1 The Law Applicable to International Arbitration in New York

Author(s):  
Lindsey David M ◽  
Lahlou Yasmine

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.

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 911-921
Author(s):  
Steven Skulnik

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 223 (4) ◽  
pp. S111
Author(s):  
Jessica C. Gooch ◽  
Jie Yang ◽  
Jihye Park ◽  
Dana A. Telem ◽  
Sami U. Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 509
Author(s):  
Chantima Chokloikaew
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  

Author(s):  
Kim Joongi

This chapter focuses on the choice and enforcement of applicable law in arbitration agreements. In international arbitration cases, Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention provides that the validity of an arbitration agreement should be first determined under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made. Hence, if the parties have not chosen the applicable law for an arbitration agreement, ‘the default rule’ is that the law of the place of arbitration shall apply. This chapter addresses the question as it applies to Korea and considers cases where conflict or a misapplication of the law is in effect. Moreover, it also covers several cases in which courts have applied the Act on International Private Law (AIPL), Korea’s conflict-of-laws statute, to determine the applicable law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document