PUBLIC POLICY AS A GROUND TO REFUSE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS
Keywords:
Public policy, international arbitration, foreign arbitral awards, New York Convention, Article V(2)(b), procedural fairness, substantive public policy, arbitration enforcement, international commercial arbitrationAbstract
This research examines public policy (PP) as a ground to refuse the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. The study highlights the complexities arising from the absence of a standardized definition of PP, leading to varied interpretations across national courts. It delves into the distinction between procedural and substantive PP, analyzing cases where enforcement was refused due to violations of procedural fairness, such as inequality between parties, lack of impartiality, and insufficient reasoning in awards. The goal is to propose a framework for harmonizing the application of PP in international arbitration, ensuring fairness and consistency across jurisdictions while respecting fundamental state interests. By examining case law and scholarly perspectives, this research contributes to developing a clearer understanding of the role and limits of PP in enforcing arbitral awards globally.
References
Blessing, Marc, Regulations in Arbitration Rules on Choice of Law, International Council for Commercial Arbitration Congress series no. 7, Vienna, 3-6 November 1994, Kluwer Law International, (1999).
2. Recognition and enforcement of decisions of foreign courts and international arbitral tribunals in the Republic of Uzbekistan: current status and problems (Признание и приведение в исполнение решений иностранных судов и международных арбитражей в РесУз) [R]. Supreme Court of Uzbekistan; USAID; UNDP. Tashkent, 2019.
3. Statistics of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan[R]. Tashkent, 2020. https://stat.sud.uz/iib.html.
4. Romak S.A. (Switzerland) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, Award PCA Case No. AA280 [Z] Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, 2019. https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/919.
5. GOINS A. ICC Arbitration Statistics Reflect Strong Arbitration Trends Worldwide[R/OL]. https://www.velaw.com/insights/icc-arbitration-statistics-reflect-strong-arbitration-trends-worldwide/.
6. BORN G B. International Commercial Arbitration (Second Edition)[EB/OL](2014). http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/kli-ka-born-2014-ch19?q=Choice AND of AND law AND commercial AND arbitration.
7. Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969 [Z/OL] https://casetext.com/case/parsons-wh-ov-v-societe-g-de-l-du-p.
8. Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969 [Z/OL] https://casetext.com/case/parsons-wh-ov-v-societe-g-de-l-du-p.
9. Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors | [2007] ArbLR 20. England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) [Z/OL] https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7cb60d03e7f57eb22d3.
10. BORN G B. International Commercial Arbitration (Second Edition)[EB/OL](2014). http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/kli-ka-born-2014-ch19?q=Choice AND of AND law AND commercial AND arbitration.
