Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusion and Observations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Public Policy Exception

  • 376 Accesses

Abstract

The concluding chapter draws attention to the primordial issues addressed in the book in relation to the enforcement and recognition of foreign arbitral awards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, The Hong Kong Trade and Development Council, ‘Belt and Road: Country Profile’. http://beltandroad.hktdc.com/en/country-profiles, accessed 27/08/2020.

  2. 2.

    Lim Tai Wei [1].

  3. 3.

    See, Sooksripaisarnkit and Garimella [2].

  4. 4.

    ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA), 2010, https://aanzfta.asean.org/general-review, accessed 17/11/2020.

  5. 5.

    Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, 2020, https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/iacepa/Pages/indonesia-australia-comprehensive-economic-partnership-agreement, accessed 17/11/2020.

  6. 6.

    UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 1976, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtexts/arbitration, accessed 01/02/2021.

  7. 7.

    UNCITAL, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration_status.html, accessed 01/02/2021.

  8. 8.

    F. Liebelt, ‘The Courts’ Discretion under UNCITRAL Articles 34 and 36/, LLM Research Paper, Victoria University of Wellington, 2. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3248/thesis.pdf?sequence=2.

  9. 9.

    Carbone [3].

  10. 10.

    Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1981, Volume XII, ‘Report of the Secretary-General: possible features of a model law on international commercial arbitration, A/CN.9/207’, [107] https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/CN.9/207, accessed 20/10/2020. (“Yearbook of the UNCITRAL”), 924.

  11. 11.

    'UNCITRAL Model Law, Chapter VII, Article 34 [Application for setting aside as exclusive recourse against arbitral award]', in Holtzmann and Neuhaus [4].

  12. 12.

    See, generally, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), ‘Summary records for meetings on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 329th Meeting’. (“Summary Records-329th Meeting”) https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/329meeting-e.pdf, accessed 08/08/2020, [69].

  13. 13.

    Codest Engineering v OOO Grupa Most (Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation 2005), in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XXXIII (2008) (Russia no. 17), 666–672.

  14. 14.

    Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V., v. PEP–Exploración Y Producción, 823 F 3d 92 (2nd Cir, 2016).

  15. 15.

    Ibid., [1].

  16. 16.

    See, Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg) v. OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation) (Court of Appeal 2009), in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XXXIV (Netherlands no. 31), 703–714. See also Northern River Shipping Lines v. Kompas Overseas Inc. (District Court 2010), in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XXXVI (Netherlands no. 36) and Nikolai Viktorovich Maximov v OJSC Novolopetsky Metallurgickesky Kombinat (District Court 2011), in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XXXVII (Netherlands no. 41), 274–276.

  17. 17.

    Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral, supra 14.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., 107.

  19. 19.

    Richardson v Mellish (1824) 130 E.R. 294.

  20. 20.

    Netherland v Sweden. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=145&code=nls&p1=3&p2=3&case=33&k=37&p3=5.

  21. 21.

    EEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v LUMOS LLC n/k/a/ LUMOS Solar LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. 2016 WL 3909579. [3]–[5].

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Hanotiau and Caprasse [5].

  24. 24.

    OECD Hearings—Arbitration and Competition 2010 http://www.oecd.org/competition/abuse/49294392.pdf.

  25. 25.

    Wolff [6].

  26. 26.

    Mayer and Sheppard [7].

  27. 27.

    Pupuke Service Stations Ltd v Caltex Oil (NZ Ltd. [2003] 3 NZLR 338 (PC).

  28. 28.

    Ibid., 338–339.

  29. 29.

    Chen [8].

  30. 30.

    Hebei Import and Export Corp v Polytec Engeneering Co Ltd. [1999] 2 HKC 205.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., 215.

  32. 32.

    Emerald Grain Australia Pty Ltd v. Agrocorp International Pte Ltd [2014] FCA 414.

  33. 33.

