Abstract This paper is a comparative study between the Romanian legislation and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Its main goal is to identify the similarities and differences between the law applicable in Romania and the soft law instrument mentioned above, with respect to the role of domestic courts in the arbitral procedure. Thus, we will see that – although, in abstracto, the differences between the international pursuit and the national approach can be important and are caused both by objective factors like national specificity, and by subjective factors like judicial internationalism - the Romanian legislation is in congruence with the UNCITRAL Model Law, despite the fact that it was not implemented per se in the Romanian legislation. Also, counterintuitively considering that arbitration is, by definition, an alternative to state courts, it will become evident that the role of domestic courts in arbitration, albeit limited by the applicable norms or by the parties’ choices, is potentially decisive for certain administrative matters or pertaining to the course of the arbitral procedure, as well as essential when it comes to the setting aside of an arbitral award.