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

<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.

Author(s):  
Stavros Brekoulakis

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.


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.


Pro Futuro ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gauri Nirwal

The present paper studies the relationship between domestic and international arbitration laws and the harmonization factor amongst some Asian and European jurisdictions. During the last decades, there has been a significant change and globalization in the world and with the expansion of businesses and trade a better dispute resolution mechanism is required in order to maintain the harmony in international trade. It has become a necessity to balance the domestic arbitration laws with the international ones. This brief paper identifies and comments on some of the areas where differences remain including differences in recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in various jurisdictions over the public policy defence, and where further examination and research to reach and solve disputes amicably might be useful.


Author(s):  
Mustafa Topaloğlu

Public policy is a ambiguous concept. Public policy can be defined as a set of rules which protecting the essential structure of society and its interests. Under New York Convention dated 1958, an arbitration verdict which breaching of public policy in the executing country can’t be executed. Same provision valid under Turkish Act Related International Private Law and Procedure Law. An arbitration verdict can’t be subject to appeal directly. But, it can be sued for annulment before court of first instance. The public policy is stipulated as a ground of annulment in the Turkish International Arbitration Act. New Turkish Civil Procedure Act accepted same solution about domestic arbitration. In this paper was tried to define the public policy concept and examined point of view of legal rules questioned above.


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-522
Author(s):  
Yunus Emre

Public policy is one of the most debated concepts in enforcement cases of foreign arbitral award as a sensitive term. It is the most frequent challenging reason of foreign arbitral awards in New York Convention, and therefore it may be used as a defense tool against foreign arbitral awards in enforcement cases before courts. Although public policy is not only refusal reason in New York Convention, other refusal reasons covered by New York Convention may be interpreted as public policy violations before courts. Therefore, relationship between public order and other refusal reasons is key point of this research. Secondly, one important well-known fact should be emphasized regarding public policy. Each country has its own public policy concept and criteria differently from other countries. Although one foreign arbitral award may be enforced in a country as it is in accordance with the public order of country of enforcement, it may be refused in a different country because of public policy reason. Therefore, public policy concept shall be discussed in different aspects in this study.


Author(s):  
Sester Peter

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
Shila Taheri ◽  
Hassan Soleimani

The present study is an attempt to analyze the executive guaranty of arbitration at international law within internal Iranian law and the international law. The present research findings show that within internal law in case the arbitration verdict is not carried out voluntarily then its obligatory administration is under the support of law and has legal executive guaranty. But arbitration privilege at administration stage is not limited to the fact that any arbitration verdict is to be performed without any questioning but a significant aspect of this privilege is to prevent the administration of a verdict which is altered or creased and openly against the facts or the law. In international law the international commerce chamber arbitration system is the most important international trade arbitration system in contemporary period and has always been the influential forerunner in international arbitration and has had a significant role in the development and expansion of arbitration method of settling international trade disputes. Both the chamber arbitration rules and arbitration verdicts which are issued under the chamber arbitration framework are among the most important legal resources in terms of international arbitration and are considered as the constructive and formative factors of international arbitration procedure. It should be mentioned that commerce chamber arbitration organization lacks the executive tools to execute the arbitration verdicts. But in spite of that on the basis of arbitration rules article 35 the arbitration authority and the chamber arbitration court makes attempts to execute the verdict and the purpose is mostly the official measures rather than judicial or administrative. Principally, the execution of arbitration verdicts depend on state rules and regulations where from the identification and administration of verdict is requested.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document