Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Understanding Public Policy as an Exception to the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

A South-Asian Perspective

The paper, as the title suggests, aims at understanding and exploring the doctrine of public policy as a ground for refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Public Policy is one such ground provided in the New York Convention as well as in the UNCITRAL Model Law, which is most often invoked in the national courts to challenge or refuse the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. What makes it more complicated is the lack of common world-wide definition of public policy or practice on its application, as the same varies from State to State. The traces of ambiguity, subjectivity (at the hands of the courts in terms of interpretation of the concept), and unpredictability associated with the concept of public policy have at times significantly thwarted the effectiveness and efficiency of international commercial arbitration. This paper attempts to understand and explore the enigma of public policy as an exception to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Apart from revisiting various scholarly works on this issue, interpretation of this concept by various judicial institutions across the globe (with special focus on India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) has been attempted, followed by a comparative analysis, to analyse its application on the ground. This paper argues and suggests that a more desirable method of interpreting public policy, i.e. narrow interpretation, is the need of the hour, keeping in consideration the growing demands of international trade and commerce.

Affiliations: 1: sjd Candidate at the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, abasswasiq@gmail.com

10.1163/22134514-00204002
/content/journals/10.1163/22134514-00204002
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22134514-00204002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134514-00204002
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22134514-00204002
2015-11-11
2018-04-20

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation