Can blockchain arbitral awards be enforced under existing legal frameworks? Blockchain arbitration offers an efficient and transformative arbitration approach. While on-chain awards self-enforce within the blockchain ecosystem, off-chain awards concerning external assets require court recognition. Using a normative-doctrinal methodology, we analyse the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law and Indonesia’s Arbitration Act. We find that blockchain arbitration satisfies core arbitral elements: party consent, submission to a neutral decision-maker, binding outcomes, and fair procedures. Its awards meet typical criteria: they arise from an agreement to arbitrate, are issued by a neutral decision-maker in a quasi-judicial role intended to deliver final, binding resolution. Moreover, the awards can fulfil the formal requirements under the New York Convention and the Model Law through broad interpretations of the in-writing requirement. We demonstrate this interaction with a case study from Mexico, where blockchain award was recognised using a hybrid mechanism. We then contextualise blockchain awards in Indonesia, where enforceability depends on classification: international or domestic. Both are governed by the Arbitration Act and further clarified in a Constitutional Court Decision. Under these, Indonesia imposes formal hurdles, including jurisdictional and wording criteria, however these do not bar enforcement. Blockchain arbitral awards ultimately comply with Indonesian law.