Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In October 2015 the IBA Subcommittee on Recognition
and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards published its Report on the Public Policy Exception in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) Article V(2)(b). The subcommittee’s main
report was a summary of the findings of country reports prepared by different members and reporters of the subcommittee. Catherine Reeves considers the report's findings.
Under art V (2)(b) of the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused if the competent authority of the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that the recognition or enforcement of the
award would be contrary to the public policy of that country. It is therefore one of the few grounds on which recognition and enforcement of an award made in a country which is party to the New York Convention may refused to recognise and/or enforce
an award. Public policy is not defined in the convention.
The subcommittee’s project (self-admitted to be an ambitious one) was to attempt to define public policy as a ground for refusing enforcement under the convention and to draw up a catalogue of its concrete manifestations based upon the decisions
issued by enforcing courts having denied enforcement for violation of public policy.
The report found that while public policy was often invoked by those seeking to avoid enforcement,
examples of it in practice were uncommon and that recognition and enforcement of a foreign award are rarely refused under art V(2)(b) of the convention. Some countries (of the 45 country reports appended to the main report) had no known decisions
of recognition and enforcement being refused on public policy grounds.
Some consistency was found with most domestic courts concurring that public policy had both procedural and substantive aspects:
In the vast majority of jurisdictions, courts narrowly interpret or apply the rules and values on which society rests by requiring a certain level of intensity for a given circumstance to be held contrary to public policy. The predominant trend
is to limit the review on public policy grounds to a conformity-check of the arbitral decision itself, not its reasons, with public policy assessed in the country where enforcement is sought.
The subcommittee now plans to go on to identify any trends in the definition of public policy by commercial and investment arbitral tribunals by this research is on-going.
The subcommittee invites questions, comments or suggestions generally about the general and country reports, or those who want to prepare a country report for a country not yet covered by the study, to contact the Chair of the Subcommittee, Pascal Hollander,
Hanotiau & van den Berg, Brussels, at email@example.com.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234