The scrutiny of draft awards by the International Court of Arbitration (ICC Court) constitutes one of the most distinctive institutional features of ICC arbitration. Rooted in Article 34 of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules — a provision whose lineage traces back to the earliest codification of ICC procedure — scrutiny functions as a mandatory quality-control gateway through which no award may pass until approved by the ICC Court. Adopting a doctrinal research approach, this article analyses the legal and regulatory framework governing the ICC scrutiny mechanism, its operative scope, and its demonstrable impact on the enforceability of arbitral awards in domestic and transnational jurisdictions. The article argues that scrutiny performs a dual function: it operates as a formal-quality safeguard and, simultaneously, as a substantive-pointing instrument that draws the arbitral tribunal's attention to points of law and reasoning without encroaching upon its decisional liberty. Considering the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules — effective 1 June 2026 — which expressly extend the Court's scrutiny mandate to encompass the validity and enforceability of awards, this article further contends that scrutiny is no longer merely procedural housekeeping but is now a proactive enforceability-assurance mechanism of considerable institutional significance. Comparative analysis with the LCIA, SIAC, and HKIAC frameworks reveals that ICC scrutiny occupies a structurally unique position among institutional arbitration rules. The article concludes with a critical assessment of scrutiny's limitations and recommendations for its further development considering growing demands for efficiency, transparency, and AI-assisted case management. Keywords ICC Court · Award Scrutiny · Article 34 · Enforceability · New York Convention · Institutional Arbitration · Quality Control · 2026 ICC Rules