GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 911-921
Author(s):  
Steven Skulnik
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Power Conversion ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
The U.S

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC. The decision is significant for its holding that nothing in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the Convention or the New York Convention) or the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA) prohibits courts from deciding that non-signatories may be bound by or enforce international arbitration agreements based on contract, agency, equity, or related principles.

scholarly journals Dallah: the death knell for deference?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anastasia Lee Fraser
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
English Court ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

<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>

Part 1 Fundaments of Arbitration in Brazil, 2 Comments of the Brazilian Arbitration Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sester Peter
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter examines the Brazilian Arbitration Law (BAL) of 1996. The BAL is a standalone act encompassing roughly 40 articles. It is divided into eight chapters and is applicable to both domestic and international arbitration, except for Chapter VI (The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards), which is modelled on the New York Convention (NYC). Hence, the BAL legislator adopted a monistic approach. Consequently, the BAL contains no definition of domestic or international arbitration, but only defines the term foreign award. According to article 34, sole paragraph BAL, an award is considered a foreign award if it was rendered outside the territory of Brazil. The present translation of the BAL builds on the terminology of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Commercial Arbitration and the NYC because both documents inspired the authors of the BAL and are cornerstones of international arbitration. This chapter of the book then provides comments on the BAL article by article.

Transnational Public Policy in International Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 119-149
Author(s):  
Stavros Brekoulakis
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
New York ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Historical Evolution ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Almost All

This chapter focuses on the role of transnational public policy in international arbitration. Public policy is a key concept for international arbitration because it has provided the underpinning foundations for the development of theories on transnational autonomy of arbitration. Moreover, it is enshrined in the 1958 New York Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as well as almost all national laws as a ground to resist enforcement of arbitral awards. The chapter then traces the historical evolution of transnational public policy and provides an overview of its legal function and rules and principles. The clear distinction between legal and non-legal conceptions of transnational public policy matters because it has important implications on the judicial function of tribunals in international arbitration.

1 The Law Applicable to International Arbitration in New York

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey David M ◽  
Lahlou Yasmine
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York State ◽  
State Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
York State ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
The U.S

This chapter focuses on applicable arbitration law in the context of arbitration agreements and awards that fall under the New York Convention or the Panama Convention, and how those two treaties interact with the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), New York state law, and possibly foreign law in the context of international arbitration in New York. It first summarizes the FAA and explains FAA preemption of state law that is inconsistent with the FAA. The chapter then discusses the application of the Conventions and difficult issues that can arise when determining the applicable law. In particular, it focuses on choice of law issues that arise when enforcing the agreement to arbitrate under Article II of the New York Convention. U.S. courts have struggled to employ a consistent choice of law analysis when interpreting the “null and void” provisions in Article II(3) of the Convention.

8 The Annulment and Enforcement of the Award

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaufmann-Kohler Gabrielle ◽  
Rigozzi Antonio
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Cost Allocation ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

Contrary to judgments, arbitral awards are final in the sense that they are not subject to appeals. This chapter examines the very limited remedy of annulment or setting aside of the award in accordance with Article 190(2) PILA, emphasizing that the annulment grounds in that provision are essentially concerned with the manner in which justice was rendered, as opposed to the content of the decision. The chapter also covers all aspects of the annulment procedure before the Swiss Supreme Court, from the admissibility of the action to cost allocation. In that context, it addresses the possibility for parties not seated in Switzerland to waive their right to seek the annulment of the award (Article 192(1) PILA). The chapter further discusses the revision of the award, and, in its final section, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards by the Swiss courts in accordance with the New York Convention.

scholarly journals Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards in Kazakhstan

2018 ◽  
pp. 358-367
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
New York ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
New York Convention

Arbitration, as an alternative way to resolve commercial disputes, has been used in Kazakhstan for more than twenty years. Arbitration Court is governed by Civil Procedure Code, The Law On Enactments and the Regulatory Resolution. The expansion of the list of documents in the Regulatory Resolution does not comply with the requirements of the New York Convention and therefore, the purpose of our study is to clarify it. The research institute of private law of the Caspian University together with Kazakhstan International Arbitration prepared proposals for making amendments and supplements to the Law On Arbitration and the CPC at the request of the Arbitration Chamber of Kazakhstan. Most of the proposals developed by us were approved and included in the Draft Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Amendments and Supplements to Certain Enactments of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Enhancing Protection of Title and Arbitration after discussion at the meetings of the General Meeting members of Arbitration Chamber of Kazakhstan. It was proposed to bringing in compliance with the New York Convention some paragraphs of the Art. 255 and the Art. 504 of CPC and a series of articles in the Law on arbitration. In this article also given answers to some questions of the arbitration court regarding corporate and marriage dispute, as well as an issue of contradiction public policy.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Holds that the New York Convention Does Not Displace Domestic Doctrines Permitting Nonsignatories to Enforce Arbitration Agreements

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-761
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Domestic Law

On June 1, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention or Convention) does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories. The Court interpreted the text of the Convention as being silent on the issue of enforcement by nonsignatories and thus leaving this issue to domestic law. The Court noted that some postratification practice (including the recommendation of a UN commission) and the views of the executive branch were consistent with its conclusion, but it did not determine how much weight should be accorded to these sources.

scholarly journals Public Policy as Ground for Refusal of International Arbitral Awards - A Comparison Between Different Judicial Practices

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Sormeh Bouzarjomehri ◽  
Eisa Amini
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
New York ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
The Public ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
Important Challenge ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

<p>The New York Convention is considered as the main pillar of the international arbitration and the most effective transnational legal instrument in international trade. But the most important challenge that the Convention is facing is a uniform application by the Member States. Article V of the Convention containing several grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, could be deemed as an obstacle to achieve this goal. The most controversial ground is the public policy that affects the uniform application of the Convention and the predictability of the arbitration process. Then the lack of a definition for public policy has opened the door for different interpretations in different countries.</p><p>The questions that the paper at hand deals with are the following: What are the consequences for the lack of a definition for the public policy ground in the New York Convention? Is it necessary to revise the New York Convention to address this issue?</p>In order to answer these questions, the paper at hand will present some court decisions in order to elaborate the mentioned challenge and find an appropriate solution.

scholarly journals Dallah: the death knell for deference?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anastasia Lee Fraser
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
English Court ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

<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>

scholarly journals THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION DECISIONS IN INDONESIA AND SOME FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Yuridika ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Panusun Harahap
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
District Court ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Multilateral Agreements ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Arbitration Award

An international arbitration award handed down in a territory of a given country may be applied for in another territory, provided that it is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Implementation of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and between those countries there are bilateral or multilateral agreements on the recognition and execution of international arbitration decisions. An arbitral award, as well as a judge's verdict may actually be voluntary by the loser or debtor. If the verdict has been executed in good faith by the losing party, or in other words his accomplishments have been met with good faith, then the problem is solved. It is not uncommon, however, that although the verdict is already in place, the losing party does not want to execute the verdict voluntarily. In this case the winning party or the creditor may submit an application to the Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court for the international arbitration award to be executed by force (execution forcee).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document