Enforcement under the New York Convention (1958)

2017 ◽  
pp. 377-394
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-94
Author(s):  
Komang Sukaniasa

Diplomatic officials are state representatives in developing diplomatic relations with other countries where it is accredited. Diplomatic officials have the rights of immunity and privileges granted by the sending country. Besides enjoying these rights, diplomatic officials also have obligations. As a diplomatic official from North Korea, Son Young Nam is obliged to obey the rules contained in the 1961 Vienna Convention, the 1969 New York Convention, and to respect the national law of the country of Bangladesh which is the country where he was accredited. Son Young Nam's smuggling of gold into Bangladesh was a form of abuse of diplomatic immunity. The act violated Articles 27 and 41 (1) of the 1961 Vienna Convention and Article 25b of The Special Power Act of Bangladesh. Although they have the right to immunity, these rights are not absolute. Immune rights can be breached in the event of gross violations committed by diplomatic officials.


2021 ◽  
pp. 205556362110228
Author(s):  
Konstantina Kalaitsoglou

Despite its importance, the arbitral award was left undefined by the New York Convention and most other major international arbitration laws. This has inevitably led to varying opinions regarding its nature and confusion regarding the thresholds that differentiate arbitral awards from other tribunal decisions. Partly in response to the above, there has been discussion to initiate the revising process of the Convention. Responses have been divided. In this paper, the author finds that revision will not bring the desired results, while the Convention itself has equipped international arbitration practice with tools to overcome obscure legal concepts such as the arbitral award.


Author(s):  
Stefan Pislevik

Abstract The phrase ‘null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed’ contained in Article II(3) of the New York Convention has attracted relatively little attention in the international arbitration community. It nonetheless retains the potential to have a significant impact on arbitration agreements. This article considers the meaning of ‘null and void’ and highlights the current varied understandings and applications of this term, before re-iterating support for an application of an internationally neutral understanding of the term. What this article seeks to ultimately achieve is to provoke further consideration of the terms ‘null and void’, with a view to ensuring greater clarity and uniformity in its understanding and application in the long term.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anastasia Lee Fraser

<p>This paper examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Minister of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, a rare case where an English court refused enforcement of an international arbitral award under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).  Although in Dallah the United Kingdom Supreme Court acknowledged the trend to limit reconsideration of the findings of arbitral tribunals in fact and in law, the Court considered it was bound to decide the question of validity de novo. Contrary to the tribunal, the Court held the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which it was subject and refused enforcement of the arbitral award.  This paper analyses how the English Supreme Court decided the legal issues before it. It concludes the English court could have reached the same decision on a more convincing basis. Even where the issue is initial consent, holding the court at the place of enforcement is always bound to decide a matter de novo neither serves the objectives of international commercial arbitration nor is necessary to promote the fundamental integrity of arbitral proceedings.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document