The Public Policy Defense
Should The Public Policy Defense under the Article V(II) include Public Shock and Conscience as a Valid Ground for Refusing to Enforce an Arbitral Award?
Could you please emphasis on the Arab countries?
Arab countries that have embedded norms of law must be considered even if they are not part of the contractor otherwise part of the agreement if they somehow violate
broader principles of law such as Sharia Law.
The Recognition and enforcement is one of the main quandaries under international commercial arbitration of which the public policy exception poses the greatest
difficulty. The reason for this is that there are a vast array of interpretations for what may be deemed public policy. However, there are three main trends that can
be identified, which are pro-enforcement (limited public policy defence), pro-intervention (broad national public policy defence) and the middle ground countries
(shock and conscience). The purpose of this research is to examine the judicial trends from a selection of these countries and then determine if the Middle Ground
(which includes, Hong Kong, Canada, New Zealand and some USA decisions) is the correct approach. The pro-enforcement countries include the UK, France, Switzerland and
some USA decisions. Pro-intervention states include Pakistan, India, China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia.
Please do include the referencing below:
Al-Fadhel, FM (2009) “Respect for Party Autonomy under Current Saudi Arbitration Law” Arab Law Quarterly 23(1)
Editor “Arbitration — Standard of Review — tenth Circuit Rejects Contractual Expansion of Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Bowen v Amoco Pipeline Co 254 F 3d
925 (10th Cir 2001)” (2001) Harvard Law Review 115(1267)
Editor “Dispute Over the Profits Referred to Arbitration – Arbitration Award Settling the Partnership between the Parties Rather than the Dispute over Profits – Limits
of the Arbitrators Mission – Limits Respected (Yes) – Time Period of Arbitration – Attendance of the Parties in Dispute of the Hearings held after the expiration of
the Time Period – Implicit Extension Thereof (Yes) – Right to Due process – Violation (No) Action for Annulment Rejected” (2010) Journal of Arab Arbitration 2(1)
Ginsberg, T (2010) 2The Arbitrator as Agent: Why Deferential Review is not Always Pro-Arbitration” The University of Chicago Law Review 77(1013)
Park (2005) “The Nature of Arbitral Authority: A comment in Lesotho Highlands” 21 Arb Intl 4
Stromberg, W “Avoiding the Full Court Press: International Commercial Arbitration and other Global Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes” (2007) Loyola of Los
Angeles Review 40(1337)
Chan, Leng S, Singapore Law on Arbitral Awards (Singapore: Academy Pub. 2011).
El-Ahdab J, Arbitration with the Arab countries (Kluwer Law International 2011).
Goldman, L, “Contractually Expanded Review of Arbitration Awards.”(Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 8
2003: 171).
Halvelson Karen C, “Investment Arbitration Panel Upholds Jurisdiction to Hear Mass
Bondholder Claims against Argentina.” 2011).
Lee Goldman, “Contractually Expanded Review of Arbitration Awards.”( Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 8
(2003): 171).
Margaret M, “Ethics in International Arbitration: Traps for the Unwary.” (Loy. U. Chi. Int’l L.
Rev. 10 (2012): 73).
Steven S, “International Arbitration Loses its Grip.”(ABAJ 96, 2010: 50).
Tom G, The Arbitrator as Agent: Why Deferential Review Is Not Always Pro-Arbitration.”
(University of Chicago: Law Review 2010).
William P, “The Nature of Arbitral Authority: A Comment on Lesotho Highlands.” (Arbitration
International 21.4, 2005: 483-491).
Please do referencing in OSCOLA style.
Please do number of sources about 50 sources, or appropriate.
ScholarMatic: Explanation & Answer
Your ready answer from a verified tutor is just a click away for as little as $14.99
Click Order Now to get 100% Original Answer Customized to your instructions!