    Parsons and Whitemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier 508 F. 2d 969 (2nd Cir. 1974). See, generally, Greenberg et al. [9]; see, generally, Mattli [10].

  34. 34.

    See, generally, Khambata [11].

  35. 35.

    Central Inland Water Transport Corporation & another v Brojo Nath Ganguly & another (1986) 3 SCC 156.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., 213.

  37. 37.

    Renusagar Power Plant Co. v General Electric Corporation (1994) Supp (1) SCC 644.

  38. 38.

    Bharat Aluminium Company v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, Inc. Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2005. Decision of the Indian Supreme Court dated 06/09/2012.

  39. 39.

    Shri Lal Mahal v Progetto Grano Spa Civil Appeal No. 5085 of 2013.

  40. 40.

    National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India v Alimenta SA 2020 SCC Online SC 381. The award related to a contract for shipment of certain commodities in which there was a partial performance by the Appellant. Upon denial of the permission by the Government of India for carrying forward the supply to the following year, the Appellant failed to supply the goods. Consequently, the Respondent initiated arbitration at the FOFSA, London, in 1981. The 1989 award in favour of the Respondent granted damages to them, and the same was applied for enforcement in India under the Foreign Awards Act, 1993. The Delhi High Court heard the Appellant twice but turned down their appeal, hence the appeal before the Supreme Court.

  41. 41.

    AA 2001, Section 45.

  42. 42.

    Uzbekistan Airways and another v Air Spain Ltd [2005] 10 BLC 614, [5].

  43. 43.

    Goenka Impex S.A. v Tallu Spinning Mills Ltd. [2013] 33 BLD 340.

  44. 44.

    Light Weight Body Armour Ltd. v Sri Lanka Army [2007] Sri Lanka Law Reports 411.

References

  1. Wei, L. T. (2016). Introduction. In Wei, L. T., et al. (Eds.). China’s one belt one road initiative (p. 3). Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sooksripaisarnkit, P., & Garimella, S. R. (2018). ‘Introduction’. In Sooksripaisarnkit, P., & Garimella, S. R. (Eds.). China’s one belt one road initiative and private international law (Vol. 1, pp. 2–5). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Carbone, G. (2012). The interference of the court of the seat with international arbitration. Journal of Dispute Resolution. 217, 219. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=jdr.

  4. Holtzmann, H. M., & Neuhaus, J. (1989) A guide to the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration: Legislative history and commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 910–1003). Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hanotiau, B., Caprasse, O. (2008). Public policy in international commercial arbitration. In E. Gaillard, & D. Di Pietro (Eds.). Enforcement of arbitration agreements and international arbitral awards (Vol. 1, p. 787). Cameron.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wolff, R. (Ed.) (2012). The New York convention: Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 406). Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mayer, P., Sheppard, A. (2003). Final ILA report on public policy as a bar to enforcement of international arbitral awards. Arbitration International, 19(2), 249. (“ILA’s Final Report”), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, H. H. -C. (2017). Predictability of ‘Public Policy’ in Article V of the New York convention under Mainland China’s judicial practice (pp. 11–26). Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Greenberg, S., Kee, C., & Weeramantry, J. R. (2011). International commercial arbitration—An Asia-Pacific perspective. CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mattli, W. (2001). Private justice in a global economy: From litigation to arbitration. International Organization, 55(4), 919.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Khambata, D. J. (2021). Chapter 10: Challenge and enforcement of awards: The brooding omnipresence of public policy. In Dave, D., et al. (Eds.). Arbitration in India (p. 195). Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Bruno Zeller

  2. Jindal Global Law School India (JGLS), O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Gautam Mohanty

  3. Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Sai Ramani Garimella

Authors
  1. Bruno Zeller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gautam Mohanty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sai Ramani Garimella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zeller, B., Mohanty, G., Garimella, S.R. (2021). Conclusion and Observations. In: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Public Policy Exception. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2634-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2634-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-2633-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-2634-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation