You are on page 1of 35

In Chloe Z Fishing Co., Inc and others v.

Odysse y Re Limited 47, the United States court was requested to compel th e parties to arbitrate under Article II(3) NYC. When ruling on that motion, the court performed a twostep analysis: it established the existence of the arbitration agreement under the NYC, then ref erred the parties to arbitration. At both stages of the analysis it took ac count of the federal policy favouring arbitration and the underlyi ng principle of the Convention and its adoption. The court further re jected the plaintiff s argument that the arbitration clauses were unc onscionable under California contract law, holding that internationa l, and not domestic, standards on contract formation or matters of pub lic policy should be decisive when determining the enforceability of the arbitration clauses

Trong cng ty Chloe Z , Inc v nhng cng ty TNHH khc v Odyssey Re, Ta n Hoa K c yu cu buc cc bn phn x theo iu II (3) Cng c New York. Khi p dng, ta n thc hin mt phn tch gm hai bc: hnh thnh s tn ti ca tha thun trng ti theo Cng c New York, c gi cc bn trng ti. c hai giai on ca phn tch phi mt ti khon ca "lin bang trng ti chnh "v" nguyn tc c bn ca Hi ngh v thng qua. "Ta n tip tc t chi yu cu ca nguyn n rng cc iu khon trng ti l khng c cn c di Lut hp ng California, t chc quc t , v khng trong nc, cc tiu chun v s hnh thnh hp ng hoc cc vn v chnh sch cng cn c quyt nh khi xc nh hiu lc ca cc iu khon trng ti Mt danh sch cc h thng phng th quc t cng nhn s dng lm cn c t chi thc thi cc tha thun trng ti theo "v hiu" ngoi l c tm thy cng ty TNHH Thng mi v Vn chuyn Cng ty TNHH v Rosseel NV. Cc Danh sch bao gm p buc, sai st, gian ln, t b hoc vi phm c bn chnh sch ca din n quc gia. Tm tt:

A list of the internationally recognized defenses used as grounds for the refusal to enforce the arbitration agreement under the null and void exception is found in Oriental Comme rcial and Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Rosseel NV.48 The list includes duress, mista ke, fraud, waiver or violation of the fundamental policies of the forum natio n.

u ca mt trong cc bn, ta n c ngha v tham kho cc bn tham gia trng ti theo cc e of the parties, the court is obliged to refer the parties to arbitratio iu kin quy nh ti iu II (3) Cng c New York. n under the conditions specified in Article II(3) NYC. i cnh ny, quy tc ta n
At the request of on

Summary:

v s tn ti v tnh hp l ca tho thun trng ti trong tinh thn court rules on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreeme ca iu II NYC, tr khi n cho bit nt in the sense of Article II NYC, unless it finds tha thun l "v hiu v khng c the said agreement kh nng thc hin ".
In this context, the to be null and void and incapable of being performed.

5. ENFORCEMENT PROCE 5.TH TC THI HNH: IU III DURE: ARTICLE III


The enforcement procedure is dealt with in Article s III to VI of the New York Convention. Article III sets out the general oblig ation of each Contracting State to recognize and enforce an arbitral award in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article III, which reads as follows:
Each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of proced ure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions lai d down in the following articles. There shall not be imposed substantially mo re onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition or enforce ment of arbitral awards to which this Convention applies than are impose d on the recognition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.

Thc thi th tc c x l ti iu III n iuVI ca Cng c New York. iu III a ra cc ngha v chung ca mi Nh nc cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh trng ti theo quy nh ti iu III, nh sau:

"Mi quc gia k kt s cng nhn quyt nh trng ti nh s rng buc v thc thi chng ph hp vi cc quy tc v th tc ca lnh th ni Quyt nh c da vo, theo cc iu kin quy nh trong nhng iu sau. C trch nhim khng c p dng iu kin ng k la chn hp l hn hoc l ph cao hn hoc chi ph v vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh trng ti, Cng c ny c p dng cao hn c p dng i vi vic cng nhn hoc thi hnh quyt nh trng ti trong nc. " N cn thit phn bit gia cc iu kin cho vic thc thi quy nh trong Cng c New York v nhng

It is necessary to distinguish between conditions fo r enforcement provided in the NYC itself and those stipulated by the procedu ral rules of the lex fori.

quy nh ca cc quy tc v th tc ca lex fori.


The conditions for enforcement provided by the Convention are found in Articles IV to VI. In general, Article IV requires t he petitioner to submit an original or a copy of the arbitration agreement an d the arbitral award and a translation thereof. Article V contains an exhausti ve list of grounds that the respondent may invoke against the recognition an d enforcement. Further, it contains public policy grounds that may be invoked by the competent authority of the country where the recognition and enforcem ent are sought. Article VI specifies situations in which the competent aut hority may adjourn the enforcement procedure or order the respondent to give suitable security

Cc iu kin thc thi c cung cp bi Cng c c tm thy trong iu IV n iu VI. Ni chung, iu IV yu cu ngi khi kin phi np mt bn gc hoc bn sao tho thun trng ti v quyt nh trng ti v mt bn dch. iu V cha mt danh sch y cc cn c rng n c th chng li vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh. Hn na, n c cn c chnh sch no c th c vin dn ca c quan c thm quyn ca quc gia ni vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh c tm kim. iu VI quy nh c th cc tnh hung trong cc c quan c thm quyn c th hon th tc thi hnh hoc b n a ra bo m ph hp Thc t l phn ln cc nc trn th gii p dng quy tc trng ti da trn Lut mu ca UNCITRAL gp phn ng k vo s hi ho qui tc trng ti quc gia. Tuy nhin, cc quy nh v th tc t tng thc thi vn cn khc bit ng k. V d, trong cc nc thng lut, thi hnh quyt nh yu cu, quyt nh ta n c a vo quyt nh , ni cch khc, quyt nh phi c chuyn i thnh mt bn n. Do , bn n - khng phi l quyt nh - l hiu lc thi hnh. Trong khi ta n ca cc nc theo l thc thi chnh cc quyt nh quy nh v th tc quc gia khng thng nht. V d, quyt nh cn mt giy chp nhn

The fact that a large number of countries through out the world has adopted arbitration rules based on the UNCITRAL Mo del Law has contributed significantly to the harmonization of national arbit ration rules. Nonetheless, the rules governing the enforcement proceedings s till differ substantially. In common law countries, for example, the enforce ment of an award requires that judgment be entered upon the award; in other words, the award must be transformed into a judgment. Consequently, the jud gment not the award is enforceable. While the traditional course of dealing in civil law countries is to enforce the award itself, national procedural rules are not uniform. For instance, the award needs an exequatur in some countries; e ven then, it is not always

granted by the same body. National laws not based on the UNICTRAL Model Law differ so greatly that it is difficult to expect har monization in this field in the near future.

mt s nc, thm ch sau , n lun lun khng phi do cng mt c th chp nhn. Lut php quc gia khng da trn m hnh UNICTRAL Php lut khc nhau rt nhiu v rt kh mong i s hi ha trong lnh vc ny trong tng lai gn. Din n quy tc quc gia ca cng quy nh cc kha cnh ca s cng nhn v cho thi hnh khng c iu chnh bi Cng c. V d, lut ta n c th cung cp bng chng c tm thy chng minh cn c t chi thc thi quy nh ti iu V ca Cng c. Ngoi ra, lut ta n c th quy nh cc iu kin theo mt bn c th phn i vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh, trong trng hp bn tham gia m khng phn i trong t tng trng ti, v n c th cho php ngi tr li thit lp ra mt tuyn b chng li cc quyt nh c thi hnh hoc yu cu tho thun trng ti c cha"xm nhp ca cc bn n", khng c ta n quc gia s khng c thm quyn thc thi cc quyt nh. Hn na, php lut quc gia c th quy nh cc cp quan tm trong trng hp khng c li sut c trao hoc ni quan tm trao thp hn so vi li sut th trng hin hnh ng k. Cui cng, php lut quc gia c th thit lp mt thi gian gii hn cho s khi u ca vic thc thi th tc t tng. Tuy nhin, nh thy trong cc

National rules of the forum also regulate aspects of re cognition and enforcement not governed by the Convention itself. For exampl e, the lex fori may provide for discovery of evidence in order to prove the grounds for refusal of enforcement specified in Article V of the Conventi on. In addition, the lex fori may stipulate the conditions under which a party m ay oppose the recognition and enforcement in situations where that party parti cipated without objection in the arbitral proceedings, and it may enable the res pondent to set-off a claim against the award being enforced or require the arbitr ation agreement to contain an entry of judgment clause, without which the national courts would not have jurisdiction to enforce the award. Furthermore, national law may prescribe the granting of interest in cases where no interest was awarded or where the interest awarded was significantly lower than the pre vailing market rate. Finally, national law may set a period of limitation for the ini tiation of the enforcement proceedings.

Nonetheless, as seen in the following case, the ap

plication of national rules may be superseded by legal sources higher in the h ierarchy, for example, by bilateral or multilateral conventions.

trng hp trn, vic p dng cc quy tc quc gia c th c thay th bng cc ngun php l cao hn trong h thng phn cp, v d, bng iu c song phng hoc a phng. iu ny xy ra trong Zhe-jiang v Takeyari i vi php lut quc gia Trung Quc v thi hn khi kin t tng thi hnh. Cn c iu khon trng ti, trng ti c t chc ti y ban trng ti Kinh t v Thng mi quc t Trung quc (CIETAC). Sau khi quyt nh c tr li Zhe-jiang, n tm cch cho thi hnh ti Nht Bn. Ta n Nht Bn cho rng yu cu c i c li theo Cng c New York v cc tha thun thng mi Nht Bn-Trung Quc c hon thnh v quyt nh c thi hnh theo lut php Nht Bn. Tuy nhin, c Nht Bn v Trung Quc thc hin theo iu I (3) ca Cng c,kt qu ca cc iu kin cho vic thc thi c trng Nht Bn v Trung Quc. Trong vic cung cp ca Trung Quc ti iu 219 CSTQ yu cu l ng dng cho vic thc thi c np trong vng su thng k t ngy cui cng ca thi gian thc hin, cc iu kin thc thi c khng ging nhau. Tuy nhin, ta n Nht Bn b qua cc quy nh ca Trung Quc. Khng nh rng lut quc gia ca Trung Quc khng c p dng, p dng Cng c New York v Hip nh Thng mi Nht Bn-Trung Quc

This occurred in Zhejiang v. Takeyari50 in respect of the Chinese national law on the time limit for initiating the enforcemen t proceedings. Pursuant to the arbitration clause, the arbitration was held at the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CI ETAC). After the award was rendered in Zhejiangs favor, it sought enforcement in Japan. The Japanese court held that the reciprocity requir ement under the NYC and the JapanChina Trade agreement was fulfilled and the awar d was to be enforced under Japanese law. However, bot h Japan and China had made reservations under Article I(3) of the Co nvention, as a result of which the conditions for enforcement must be identical in Japan and China. In light of the Chinese provision in Arti cle 219 CCP requiring that the application for enforcement be filed with in six months from the last day of the performance period, the condition s for enforcement were not identical. Nonetheless, the Japanese court ig nored the Chinese rule. Contending that Chinese national law was not a pplicable, it applied the New York Convention and the JapanChina Trade Agreement

Provisions of the lex fori relating to the recognition a nd enforcement of arbitral awards falling under the scope of the Convention may not be substantially more onerous than those applying to the recogn ition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. The same is true in re gard to fees or charges. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that there will be dis crimination against foreign awards in this way.

Quy nh ca lut ta n lin quan n vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh cc quyt nh trng ti thuc phm vi ca Cng c c th khng ng k, nng n hn nhng ngi p dng cho vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh trng ti trong nc. iu ny cng lin quan n ph hoc l ph. Tuy nhin, chc chn rng s c phn bit i x so vi cc quyt nh nc ngoi theo cch ny. Cc iu kin cho vic thi hnh cp trong Cng c New York l nhng quy nh c quyn bi Cng c. Theo , cc quy tc v th tc ca vic thi hnh ca din n khng quan tm n iu kin thc thi. iu ny c ngha ca cm t trong iu III "theo cc iu kin c quy nh trong cc iu sau y "

The conditions for enforcement referred to in the NYC are those stipulated exclusively by the Convention. Accordingly, the proce dural rules of enforcement of the forum are not concerned with conditions fo r enforcement. This is the meaning of the phrase in Article III under the co nditions laid down in the following articles.

Tm tt: Conditions for the recognition and enforce iu kin c cng nhn v cho thi hnh ca quyt nh trng ti c ment of arbitral awards cung cp bi Cng c New York v are provided by the NYC and by national l lut quc gia.
Summary:

aw iu kin c cung cp bi Cng Conditions provided by the NYC are con c New York cha ng t iu IV n iuVI tained in Articles IV to VI.

National rules may relate, for example, t Lut quc gia c lin h, v d, pht o hin ra chng c, bc b n hoc t discovery of evidence,estoppel or waiv b, t ra hoc chng li quyt nh,

er, set off or counterclaim against the award , the entry of judgment clause, the perio d of limitation for the enforcement of an award under the Convention and interest incurred on the award.

nhng iu khon trong quyt nh ta n, gii hn v thi gian ca vic thc thi mt quyt nh t di iu c v s quan tm pht sinh trong quyt nh

National law shall not stipulate conditions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards tha t are substantially more nition and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.
6. REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT: FORMAL REQUIREMENTS ARTICLE IV

Lut quc gia khng c quy nh v iu kin cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh ca trng ti nc ngoi, iu kh khn hn vic c th p dng cho vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh ca nhng quyt nh trng ti onerous than those applicable to the recog trong nc.

