II. Refusal of Enforcement

As has been mentioned at the outset of this script, all contracting states to the New York Convention are required to recognize foreign arbitral awards as binding which means that the arbitral award will be given an effect similar to that of a court judgment. Likewise, the New York Convention requires all contracting states to enforce any arbitral award in accordance with the Convention. Despite the limited grounds for refusing the enforcement of an award, this also means that “there shall not be imposed substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which this Convention applies than are imposed on the recognition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards”, Art. III New York Convention. Since nowadays, arbitral awards are thanks to the New York Convention enforceable in more than 150 countries around the globe, most arbitral awards have a high chance of being enforced.

The grounds for refusing an award’s enforcement under Art. V New York Convention are mostly congruent with those provided for by Art. 34 Section II UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet, it extends the grounds to refuse enforcement to any award that has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. Furthermore, Art. V New York Convention refers to the law of the country of enforcement (instead of the law of the seat of the arbitration) with respect to the arbitrability of the award or a public policy violation.

Last modified: Monday, 31 August 2015, 8:27 AM