Recognition Of Arbitral Awards Research Articles

Recognition of Arbitral Awards as Prejudicial Decisions

The paper deals with the problem of such a characteristic of arbitral awards as prejudice in relation to the consideration of cases by courts of general jurisdiction and arbitrazh courts. Despite the fact that more and more researchers and practitioners are inclined to recognize the decisions of arbitrazh courts as prejudicial, the work substantiates that such decisions cannot have a prejudicial significance for the consideration of cases in state courts. This takes place due to the fact that arbitrazh courts do not belong to the agencies for the administration of justice, and therefore arbitral awards represent the result of a private-law method of dispute resolution and, accordingly, do not have a public-law character. However, the prejudice of the circumstances established by the arbitral awards is not excluded if the State courts comply with a certain procedure. The paper attempts to describe the procedure for recognizing the circumstances contained in the arbitral award as prejudicial.

An overview of Macao’s new arbitration law: provisional measures and recognition of arbitral awards

An overview of Macao’s new arbitration law: provisional measures and recognition of arbitral awards

Effectiveness of the Recognition and Enforcement of the OHADA`S Arbitral Award

OHADA is amongst an international organization consists of arbitral tribunal within regions in Africa to deal with international disputes on investment and commercial related. Henceforth, the purpose of the study examines the effectivity of arbitral awards enforcement under the perspectives of OHADA arbitration rules. The study axed through qualitative approach by interpreting legal rules, analyzing cases and commenting the weakness of the charter in terms of enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards. The decision of OHADA arbitral tribunal shall contain intrinsically legal effect to country members, however it leads problematics as the enforcement and recognition rules may be different in every country involved. Hence, the study interpreted the legal rules concerning enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards, effectiveness of the rules. In addition it exerted also the challenges and significant recommendation for improving the arbitration rules on enforcement of arbitral awards. It is found the weakness of the arbitral awards locates on refusal of concerned State to enforce the awards under the domestic law for undefinable conflict of interest.

Enforcement of Investment Arbitration Awards

The enforceability of decisions is a central pillar of any dispute resolution mechanism, whether of internal or international nature. This chapter aims to explain the rules for enforcement under the two main enforcement systems that are currently in force in the realm of investment arbitration: the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and the 1965 Washington Convention (the “ICSID Convention”). In particular, Section 2 analyses the scheme for enforcement under the New York Convention, and assesses the obligations of the states parties; Section 3 examines the scheme for enforcement under the ICSID Convention along with the related obligations of states parties. In both cases, we will shortly introduce a linkage to the threat that sovereign immunity for execution of awards poses to the function of the investor-state arbitration regime. Some conclusions on the relationship between the two Conventions will be attempted. In such a context we will finally propose some reflections on an issue related to the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards which could assume particular relevance in the very near future: the proposed investment court system (ICS) and multilateral investment court (MIC). We thus briefly address the main doubts that have been raised concerning the enforcement and recognition of decisions by the ICS/MIC.

El concepto de “orden público internacional” en Colombia: algunos desafíos y retos en la jurisdicción

ABSTRACT: Proceeding for recognition of arbitral awards in Colombia entails nowadays challenges that derive not only from the scope or the understanding that jurisdiction has developed in these years for the so-called “Colombian international public policy”, but also for the set of reforms introduced in 2012 to arbitration law. This article aims to explore these two aspects as well as some other challenges that the jurisdiction is going to face as a result of both.  

The Legal Nature of Arbitration Awards and the Question of Whether Omitting the Name of the Supreme Authority in the Country from the Award Is a Fundamental Flaw which Justifies Invalidation

Despite the long history of arbitration being used as a method of resolving disputes, the precise legal nature of arbitration and arbitral awards remains controversial. The controversy is reflected in the manner in which courts have dealt with arbitral awards, particularly with respect to recognition and enforcement. One key question regarding the recognition of arbitral awards is whether it must be issued in the name of the country's supreme authority and whether it may be nullified if it lacks such detail. The Qatari legal scene was confronted with this question in June 2012 when the Court of Cassation refused to recognize an arbitral award on the basis that the award was not issued in the name of the Emir of Qatar. Following this decision, debate erupted among legal professionals who were largely divided on the merits of the decision. After some two years of heated debate, the Court of Cassation abandoned its stance and has now recognized arbitral awards that do not carry the name of the Emir.

Annulment and enforcement of arbitral awards in Poland

State support is crucial for the development of arbitration. This support is particularly visible in state courts' approach to the annulment and recognition of arbitral awards. This article discusses this dimension of the arbitration legislation in Poland. Specifically, this article presents the legal basis, procedure and grounds for annulment as well as the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Poland. In 2005, Poland introduced modern arbitration legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. This article addresses in detail recent case-law pertaining to annulment and enforcement of arbitral awards, which makes reference to the new Polish arbitration law. The cases discussed in this article were rendered by local courts and the Supreme Court.

France: Court of Appeal of Rouen Decision in Société Européene D'etudes et D'Enterprises v. Yugoslavia, et al. (Recognition of Arbitral Award)

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.