Public Policy as A Ground for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: New York Convention, UNCITRAL Model Law and Afghanistan Arbitration Law Perspectives

Abstract

This article aims to examine the grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on public policy considerations. It analyzes this issue from the perspectives of three different sources of law: the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the Afghanistan Commercial Arbitration Law. It discusses the limited scope of the public policy exception under the Convention and the level of discretion given to national courts in applying this ground for refusal. Next, the article explores the UNCITRAL Model Law, which serves as a basis for legislation in many jurisdictions and is often incorporated into domestic arbitration laws. It examines the approach taken by the Model Law towards the public policy exception and compares it to the New York Convention. Finally, the article looks at the perspective of Afghanistan's Commercial Arbitration Law. It analyzes the specific provisions in this law that deal with the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards based on public policy grounds. Through this analysis, the article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how public policy considerations can impact the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under different legal frameworks.