Article IV sets out the requirements to b e met by the requesting party to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award before the competent national court of its choice. The se requirements are the only ones;hence, th ey supersede any additional or different requirements of t he national law of the enforcing country. Article IV rea ds as

6. YU CU S CNG NHN V CHO THI HNH : NHNG YU CU CHNH THC QUY NH TRONG CHNG IV Chng IV quy nh nhng yu cu c chia theo cc bn yu cu t c s cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh ca trng ti nc ngoi trc khi ta n quc gia c thm quyn la chn. Nhng yu cu ny ch l mt trong nhng yu cu; v vy, c th b qua nhng yu cu khc hoc b sung ca lut quc gia cho thi hnh ti quc gia . Chng IV quy nh nh sau:

follows:

1. To obtain the recognition and enforce ment mentioned in the preceding article, the party applying for recognition and enforcement shall, at the time of the application, supply: (a) the duly a uthenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof; (b) the original agreement referred to in article II or a duly certified copy thereof. 2. If the said award or agreement is not ma de in an official language of the country in w hich the award is relied upon, the party applying for recognition and enforce ment of the award shall produce a translation of these documents into such l anguage. The translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translato r or by a diplomatic or consular agent.

1. t c s cng nhn v cho thi hnh cn lu trong nhng chng trc, bn cnh vic p dng cho s cng nhn v cho thi hnh, vo thi im p dng, cung cp: (a) chng thc hp l quyt nh ban u hoc bn sao hp l chng nhn ; (b) tha thun ban u quy nh ti Chng II hoc bn sao c chng thc hp l. 2. Nu quyt nh hoc tho thun bng li ni khng c thc hin trong mt ngn ng chnh thc ca quc gia, trong quyt nh c da vo cc bn yu cu cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh s c mt bn dch cc ti liu sang ngn ng quc gia . Bn dch phi c chng nhn bi mt cng chc hay phin dch vin chnh thc hoc bi mt nh ngoi giao hoc i din lnh s . "

Bn yu cu cng nhn v cho thi hnh phi p ng c hai yu cu chnh thc: phi cung cp "chng thc hp l ban u" hay "chng nhn bn sao hp l ca quyt nh trng ti, v original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. In other w tho thun trng ti ban u hoc mt " chng nhn bn sao hp l" ca ords, the original award must be n. Ni cch khc, cc quyt nh ban authenticated, i.e. the signature must be atte u phi c chng thc, tc l ch The party requesting recognition or enfor cement must fulfill two formal requirements: he must supply the duly a uthenticated original or a duly certified copy of the arbitral award, and the

sted to be genuine; or if a copy of the award is submitted, it must be certified, i .e. the copy must be attested to be a true copy of the original. The same ap plies if a copy of the arbitration agreement is submitted.52

k phi c xc nhn l chnh, hoc nu mt bn sao ca quyt nh c gi, phi c xc nhn, tc l bn sao phi c xc nhn c mt bn sao y bn chnh. iu ny cng p dng nu mt bn sao ca trng ti tha thun c a ra xem xt. Trong ngha ny, Corte di Cassazione tm thy trong phn quyt ngy 7 thng 6 nm 1995 ca Tng cng ty bo lnh u t rp (Kuwait) v Banque Arabe et d'Investissements Quc t (Php) cho rng, vic np mt bn sao c xc nhn ca quyt nh, cc bn tm kim s cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh thc hin y cc ngha v c quy nh trong Chng IV (1) (a) ca Cng c New York, s dng lun phin c hai theo quy nh ca Chng ny". Mt vn na c th xy ra l theo php lut quc gia quyt nh l c chng thc hoc xc nhn cc bn sao. Trong khi Cng c khng cp n vn ny, quan im chim u th trong php l m ta n c th p dng l lut ta n, tc l php lut ca To n cng nhn v cho thi hnh, hoc php lut ca nc m quyt nh c ban hnh. Mt bc xa hn, Van Den Berg ch trng p dng cc lex validatis, php lut pht huy "cc hiu lc ca chng thc hoc xc

In this sense, the Italian Corte di Cassazio ne found in its judgment of 7 June 1995 in InterArab Investment Guarantee Corporation ( Kuwait) v. Banque Arabe et Internationale dInve stissements (France)53 that, by filing a certified copy of the award, the party seeking recognition and enforcement of the award had duly fulfill ed the obligations imposed by Article IV(1)(a) of the New York conventi on, using the second alternative stipulated by that Article. A further question that may arise is accordin g to which national law the award is to be authenticated or the copies certified. While the Convention is silent on this matter, the view prevails in legal scho larship that the court may apply either the lex fori, i.e. the law of the court o f recognition and enforcement, or the law of the country where the award was made.54 Going a step further, Van Den Berg advocates application of the lex validatis, the law upholding the validity of the authentication or certificatio n.

nhn ". C mt s quyt nh ca ta n ph hp vi iu ny tn thnh v tr. V d, Oberlandsgericht Rostock (Ta n cp phc thm) x l mt trng hp ngi khiu ni tun th cc yu cu ca Chng IV (1) (a) New York bng cch gi mt bn sao ca quyt nh trng ti hp l c xc nhn ca Hamburg cng chng, cng nh mt bn dch. Tuy nhin, ng khng np cc tho thun trng ti ban u hoc bn sao hp l chng thc theo yu cu ca Chng IV (1) (b) ca Cng c. Tham gia cc v tr ng n thun li, Ta n thy rng cc yu cu cho bit c th c b qua.

There are a number of court decisions co nforming with this in favorem executionis position. For example, the Ro stock Oberlandsgericht (Court of Appeal)56 dealt with a case where th e claimant complied with the requirements of Article IV(1)(a) NYC by s ubmitting a copy of the arbitral award duly certified by a Hamburg notary public, as well as a translation and apostil. However, he did not submit th e original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof, as requi red by Article IV(1)(b) of the Convention. Taking the morefavorable right position, the Court found that the said requirement could be ignore d.

This lenient approach to the formality require ments of Article IV(1)(a) is evident in another German case in which the arbitr ation agreement was based on a treaty.57 Therefore, the court noted that A rt. IV only concerned the arbitral award. Since the defendant did not allege th at the copy of the award supplied by the claimant did not correspond with th e original, the Court justified its decision as follows:

Cch tip cn ny khoan dung vi cc yu cu th tc ca Chng IV (1) (a) l iu hin nhin trong mt trng hp khc ca c, trong tha thun trng ti c da trn mt hip c. V vy, ta n lu rng Chng IV ch quan tm n cc quyt nh trng ti. K t khi b n khng co buc rng cc bn sao ca quyt nh cung cp cho nguyn n khng tng ng vi bn gc, Ta n c thm quyn quyt nh nh sau:

It would be a hollow formality to requir "N s l mt hnh thc khng c e that claimant prove the undisputed ngha yu cu nguyn n chng

existence and authenticity of the arbitra l award, whose copy is supplied, by also supplying the documents in Art. IV(1 )(a). A certified copy (of the award), though unaccompanied by the authentica ted original arbital award, complies with the requirements in Art. IV(1)(a).

minh s tn ti khng b tranh chp v tnh xc thc ca quyt nh trng ti, c bn sao c cung cp, cng c cung cp cc ti liu trong Chng IV (1) (a). Bn sao c chng nhn (ca quyt nh), mc d khng km theo chng thc quyt nh ban u, tun th vi cc yu cu trong Chng IV (1) (a). " Cch tip cn khng mang tnh hnh thc ny vi cc yu cu ca Chng IV ca Cng c New York c kho lo gii thch bi Geneva Cour de Justice (Ta n cp phc thm): "Cc vn bn ca Cng c ny khng m t thm cc ni dung v bn cht ca cc ngha v chnh thc n to ra, cng khng bit nh th no l vi phm x pht. Ta n ny cho l Chng IV phi c gii thch theo vi tinh thn ca Cng c nh m t trn. Cc Quc gia k mong mun lm gim ngha v cho cc bn tm kim s cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh trng ti nc ngoi cng nhiu cng tt.

This nonformalistic approach to the requirements o f Article IV of the New York Convention has been aptly explained by the Geneva Cour de Justice (Court of Appeal):

The text of the Convention does not furt her describe the contents and nature of the formal obligations it creates, nor d oes it indicate how their violation is sanctioned. This Court deems that Art. I V must be interpreted in accordance with the spirit of the Convention as desc ribed above. The Contracting States wished to reduce the obligations for t he party seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award as much as possible.

The first sentence of the first paragraph of Article IV contains the phrase at the time of application, thus raising the que stion whether the failure to submit the original award and the arbitration agree ment together with the application for enforcement can be cured by later subm ission. Whereas the Italian Corte

Cu u ca on u tin ca Chng IV cha cm t "ti thi gian p dng ", do a ra cu hi liu khng np cc quyt nh ban u v s tho thun trng ti cng vi vic p dng cho thi hnh c th c xem xt bng cch np sau.

di Cassazione (Supreme Court)59 answere d this question negatively, it also made it clear that such a formal failure doe s not prevent the party from filing a new request for enforcement.

Trong khi Corte di Cassazione (Ta n ti cao) tr li cu hi ny mt cch tiu cc, n cng lm r l mt hnh thc "tht bi khng ngn cn cc bn np n cho yu cu mi vic thi hnh". Nu cc ti liu c gi bi cc bn tm kim s cng nhn v cho thi hnh ang mt ngn ng khc hn ta n, n phi c dch ra ngn ng chnh thc ca t nc ca ta n ni cng nhn hay cho thi hnh quyt nh c yu cu. Mt phin dch tuyn th , ngi c th l cng dn ca mt trong hai nc, phi xc nhn rng bn dch ca cc ti liu cung cp l chnh xc. iu ny cng p dng nu bn dch c xc nhn ca lnh s hoc i din ngoi giao ca mt trong hai t nc.

If the documents submitted by the party se eking recognition or enforcement are in a language other than that of the cou rt, they have to be translated into the official language of the country of t he court where recognition or enforcement of the award is requested.

A sworn translator, who may be a citizen o f either country, must certify that the translation of the submitted documents is correct. The same applies if the translation is certified by consular or dipl omatic representatives of either country.

Trong bi cnh ny, cu hi t ra l In this context the question arises whether t liu ta n nn t chi yu cu nu he court should reject a request if quyt nh ch c dch mt phn v the award is only partly translated and certi chng nhn. fied.

In its decision of 15 April 1999 mentione d above, the Cour de Justice of Geneva acknowledged that only the first and last pages of the French translation supplied by the appellee had been certified by a diplomatic agent of the Swiss Embassy in Beijing. Nonetheless, it denied ap

Trong quyt nh ngy 15 thng 4 nm 1999 cp trn, T php Cour de Geneva tha nhn rng ch c nhng trang u tin v cui cng ca bn dch ting Php c cung cp bi cc ngi chng an c

pelants objection as purely formal, agreeing with the Court of First Instance61 that: the two pages at issue are the most impor tant [in the award] as they identify the parties, contain the decisional part a nd state that the award is final

chng nhn bi mt vin chc ngoi giao ca Thy S, i s qun ti Bc Kinh. Tuy nhin, n b t chi phn i nh hon ton chnh thc, ng vi Ta Instance u tin rng: hai trang vn l quan trng nht [trong quyt nh] nh h xc nh cc bn, bao gm cc phn ra quyt nh v nh nc m quyt nh l cui cng "

If the recognition and enforcement judge s peaks the language in which the original documents have been written, the tra nslation is not required. However, the judge should know the foreign langua ge well enough to have taken full cognizance of the content of these docume nts.62 Summary:

Nu vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh thm phn ni ngn ng m cc ti liu gc c vit, bn dch l khng cn thit. Tuy nhin, Thm phn cn phi bit "ngoi ng tt thc hin nhn nh y r ni dung ca cc ti liu ny " Tm tt:

u theo quy nh Chng IV l nhng yu cu ch Bn yu cu phi p ng c c Art. IV are the only ones the requesting party must satisfy to obtain s cng nhn v cho thi hnh. recognition and enforcement. c hin y cc yu cu To fulfill the formal requirements, the chnh thc, cc bn phi cung cp: 1) chng thc hp l gc hoc bn party must supply: 1) the duly authenticated original or a sao hp l chng thc quyt nh trng ti, v duly certified copy of the 2) tho thun trng ti gc hoc bn arbitral award, and 2) the original arbitration agree sao hp l chng nhn. ment or a duly certified copy thereof. The requirements stipulated by
In regard to authentication or certification, the vi Lin quan n chng thc hoc xc nhn, quan im chim u th ta n ew prevails that the court may apply the lex fori or the law of the c th p dng cc lut ta n hoc

php lut ca quc gia ni quyt nh c thc hin. t nh ban u v tho n agreement must be thun trng ti phi c submitted at the time the application for enfor np ti thi im ng dng thc thi cement is filed. c np. The said documents must be made in or translat u bng li ni phi c ed into the language thc hin hoc c dch sang cc of the court conducting the recognit ngn ng ca ta n tin hnh vic ion and enforcement cng nhn v cho thi hnh theo th proceedings. tc t tng.
country where the award was made. The original award and the arbitratio

7.. L do t chi cng nhn v Cho thi hnh c quy nh bi cc bn iu V (1) Phn quyt ca ta n theo yu cu cng nhn v cho thi hnh mt quyt nh trng ti theo Cng c New York c th t chi yu cu trn c s The court ruling on the request for recognition and lit k trong iu V. Danh sch ny l enforcement of an arbitral c quyn v ta n c th khng cn award under the New York Convention may refuse t c vo n t chi bt k lnh th he request on the grounds enumerated in Article V . The list is exclusive and t khc. Ngoi ra, l do t chi c gii thch hn ch cho ph hp vi he court may not base its refusal on any other ground. In addition, the gro mc ch ca Cng c New York.

7. GROUNDS FOR REFUS AL OF RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT WHICH MAY BE INVOKED BY THE PARTIES, ARTICLE V(1)

unds for refusal are to be interpreted restrictively in accordance with the pur pose of the NYC.63

The grounds prescribed in Article V may be divid ed into two categories: 1) those that may be invoked by the parties (Article V(1)), and 2) those that the court may invoke ex officio (Article V(2)). Whe reas the first category is intended to protect the interests of the awarddebtor, the second serves the vital interests of the forum country.64

Cn c quy nh ti iu V c th c chia thnh hai loi: 1) nhng ngi c th c gi bi cc bn (iu V (1)), v 2)To n ng nhin (iu V (2)). Trong khi , hng mc u tin l nhm bo v li ch ca cc b n, th hai phc v li ch sng cn ca din n quc

gia.
The grounds that may be invoked by the parties to refuse the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award are listed in the fi rst paragraph of Article V , which reads as follows:
1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if th at party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enfo rcement is sought, proof that:(a) The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or t he said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have su bjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country wh ere the award was made; or(b) The party against whom the award is invoke d was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or

Vi l do bi cc bn t chi cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh trng ti c lit k trong on u tin ca iu V, nh sau: "1. Cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh c th b t chi, theo yu cu ca bn phi thi hnh, ch khi no bn chuyn ti c quan c thm quyn ni vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh, bng chng rng: (a) Cc bn tham gia tha thun quy nh ti iu II, di Lut p dng i vi h, khng nng lc, hoc tho thun bng li ni khng phi l hp l theo quy nh ca php lut m cc bn p dng hoc khng c ch bn, theo lut ca nc ni quyt nh c lp; hoc (b) Bn chng li ngi m gii thng c gi l khng c thch hp thng bo v vic b nhim trng ti vin hoc t tng trng ti hoc ni cch khc khng th trnh by trng hp ca mnh, hoc

The wording may be refused suggests that the judg es may use their discretion when ruling on the request for recognition and en forcement. Similarly, the Spanish text uses the expression se podr denega r. However, the wording of the French text seront refuses implies that the court has no discretion but shall refuse the enforcement if any of the gro unds invoked by a party is

Cc t ng "c th b t chi" cho thy rng cc thm phn c th s dng theo ca h khi p dng vo yu cu cng nhn v cho thi hnh. Tng t,Vn bn ting Ty Ban Nha s dng khi nim "se podr denegar". Tuy nhin, cc t ng cc vn bn ting Php - "seront refuses" - ng rng ta n khng

met. The differences in the wording of the various c quyt nh nhng "t chi" vic thi language versions could hnh nu c cc cn c vin dn bi pose a threat to the uniform interpretation of the C mt bn l p ng. S khc bit onvention on this matter.

trong cch din t ca cc phin bn ngn ng khc nhau c th t ra mt mi e da n vic gii thch thng nht ca Cng c v vn ny. Ni u tin m cc bn i lp thc thi c bn cht hoc ht hiu lc chnh thc ca tho thun trng ti.

The first ground that the party opposing enforcement may invoke is the material or formal invalidity of the arbitration agreement.

Since the issue of the capacity of the parties to conclude the arbitration agreement is not resolved under the Convention, it is to be decided according to the applicable law designated by the choiceof-law rules of the court conducting the enforcement procedure. A specific p roblem arises when one of the parties to the arbitration agreement is a State, a State trading agency or other body of public law and that party invokes sover eign immunity as a defense in order to avoid arbitration. As a rule, such a defen ce is unsuccessful. This is in keeping with the view that a State enjoys immunit y from jurisdiction only in cases where it acted iure imperii, whereas immunity cannot be acknowledged in cases where the State entered into the legal relat ionship iure gestionis.65

K t khi vn nng lc ca cc bn tham gia kt lun tho thun trng ti khng c gii quyt theo Cng c, n s c quyt nh theo quy nh ca php lut p dng c ch nh bi cc quy tc la chn thm quyn ca ta n tin hnh cc th tc thi hnh. Mt vn c th pht sinh khi mt trong cc bn tham gia tho thun trng ti l mt nh nc, mt c quan thng mi nh nc hoc c quan php lut khc v bn c min tr ch quyn nh mt bin php trnh trng ti. Nh mt quy lut, bin php nh vy l khng thnh cng. y l ph hp vi quan im cho rng mt nh nc c hng quyn min tr, trong trng hp hnh ng iure imperii, trong khi kh nng min dch khng th c cng nhn trong trng hp Nh nc c cc mi quan h php l iure gestionis. Hiu lc chnh thc ca tho thun

The formal validity of the arbitration agreement

may also be invoked as a ground to prevent the award from being enforced. According to the wording of the provision, the formal validity of the agreeme nt is determined primarily according to the law chosen by the parties to govern t he agreement. Subsidiarily, the law of the country where the award was made shall apply. Despite these choice-oflaw rules, the most frequently invoked ground unde r Article II(2) is the invalidity of the arbitration agreement In Socit Van Hopplynus v. Socit Coherent In c.,66 which concerned a distributorship contract between the Belgium plai ntiff and the United States defendant, one of the issues raised was the law appli cable to the validity of the arbitral clause under Article V(1)(a) NYC. The defendant objected to the validity of the arbitral clause relying on the Be lgian Law on Exclusive Distributorship of 27 July 1961. In the relevant part of the judgment, the Belgium court held that

trng ti cng c th c da vo ngn cc qut nh t vic c cho thi hnh. Theo t ng ca vic cung cp, gi tr chnh thc ca tha thun c xc nh ch yu theo php lut cc bn chn qun l tha thun. Php lut ca nc ni quyt nh c lp s c p dng, mc d c nhng quy tc la chn thm quyn, vic thng xuyn vin dn quy nh ti iu II (2) v hiu tho thun trng ti Trong Socit Vn Hopplynus v Socit Inc, lin quan n mt hp ng phn phi gia nguyn n B v b n Hoa K, mt trong nhng vn t ra l lut p dng cho hp l ca iu khon trng ti theo iu V (1) (a) Cng c New York. B n phn i hiu lc ca iu khon trng ti da trn Lut B v c quyn Phn phi ngy 27 thng 7 nm 1961. Trong cc phn lin quan ca bn n,Ta n B cho rng: "N p ng y , tuy nhin, cn lu rng mc ch chung ca cc bn l hp ng gia h vi lut php ca Tiu Bang California [...]. Cng c New York cng nhn nguyn tc t ch hp ng (iu V (1) (a)) v trong thc t cho cc bn t do tho thun v lut p dng. Trong trng hp ny, cc iu khon trng ti l hp l theo Lut California. Do ,iu II ca Cng c New York

[i]t suffices, however, to note that the common int ention of the parties was to submit the contract between them to the law of the State of California []. The New York Convention recognizes the principle of contractual autonomy (Art. V(1)(a)) and in fact gives the parties the fr eedom to agree on the applicable law. In the present case, the arbitral cla use is valid according to California law. Art. II of the New York Convention requires, therefore, that the court recognize the validity of the arbitral claus

e.

yu cu, ta n cng nhn gi tr ca iu khon trng ti. " Cch din t ca cc quy nh v th tc quy nh rng, nu bn chng li Quyt nh, (a) khng c thng bo thch hp ca vic b nhim ca trng ti hoc t tng trng ti hoc (b) l khng th trnh by trng hp ca mnh, ta n c th t chi thi hnh quyt nh. Ni cch khc, quy nh ny lin quan n cc nguyn tc c bn ca th tc php lut cho php c hai bn trnh by trng hp ca h. Gi tr khc nhau c thc hin trong php l v cc trng hp php lut quy nh v vn ny. Trong khi cc hc gi cho rng nn c hiu nh mt quy lut hi ngh thng nht, ta n cho rng n phi c s tham kho kin trong nc (lut ta n ni thc thi) ca qu trnh do vi phm. Khi nim "thng bo thch hp" c ngha l cc thng bo v vic ch nh trng ti vin v t tng trng ti phi y v thch hp. iu ny khng c ngha l n phi trong mt hnh thc c bit, cng khng ch nh thi hn m ngi tr li nn t tn cc trng ti vin.Trong trng hp him hoi khi giy chp nhn b t chi theo iu V (1) (b), cc bn khng c thng bo v tn ca cc trng ti vin. Cc t ng "khng th trnh by trng hp ca mnh" ch mt khi

The wording of the provision on due process provid es that, if the party against whom the award is invoked, (a) was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or (b) was otherwise unable to present his case, the court may refuse the enfo rcement of the award. In other words, this provision concerns the fundamen tal principle of procedural law to enable both parties to present their case. Dif ferent stands are taken in legal scholarship and the case law on this issue. W hile scholars maintain that this ground should be interpreted as a uniform c onvention rule, the courts believe it should be construed with reference to do mestic notions (lex fori of the place of enforcement) of due process violation s.67

The notion of proper not ice implies that the notice of the appointment of the arbitrator and of the arb itral proceedings must be adequate and appropriate. This does not mean that it must be in a particular form,68 nor does it designate the time limit in which the respondent should name the arbitrator(s).69 In the rare cases where the exeq uatur has been refused under Article V(1)(b), the parties had not been infor med of the names of the arbitrators.70

The wording unable to pr esent his case implies a concept restricted to seriou

s violations of the arbitral p rocedural rules. It includes the arbitrators duty to inform the other party of w hatever arguments and evidence had been submitted by the opposing party, thu s giving the former a chance to reply.71 There have been several cases in whic h the parties invoked the brevity of the time limit fo r the preparation of defence as a violation of due process under Article V(1)(b). However, those attempts 72 were unsuccessful. Similarly, the Italian Suprem e Court decided that due pr ocess had not been infringed, although it remarke d that too short a time limi t to appear before the arbitrators [] is ground for refusal of enforcement of the foreign arbitral award in the New York Convention.73 Furthermo re, a party which purposely does not participate in the proceedings before th e arbitrators and remains inactive may not rely o n Article V(1)(b). This also includes awards rendered in default.

nim gii hn vi phm nghim trng cc quy nh v th tc trng ti. N bao gm cc nhim v ca Trng ti vin thng bo cho bn kia bit v bt c iu g lp lun v bng chng c a ra ca bn i phng, to mt c hi tr li. C mt s trng hp trong cc bn vin dn s gii hn thi hn chun b s bin h l vi phm th tc theo iu V (1) (b). Tuy nhin, nhng n lc khng thnh cng. Tng t, ta n ti cao quyt nh th tc khng b vi phm, mc d nhn xt "thi hn xut hin trc khi cc trng ti vin [...] l qu ngn t chi thi hnh phn quyt trng ti nc ngoi theo Cng c New York. Hn na, mt bn m c tnh khng tham gia t tng trc cc trng ti vin v vn khng tr li theo iu V (1) (b). iu ny cng bao gm cc quyt nh c mc nh.

The United States Distri ct Court, Southern District of New York, decidin g Overseas Cosmos, Inc. v. V 74 essel Corp., concerning the failure to pay a deposit under the contract for the sale of the vessel, ruled that the award rendered b y the arbitration tribunal se ated in London did not fall under the exception o f Article V(1)(b). Among ot her things, the plaintiff alleged that the award shoul

Ta n qun Hoa K, huyn pha Nam ca New York, quyt nh Cosmos nc ngoi, Inc v tu Corp, lin quan n vic khng tr tin t cc theo cc hp ng mua bn tu, phn quyt rng quyt nh c a ra bi To n trng ti London khng thuc cc trng hp ngoi l ca iu V (1) (b). Trong s nhng iu khc, nguyn n cho rng quyt nh khng c thi hnh bi v n c tr li trong mc nh. Hn na,

Nguyn n cho rng n thiu thng

not be enforced because bo ca trng ti. Tuy nhin, da trn it had been rendered in default. Furthermore the s tht ca v n, ta n kt lun: plaintiff alleged that it la cked notice of arbitration. However, based on th e facts of the case, the court concluded:
Respondents alleged la ck of participation in the arbitration proceeding, even if true, could only be interpreted as intentional. The proper course, however, could have been for respondent to object to the proceeding entirely [], which it clearly di d not do, rather than simply refuse to participate. [] Accordingly, [] the court finds that respondent was given ample notice of the arbitration and an adequate opportunity to present its defences and objections

n ca b co buc thiu s tham gia trong qu trnh t tng trng ti, thm ch nu ng s tht, ch c th c hiu l c ch .Tuy nhin, c th tr li phn i vic th tc hon ton [...], n r rng khng lm, ch khng phi ch n gin l t chi tham gia. [...] Theo , [...] ta n thy ngi tr li c a ra "thng bo rng ri ca trng ti v y c hi trnh by phng th ca n v phn i " Trong khi khon 1 (b) qu trnh giao dch, khon 2 (b) ca iu V quy nh ni t chi thi hnh nu quyt nh trng ti l tri vi chnh sch cng ca quc gia ni thi hnh quyt nh. N thng cng nhn rng qu trnh do mt b phn ca chnh sch cng. Trong bi cnh ny cu hi t ra l liu cc iu khon c th ca iu V (1) (b) khng bao gm nhng cn c theo ng th tc t vic cung cp chung ca iu V (2) (b). Tm quan trng ca cu hi ny l r rng trong bi cnh thc t l trc y ni c th c To n xem xt ch khi a ra bi t cc bn, trong khi ta n ng nhin c tnh

While paragraph 1(b) deals with due process, pa ragraph 2(b) of Article V stipulates the ground for refusal of enforcement if th e arbitral award is contrary to the public policy of the country where enforcemen t is sought. It is commonly recognized that due process constitutes part of pu blic policy. In this context the question arises whether the specific provision o f Article V(1)(b) excludes the due process grounds from the general provisio n of Article V(2)(b).75 The importance of this question is obvious in light o f the fact that the former ground may be considered by the court only if raised by the parties themselves, whereas the court takes account of the latter ex of ficio. Given the essential

position of the due process requirement, it may be concluded that the special provision of Article V(1)(b) was inserted as a manif estation of its importance. Therefore, Article V(2)(b) should be interpreted as in cluding the specific ground referred to in Article V(1)(b).76

n sau ny. Vi v tr thit yu ca cc yu cu th tc, c th kt lun rng quy nh c bit ca iu V (1) (b) c a vo nh l mt biu hin quan trng ca n. V vy, iu V (2) (b) nn c hiu l bao gm c ni c th quy nh ti iu V (1) (b) Vt qu thm quyn ca trng ti l cn c t chi cng nhn v cho thi hnh khng lin quan n trng hp mt trng ti hon ton thiu nng lc. Tnh hung nh vy ri vo iu V (1) (a). Tng t nh vy, iu V (1) (c) khng p dng cho trng hp thiu nng lc trn lnh th ca s v hiu tho thun trng ti, m l mt ni ring bit t chi thi hnh theo khon 1 (a) ca iu V. Tng t, c hai cn c thng xuyn c coi l mt trong nhng php lut trng ti gn y. l cho rng vt qu thm quyn ca trng ti vin phi c gii thch hn nh. Biu hin ny bao gm cc tnh hung m trng ti quyt nh cc vn khng tho thun trng ti cng khng phi bi cc iu khon ca ti liu tham kho. Ni cch khc, trng ti quyt nh tuyn b khng xem xt cc bn hoc tha thun trng ti nc ngoi. V d, khon 1 (c) p dng i vi cc tnh hung khi mt trng ti quyt nh tranh chp c aequo et bono m khng c thm quyn thch hp hoc khi quyt nh

Excess of authority by the arbitrator as a ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement does not involve cases where an arbi trator lacked competence entirely. Such situations fall under Article V(1)(a). Similarly, Article V(1)(c) does not apply to cases of lack of competence on t he ground of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, which is a separate groun d for denying enforcement under paragraph 1(a) of Article V .77 In the light of the ir similarity, both grounds have frequently been treated as one in recent arb itration legislation.78 It is generally held that excess authority by the arbit rator is to be interpreted restrictively.

