within that process the decree of precautionary measures allows safeguarding the right to effective judicial protection, but with the fifth paragraph of Article 43 of Law 1563 of 2012, by prohibiting the enforcement of the award to the arbitration tribunal, limits the effectiveness of both the award and the measures precautionary decrees, under the budget that for the execution of the award should go to the ordinary or administrative litigation, as the case may be. With the issuance of the Statute of National and International Arbitration it is allowed that within the process, all the precautionary measures that, depending on the case being studied, would be adequate to safeguard the rights of the party that is being investigated, are decreed (upon request of the interested party). raises the petition, citing what the law called unnamed precautionary measures; argument that is analogous to any process that is ahead in the ordinary jurisdiction and / or administrative litigation, the novel thing is that the arbitrator only has jurisdiction for a certain time, they are transitory judges, that is, it is ad hoc for the specific case, foundation that makes the great difference in terms of individuals administering justice, to such an extent that only allow arbitration to vent issues of free disposal and those authorized by law, the legislator being reluctant to prohibit the advancement by the arbitration of executive processes, arguing that it would be a disadvantage for the debtor to be subject to an arbitration process, an assessment that differs from the fact that if the arbitrators administer justice and within declaratory processes they are allowed to order precautionary measures, they are making use of the power of coercion, pointing to the fact that the decision they make is effective, in a certain sense, they see (like the judges of the ordinary jurisdiction and / or administrative litigation), in the precautionary measures the guarantee that their decisions are fulfilled. Finally, it is clear that the nature of the precautionary measures is based on the surprise of their procedure, so that whoever is ordered a provisional measure does not have the time or the opportunity to carry out actions tending to non-compliance with the measures , so much so that the usual thing is that first the precautionary measures are decreed and processed and then the defendant is notified, a budget that is not viable in the arbitration process, given the novelty of its stages and the doubt as to when it should be decree the measures; It is therefore necessary to ask whether the precautionary measures within the arbitration process effectively fulfill their function.