Hamid Bagherzadeh; Ayyoub Mansouri Razi
Volume 8, Issue 30 , June 2020, , Pages 39-67
Abstract
< p >< p >< p >< p >< p >New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is one of the most globally accepted treaties which offers a pro-enforcement policy. Basically, the precedent echoes the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention. The Convention ...
Read More
< p >< p >< p >< p >< p >New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is one of the most globally accepted treaties which offers a pro-enforcement policy. Basically, the precedent echoes the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention. The Convention gives the authority to the domestic Courts to restrict the grounds of refusal aiming to enforce more arbitral awards. The refusal grounds, Under the Convention. And public policy and arbitrability; private agreements between the parties and awards annulled in the seat of the arbitration. This article aims to study the pro-enforcement policy of the Courts in various jurisdictions such as Iran. The gathered information indicates that the Courts in many countries limit the refusal grounds relying on the most favourable regime rule under article 7 of the Convention. They construe the subject of public policy and arbitrability for foreign awards in a different way from domestic ones. Moreover, they apply the private set-ups of the parties only if they have been addressed duly in the determination period. Further, they give similar effect to the awards annulled if the grounds of invalidation have the same consequence in the enforcing country.