This expression covers situations where an arbit rator has decided matters covered neither by the arbitration agreement nor b y the terms of reference.79 In other words, the arbitrator has decided claims not considered by the parties or outside the arbitration agreement.80 For example , paragraph 1(c) applies to situations when an arbitrator decided the dispute ex aequo et bono without proper authorization or where the award is rendere d outside the time limit set by the parties.

c cung cp bn ngoi gii hn quy nh thi gian ca cc bn.


Article V(1)(c) permits enforcement of the part o f the award dealing with questions submitted to arbitration, provided the r elevant part of the award can be separated from the parts that do not com ply with the terms of the arbitration agreement.81

iu V (1) (c) cho php thi hnh mt phn ca quyt nh i vi cu hi a ra trng ti, cung cp cc phn c lin quan ca quyt nh c th c tch ra t cc b phn m khng tun th cc iu khon ca tha thun trng ti. Trong De Agostini v nhng Milloil khc, ta n khng tm thy s tn ti ca cn c t chi theo iu V (1) (c) Cng c New York, tuy nhin, n c t chc bi mt quyt nh tr li vn ch s hu thay v theo lut ny s vt qu iu khon trng ti hoc tho thun trong trng hp . Khi cc b co tm kim quyt nh thi hnh ICC ti , cc nguyn n phn i, co buc nc ngoi nhng iu khc rng cc trng ti hnh ng vt qu thm quyn ca mnh bng cch lm cho quyt nh cng bng, trong khi iu khon trng ti quy nh trng ti theo quy nh ca php lut. Ta n thy rng quyt nh ca Trng ti vin lm thit hi cho b co trn phn t ca mnh khng phi l mt quyt nh cng bng. C th, quyt nh cng bng phi c phn bit bng thit hi trong quyt nh, l mt quyt nh theo quy nh ca php lut.

In De Agostini and others v. Milloil and others, the court did not find the existence of a ground for r efusal under Article V(1)(c) NYC; however, it held that a decision rendered in equity instead of according to the law would exceed the arbitral clause or agr eement in that case. When the defendants sough t enforcement of the ICC a ward in Italy, the plaintiffs objected, alleging inter alia that the arbitrators ha d acted in excess of their authority by rendering th e award in equity, whereas t he arbitral clause provided for arbitration accordin g to the law. The court foun d that the arbitrators decision to award damages t o the defendant on its counte rclaim was not a decision in equity. Namely, equity in deciding must be disting uished from equity in awarding damages, which is a decision according to th e law.
82

Under paragraph 1(d) of Article V the respondent may oppose recognition and enforcement on the ground that the compositio n of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration proceedings did not comply with t he parties agreement or, where there is no agreement, that it did not comply with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.83

Theo khon 1 (d) ca iu V b n c th phn i vic cng nhn v cho thc thi trn lnh th m cc thnh phn ca hi ng trng ti hoc th tc t tng trng ti khng ph hp vi tho thun ca cc bn hoc, ni khng c tho thun, cho rng n khng thc hin theo php lut ca nc ni trng ti xt x. Tha thun ca cc bn lin quan n thnh phn ca hi ng trng ti hoc t tng trng ti thay th cho cc quy tc quc gia ca nc ni trng ti din ra, ngoi tr cc yu cu qu trnh c bn. Ni chung, php lut ca nc ni trng ti din ra l vic vng mt ca s tha thun.

An agreement by the parties regarding the composit ion of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings supersedes the national rules of the country where the arbitration took place, except for the fundam ental requirements of due process. Generally, the law of the country where t he arbitration took place comes into play in the absence of an agreement.84

In Tongyuan v. UniClan,85 the parties concluded a contract to sell, insta ll and satisfactorily test two sachetfilling machines. Since one of the machines was defective, the award ordered UniClan to take the machine back and reimburse the price together with interest. After enforceme nt was granted, Uni-Clan took action to set aside the enforcement order, ar guing that the arbitration was held in Beijing and not in Shenzhen or Shan ghai, as stipulated in the arbitral clause. The High Court of Justice, Queens Be nch Division Commercial Court, in its decision of 19 January 2001 rejected t he claim, finding that the change in the venue of the proceedings was not cru cial for the validity of the arbitral award, especially because the seller had f ailed to participate in the

Trong Tongyuan v Uni-Clan, cc bn tham gia k kt mt hp ng mua bn, ci t v th nghim hai my gi-in. K t khi mt trong nhng my b li, quyt nh ra lnh Uni-Clan my tr li v hon tr gi cng vi li. Sau khi thc thi c cp, Uni-Clan hnh ng thit lp sang mt bn thc thi, cho rng cc trng ti c t chc ti Bc Kinh m khng Thm Quyn hay Thng Hi, theo quy nh ti iu khon trng ti. Ta n t php ti cao, phng thng mi Queen Bench, quyt nh ngy 19 Thng 1 nm 2001 t chi yu cu bi thng, thy rng cc thay i a im ca th tc t tng l khng quan trng i vi tnh hp l ca quyt nh

proceedings. Since UniClan had shown no interest in participating in th e proceedings, the fact that the arbitration was con ducted in Beijing had no effect on the fairness of the proceedings, or on the applicable law.

trng ti, c bit l bi v ngi bn khng tham gia vo th tc t tng. T Uni-Clan th hin s khng quan tm vic tham gia th tc t tng, thc t l cc trng ti c tin hnh Bc Kinh khng c nh hng n s cng bng ca qu trnh t tng, hoc trn cc lut p dng. Vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh cng c th b t chi nu "quyt nh cha c hiu lc rng buc cc bn, hoc c t sang mt bn hoc nh ch ca c quan c thm quyn ca nc , hoc theo php lut nc , quyt nh c thc hin. " Tri ngc vi trc khi c Cng c New York " mt quyt nh khng cn c tuyn b thc thi theo php lut ca ni tin hnh trng ti c rng buc trong ngha ca iu V (1) (e) ".Nhn chung, lut p dng cho cc quyt nh c p dng khi xc nh liu quyt nh c tr thnh bt buc i vi cc bn.Tuy nhin, ta n c lin quan quyt nh v quan im trong khoa hc php l l ch trng gii quyt vn ny mt cch t ch c lp vi lut p dng . Theo quy nh, n c th, min l mt quyt nh c th c xem xt trc ta n c thm quyn hoc trc khi mt c quan phc thm quyt nh trng ti, mt quyt nh nh vy vn cha

The recognition and enforcement of the award m ay also be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.

