Annulment Of Awards Research Articles

The Time Limit to Set Aside an Award Under Article 34(3) of the Model Law: A Comparative Study

The time limit to set aside an award under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law is three months. Although Article 34(3) of the Model Law does not appear to confer upon domestic courts discretion to extend this time limit, some exceptional decisions from Asian Model Law jurisdictions suggest that such discretion exists. This article argues that, notwithstanding these decisions, domestic courts do not have any discretion to extend the time limit to apply to set an award aside. This article also highlights certain recurring fact patterns commonly seen when parties try to argue in favour of such a discretion, and studies how the courts in various jurisdictions have treated these similar situations. Article 34 Model Law, Article 34(3) Model Law, Article 5 Model Law, Setting aside of award, Challenge of award, Annulment of award, Time limit for application, Time bar to application, Three months, 28 days

4A_244/2020 du 16 décembre 2020 [Partial waiver of right to seek annulment of award (192 PIL Act) – Admissible conversion of a claim into USD based on an unspecific alternative prayer (… any other sum

4A_244/2020 du 16 décembre 2020 [Partial waiver of right to seek annulment of award (192 PIL Act) – Admissible conversion of a claim into USD based on an unspecific alternative prayer (… any other sum

Micula and Others v. Romania

493Arbitration — Annulment of award — Grounds for annulment — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Article 52 — ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, 2003 — Whether manifest excess of powers — Whether serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — Whether failure to state reasons

A sentença sobre a competência arbitral: natureza e regime de controle de anulação

The arbitrator’s decision on its own jurisdiction plays an important role in the field of arbitration. In practice, it is by means of this decision that the arbitrator controls the existence of the foundation of the arbitration, i.e., that the parties validly attributed jurisdiction to a private third person to decide a dispute exercising jurisdictional powers. Consequently, it is essential that this decision be submitted to a well-defined legal regime, which requires the determination of its legal qualification. In this context, the notion of “arbitral award” should benefit from a definition that is specific to arbitration law, and it shall not be defined by the simple transposition of the definition of state court’s “judgements” pursuant to civil procedure codes. Considering the characteristics of the arbitral jurisdiction, the decision of the arbitrator on its own jurisdiction shall be considered a genuine “arbitral award”. Therefore, this decision shall be submitted to the legal regime reserved exclusively to arbitral awards, which includes the legal regime for annulment of awards.

Commercial Arbitration Before International Courts and Tribunals - Reviewing Abusive Conduct of Domestic Courts: 2011 American University Washington College of Law Annual Lecture on International Commercial Arbitration

On observing the international dispute settlement scene in recent years, one is intrigued by the fact that international courts and tribunals have increasingly been asked to rule on national court decisions relating to commercial arbitrations. These national decisions mainly deal with the enforcement of arbitration agreements or the annulment or enforcement of arbitral awards. They apply the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards1 and/or national arbitration laws. The international courts and tribunals seized of claims involving these national court decisions are primarily investor-state arbitral tribunals2 and human rights courts,3 and, in one less recent instance, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ).4 The phenomenon is intriguing because it challenges traditional conceptions in at least two respects. First, it challenges the understanding of the overall architecture of international commercial arbitration. The term ‘architecture’ is borrowed from W. Michael Reisman, who has written extensively on the topic, including an article on some of the issues addressed in this contribution.5 In fact, the traditional and most widely accepted conception of the architecture of international commercial arbitration builds on the finality of arbitral awards, with courts at the seat of the arbitration (sometimes called courts of primary jurisdiction) being competent to annul awards and courts at the place of enforcement (courts of secondary jurisdiction) being competent to rule on the enforcement or non-enforcement of awards in that particular forum.6 This structure rests, above all, on the New York Convention as well as on national arbitration legislation. This traditional architecture is a closed one in the sense that there is no recourse against a final decision by the courts at the seat of the arbitration on the annulment of an award. Similarly, there is no recourse against the final decision of the courts …

Annulment and Court Intervention in International Commercial Arbitration

By choosing the arbitral forum, parties to a contract agree to have their disputes resolved by an independent third party rather than by national courts. However, national courts still play an essential role in modern international commercial arbitration by ensuring the smooth process and supplementing the parties’ failures to agree on various procedural points. One area that remains highly contentious is the annulment of awards – i.e., the decision of the courts of the seat of arbitration to invalidate the arbitral award – and the effect of that decision on the enforcement of the same award by other courts. Despite arbitration’s increased popularity, unforeseen issues have arisen and the enforcement of annulled awards has awaken old debates regarding the very nature of arbitration and the interplay with national Courts. Very few countries have had to make a decision regarding the enforcement of vacated awards: they all embraced the idea that under certain circumstances, annulled awards should be granted exequatur. Interestingly enough, these courts used different justifications for enforcing the award. Some will do so if the annulment decision violates principle of fairness and justice. Others argue that an award should be deemed enforceable unless it was set aside based on international standards of annulment. The most innovative and most advanced theory proclaims that annulment should not have effects abroad as awards are not part of the courts’ system. As a result, the validity of the award should be left to the enforcing court only. This article looks at the different positions adopted by the countries party to the New York Convention, only to confirm that no transnational approach to the issue of the international effectiveness of annulment decisions exists under the Convention. Although a growing majority of authors concludes that the absence of consensus on the New York Convention’s position vis-a-vis the enforcement of annulled awards warrants its revamping (if not its replacement), this article argues that such a drastic step is not necessary, especially if the Guide on the Convention currently being prepared by UNCITRAL provides for the dynamic interpretation that is needed.

LEGAL ISSUES IN THE ANNULMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARD IN THE HIMPURNA AND KARAHA BODAS IN INDONESIA

Law enforcement of international arbitral award in Indonesia is still lacking. Some annulments of the award have occurred in Indonesia. The Himpurna and Karaha Bodas are two notorious cases that show the annulment of the international arbitral awards by a court in Indonesia. However, several legal issues have arisen on this annulment, because the judges in their decision relied on a wrong interpretation to the provision of the United Nation Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention), and the parties agreement. This paper will analyse the error of the Indonesian court in annulling the Himpurna and Karaha Bodas awards. This paper will then demonstrate the judges’ misinterpretation to the New York Convention provision concerning refusal and annulment of foreign arbitral award. This paper ultimately will suggest how to create a proper legal environment in Indonesia to apply international arbitration.

Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt

92Recognition and enforcement — icc arbitral award — Enforcement of award — Award rendered abroad — Action for enforcement in municipal courts — New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, Articles IV and V — Conditions for refusal of enforcement — Burden of proof — Pending action for annulment of award before courts of country where award rendered — Whether award to be regarded as set aside or suspended — The law of the Netherlands

Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt

Arbitration — Enforcement of award — Award rendered abroad — Action for enforcement in municipal courts — New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, Articles IV and V — Conditions for refusal of enforcement — Burden of proof — Pending action for annulment of award before courts of country where award rendered — Whether award to be regarded as set aside or suspended — The law of the Netherlands