GROUNDS FOR REFUSING TO ENFORCE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS UNDER THE NEW YORK CONVENTION: A REVIEW OF LAW AND PRACTICE
Keywords:
International arbitration, arbitral awards, recognition, enforcementAbstract
This article delves into the world of international arbitration and provides a brief review of the law and practice covering the grounds for refusing to recognise and enforce foreign or international arbitral awards under Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. Through a comprehensive analysis of court decisions from diverse jurisdictions, including the UK, the US, Uzbekistan and Europe, the article is intended to shed light on the nuances of interpretation and application of the grounds for refusal, including the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, incapacity of the party, procedural irregularities, the right to be heard, nonarbitrability and public policy. In this respect, a greater focus is given to the frequently-asserted and often-misunderstood issues such as the validity of arbitration agreements, arbitrability and public policy. This article also relies on the writings of legal thinkers who are well-known and highly qualified in the field of international arbitration so as to analyse and explain the refusal grounds of the Convention with more clarity. Overall, it seeks to contribute to the neverending debate over the Convention by analysing an important aspect of international dispute settlement that is of crucial importance to academics, practitioners and legislators.
References
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). Available at: https://www.newyorkconvention.org/
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) with amendments as of 2006. Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/
The Law “On International Commercial Arbitration”, Republic of Uzbekistan, Qonun hujjatlari ma’lumotlari milliy bazasi, 17.02.2021-y. 03/21/674/0123-son. Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/-5294106
The Law “On Arbitration Courts”, Republic of Uzbekistan, Qonunchilik ma’lumotlari milliy bazasi, 21.04.2021-y. 03/21/683/0375-son. Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/-1072079
Born, G. B. (2021). International Commercial Arbitration (Third edition). Kluwer Law International.
Born, G.B. (2015). International Arbitration: Cases and Materials (Second edition). Kluwer Law International.
Born, G.B. (2021). International Arbitration: Law and Practice (Third edition). Kluwer Law International.
Murray, C. et al (2007). Schmitthoff’s Export Trade: The Law and Practice of International Trade (Eleventh edition). Sweet & Maxwell.
Moses M.L. (2012). The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (Second edition). Oxford University Press.
Paulsson J. (1996). The New York Convention in International Practice: Problems of Assimilation (M. Blessing edition 100). The New York Convention of 1958, ASA Special Series No. 9.
Kabab-Ji SAL v. Kout Food Group (KFG) [2021] UKSC 48. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0036.html
Enka Insaat AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0091.html
Sulamerica v. Enesa [2012] EWCA Civ 638. Available at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/638.html
C v. D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282. Available at: https://www.trans-lex.org/311360
Sonatrach v. Satoil [2014] EWHC 875 Comm.
Minmetals Germany v. Ferco Steel Ltd [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 315.
Iran Aircraft Industries v. Avco Corp [1992] 980 F.2d 141. Available at: https://casetext.com/case/iran-aircraft-industries-v-avco-corp
Mgmt. & Tech. Consultants S.A. v. Parsons-Jurden Int'l Corp [1987] 820 F.2d 1531.
Stolt-Nielsen v. Animal Feeds [2010] 559 U.S. 662.
Chromalloy Aeroservices v. Arab Republic of Egypt [1996] 94-2339.
CW Travel Holdings NV v. Seitur Agencia de Viajes [2017] XLIII Y.B. Comm. Arb. 443.
FIAT S.p.A. v. The Republic of Suriname et al. v. Alvaro N. Sardi [1989] WL 122891.
Zavod Ekran OAO v. Magneco Metrel UK [2017] EWHC 2208.
Sojuznefteexport (SNE) v. Joc Oil Ltd [1990] XV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 384.
Czarina LLC v. WF Poe Syndicate [2004] 358 F.3d 1286, 1291.
Editions Chouette Inc v. Desputeaux [2003] SCC 17.
Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport-SDRP [1999] EWCA Civ 1401.
Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp [2005] 404 F.3d 657.
Fotochrome, Inc. v. Copal Company, Ltd [1975] 517 F.2d 512.
Karaha Bodas Co, LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak [2004] 364 F.3d 274.
M & C Corp v. Erwin Behr GmbH [1996] 87 F.3d 844.
Italian Judgment of 20/09/1995. XXIV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 698 (1999).
German Judgment of 20/11/2003. XXIX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 771 (2004).
Axtamova, Yulduz Axtamovna & Norboyev, Samandarbek Farxodjon o’g’li (2022). Xalqaro Tijorat Arbitrajida Arbitraj Bitimining Ahamiyati: Ingliz Huquqi va Amaliyoti. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 2 (12), 774-785. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/xalqaro-tijorat-arbitrajida-arbitraj-bitimining-ahamiyati-ingliz-huquqi-va-amaliyoti
Harris, T.L. (2007). The “Public Policy” Exception to Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards Under the New York Convention – With Particular Reference to Construction Disputes. Journal of International Arbitration, Issue 1, pp. 9-24. Available at: https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Journal+of+International+Arbitration/24.1/JOIA2007003
Judgment of 03/02/1990, Genoa Court of Appeal. XVII Y.B. Comm. Arb. 542 (1992).
Judgment of 13/04/2021, Andijan Region Economic Court 4-17-2103/5. Available at: https://publication.sud.uz/api/file/download/10783464
Judgment of 24/03/2021, Tashkent Region Economic Court 4-10-2018/381. Available at: https://publication.sud.uz/api/file/download/11184519
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
