The New York Convention 1958 and Panama Convention 1975: Redundancy or Compatibility?

Abstract

the traditional hostility towards arbitration and, in particular, international arbitration in Latin America appears to be on the wane. A new trend was heralded by the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, which was adopted by the Governments of the Member States of the Organisation of American States (OAS) in Panama on 30 January 1975 (the ‘Panama Convention’).1 The Panama Convention came into effect on 16 June 1976 and has been adhered to by some 11 Latin American countries. Ratification is apparently pending in the United States, where the proposed implementing legislation would consist of a new chapter of Title 9 (Arbitration) of the United States Code.2 The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done at New York, 10 June 1958 (the ‘New York Convention’)3 is now 30 years in existence. The New York Convention has been adhered to by 80 States, 17 of which are Latin American. Ratification is reportedly pending in Venezuela. The status of adherence to both Conventions in the Western Hemisphere is as follows: View this table: It is said that the Panama Convention 1975 ‘was carefully drawn up so as to be fully compatible with the New York Convention 1958.’5 This statement raises the question what may be the raison d'etre of the Panama Convention in view of the New York Convention. Another question is whether both Conventions can co-exist. Before examining these questions, it may be helpful to describe briefly the New York and Panama Conventions. The New York Convention contemplates two basic actions. The first action is the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, ie , arbitral awards made in the territory of another (Contracting) State. This field of application is defined in Article I. The general obligation for the Contracting States to recognise such awards as …