580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
Key research themes
1. How do different jurisdictions interpret and apply Article V(1)(e) of the 1958 New York Convention regarding the enforcement of annulled arbitral awards?
This theme examines the divergent judicial approaches and doctrinal debates on the enforceability of arbitral awards that have been annulled or set aside at their seat under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention. It focuses on how national courts reconcile the discretionary language of the Convention with domestic enforcement policies, highlighting the tension between territorial and delocalized theories of arbitration, and exploring the implications for international arbitration finality and enforcement uniformity.
Key finding: This paper articulates the contrasting French and US approaches to enforcement of annulled arbitral awards under Article V(1)(e). French courts adopt a more favorable approach to enforcement, relying on national law to uphold... Read more
Key finding: The paper provides a comparative analysis of enforcement of annulled awards by courts in the US, Netherlands, and France. It finds that French courts enforce annulled awards relying on domestic law more permissive than the... Read more
Key finding: This paper applies the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to argue that Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention vests enforcement courts with discretion to enforce awards even if annulled at their seat due to the... Read more
Key finding: The Lahore High Court ruling in Taisei v. A.M. Construction exemplifies a parochial territorial interpretation of Article V(1)(e), whereby annulment at the seat was given precedence, obstructing enforcement despite the New... Read more
2. What are the procedural and doctrinal distinctions between setting aside (annulment) and enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards, and how do these distinctions affect annulled awards' recognition?
This research area explores the legal and procedural differences between annulment (setting aside) of arbitral awards at the seat of arbitration and enforcement proceedings in courts of other jurisdictions. The focus is on the implications of these distinctions for the enforceability of annulled awards, including the interplay of primary versus secondary jurisdiction, choice of forum, grounds for challenge, and how these procedural nuances impact the finality and international efficacy of arbitral awards.
Key finding: The article distinguishes between annulment at the seat of arbitration (primary jurisdiction) and enforcement in foreign courts (secondary jurisdiction), emphasizing that enforcement courts should independently assess... Read more
Key finding: This paper comprehensively compares annulment and enforcement procedures, underscoring fundamental differences: annulment is jurisdictionally limited to the seat of arbitration and optional for award-debtors, whereas... Read more
Key finding: The paper reports and analyses Polish Supreme Court rulings clarifying the scope of judicial review in annulment proceedings under the Polish Arbitration Act aligned with UNCITRAL Model Law. It highlights the Court's strict... Read more
Key finding: The paper details ICSID’s unique annulment regime as an alternative to national court review, emphasizing its limited, exhaustive grounds and the procedural goal to balance finality with minimal scrutiny. It distinguishes... Read more
3. How do national arbitration laws and party agreements influence the waiver or limitation of rights to annul arbitral awards, and what are the implications for finality in arbitration?
This theme focuses on the legal permissibility and practical effects of waiver or limitation of parties’ rights to seek annulment of arbitral awards under various national legislations. It analyses legislative frameworks that enable such waivers, the conditions and limitations imposed (e.g., nationality of parties), and the implications for arbitration finality and party autonomy. This research area informs how contractual and regulatory choices can enhance certainty and reduce protracted post-award litigation.
Key finding: This study categorizes national arbitration laws into three groups based on their approach to parties’ waiver of annulment rights: (1) jurisdictions explicitly permitting waivers for non-national parties, (2) jurisdictions... Read more
Key finding: This article explores Egypt's ministerial approval requirement for arbitration agreements in administrative contracts, highlighting its legal rationale grounded in public policy. It analyzes the tension between administrative... Read more
Key finding: The paper critically examines Section 34 of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 concerning recourse against arbitral awards via setting aside applications. It outlines the statutory grounds for annulment,... Read more