Acceso usuarios
Mohammed Zaheeruddin
Purpose: The arbitral awards are enforceable internationally under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. The Convention provides the discretion to the courts in enforcing State either to enforce or reject the international arbitral awards. The award set aside at the seat of arbitration is not enforceable, however the courts in some jurisdictions enforced such awards. In this context the paper examines how the courts in different jurisdictions justified while enforcing the annulled awards.
Theoretical framework: Arbitration mechanism is frequently used for settlement of international commercial disputes. It enables party autonomy in drafting arbitration agreements, choosing the applicable law and determining the arbitration seat. According to Article V (1)(e) of the New York Convention the national courts may refuse to recognize or enforce the foreign award if it was set aside or annulled at the seat of arbitration or under law of which such award was given. In some jurisdictions the enforcing courts considered the annulment procedure followed by the courts and if such procedure was unfair, the courts in enforcing country have agreed to enforce the set aside awards.
Design/methodology/approach: The author followed the legal analysis method to examine the approach of the courts from different jurisdictions that have enforced the annulled foreign arbitral awards and the legal comparative method observed to study the judicial decisions from various jurisdictions.
Findings: The study concludes that Article V (1) of the New York Convention gives discretionary power to the enforcing courts regarding enforcement of foreign arbitral award. Hence, the courts in some jurisdictions enforced the annulled award if the set aside procedure was unfair, based on local grounds, biased, violated basic norms of justice, against the parties’ agreement or applied domestic law instead of the New York Convention. To secure the enforcement of award, the parties to the arbitration may agree that the arbitral award is not subject to challenge in any court at the arbitration seat or in the state in which the award is enforced and prefer a pro-arbitration State as a seat of arbitration.
Research, Practical & Social implications: The study provides practical guidance to the arbitrating parties in drafting arbitration agreements to ensure the enforcement of an arbitration award internationally.
Originality/value: The research on enforcement of annulled award under the New York Convention immensely helpful in guiding the arbitration parties in drafting the arbitration agreement, choosing arbitration procedure and seat of arbitration.