Contrary to the situation prior to the New York Co nvention, an award need not be declared enforceable under the law of the pl ace of arbitration in order to be binding within the meaning of Article V(1)(e) .86 It is generally accepted that the law applicable to the award applies when determining whether the award has became binding on the parties. There ar e, however, relevant court decisions and views in legal scholarship that advoc ate resolving this matter in an autonomous manner independent of the applica ble law.87 As a rule, it can be said that, as long as an award can be challenged b efore courts with ordinary jurisdiction or before an arbitral appellate body, s uch an award has not yet become binding on the parties. In all cases, the burd en is on the party resisting

enforcement to prove that the award has not yet be come binding

tr thnh bt buc i vi cc bn. Trong mi trng hp, gnh nng l trn bn chng thc thi chng minh rng cc quyt nh vn cha tr thnh rng buc.

However, in cases where the parties have agreed th at the arbitral award shall be final and binding, the question has been raised w hether national rules of the country where the award was rendered or the will of t he parties shall be decisive.

Tuy nhin, trong trng hp cc bn ng rng quyt nh trng ti c trch nhim l cui cng v rng buc, cu hi c t ra liu quy tc quc gia m quyt nh c tr li hoc ch ca cc bn l quyt nh. Trong mt trng hp lin quan n vic thc thi mt quyt nh Jordan, Brussels Cour d'Appel (Ta n cp phc thm) t chi tt c cc cn c khng co v khng nh quyt nh ca ta cp di m php lut Jordan khng p dng i vi vn ny. nh cu hi lm th no xc nh ti thi im mt quyt nh tr nn rng buc, Cour d'Appel pht hin ra rng, trn c s ca iu V (1),

In a case concerning the enforcement of a Jordan ian award,88 the Brussels Cour dAppel (Court of Appeal) rejected all groun ds for appeal and affirmed the lower courts decision that Jordanian law did no t apply to this issue. As to the question how to determine at which point an a ward becomes binding, the Cour dAppel found that, on the basis of Article V (1),89

it clearly appears that the Convention considers th e will of the parties to be fundamental to the arbitration proceedings

"N xut hin r rng rng Cng c xem xt mun ca cc bn tham gia c bn cc th tc t tng trng ti Duy tr cc quyt nh phi c rng buc theo hp ng ca cc bn, ta n kt lun:

Maintaining that the award must be binding in acco rdance with the agreement of the parties, the court concluded:

The agreement of the parties provides that the awar d of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding, and thus immediately enforceable upon being rendered. It does not provide for an appeal. Accord ing to the agreement of the parties, the award has become binding upon bei ng rendered. In fact, the arbitral award states that it is effective as of the d ate hereof.90

"Cc tha thun ca cc bn quy nh rng cc quyt nh ca hi ng trng ti l quyt nh cui cng v rng buc, do hiu lc thi hnh ngay lp tc sau khi c tr li. N khng cho khng co. Theo tha thun ca cc bn tham gia, quyt nh tr thnh rng buc c tr li. Trong thc t, quyt nh trng ti tiu bang c hiu lc 'k t ngy c Thng t ny. "

Alternative grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of the award under Article V(1)(e) are the setting aside or suspe nsion of the award by the court of the country in which the award was ren dered or under the law of which the award was made. Again, the burden is on the party resisting enforcement to prove that the award has been se t aside or suspended. As regards suspension, the party resisting enforcem ent must prove that the suspension of the award has been effectively ordere d by a court in the country of origin. The automatic suspension of the award by operatio n of law in the country91 of origin is not sufficient.92

C s t chi cng nhn v thi hnh quyt nh theo iu V (1) (e) l vic hy hoc nh ch quyt nh do ta n ca t nc, trong gii thng c tr li hoc theo php lut m quyt nh c thc hin. Mt ln na, gnh nng l trn bn chng thc thi chng minh rng cc quyt nh c t sang mt bn hoc b treo. nh ch lin quan, bn chng thc thi "phi chng minh rng nh ch quyt nh c lnh c hiulc bi mt ta n trong nc .... H thng t ng ca quyt nh bi hot ng ca php lut trong nc l khng . Tm tt:

Summary: The list of grounds f

cn c t chi vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt nh or refusal of the recognition and enforcement trng ti theo Cng c New York l of an arbitral award under the NYC is exclusiv c quyn v nn c gii thch hn nh. e and they should be interpreted restrictively. i l do t chi: cn c There are two catego bi cc bn (iu V (1)), v nhng

ngi ta n gi l ng nhin (iu be invoked by the parties (Article V(1)), and those V (2)). chi theo iu V (1) which the court bao gm: may invoke ex officio (Article V(2)). (a) khng nng lc ca cc bn, The grounds for ref khng hp l chnh thc tho thun usal under Article V(1) include: trng ti, (a)incapacity of (b) hnh vi vi phm th tc, the parties and formal invalidity of (c) vt qu thm quyn ca trng ti, the (d) vi phm ca cc thnh phn ca arbitration agreement, hi ng trng ti hoc th tc t tng (b)violation of due trng ti process, (e) quyt nh cha c hiu lc rng (c)excess of authori buc hoc c t sang mt bn hoc b treo. ty by the arbitrator,
ries of grounds for refusal: grounds which may (d)infringement of t he composition of the arbitral tribunal or of the arbitration proceedings and (e)the award has n ot yet become binding or has been set aside or suspended.

8. GROUNDS FOR EX OFFICIO 8. Cn c ng nhin t chi vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh REFUSAL OF THE RECOGNITION AND ENFOR quyt nh trng ti: iu V (2) CEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS: ARTICLE V(2)
The grounds that the court may invoke ex officio f or the refusal to recognize and enforce an arbitral award are laid down in the se cond paragraph of Article V, which reads:

Vi l do ta n c th gi ng nhin t chi vic cng nhn v cho thi hnh cc quyt nh trng ti c quy nh trong on th hai ca iu V, c quy nh:

Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral awar

"Cng nhn v cho thi hnh quyt

d may also be refused if the competent authority in the country where recogn ition and enforcement is sought finds that:(a) The subject matter of the diff erence is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that count ry; or(b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.

nh trng ti cng c th b t chi nu c quan c thm quyn ca nc cng nhn v cho thi hnh thy rng: (a) Cc i tng c s khc bit l khng c kh nng gii quyt bng trng ti theo php lut ca nc , hoc (b) Vic cng nhn hoc cho thi hnh cc quyt nh s tri vi chnh sch cng ca quc gia . "

Under Article II(1) NYC, every arbitration presu pposes the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. One of the conditions f or validity stipulated in the same provision is the arbitrability of the subject matter. The concept of arbitrability is also found in Article V(2)(a) howev er, as a ground for refusal to enforce the award: the award need not be recogni zed and enforced if [t]he subject matter is not capable of settlement by ar bitration under the law of the country where recognition and enforcement is sought. For their part, national legal systems have reserved a number of issues for adjudication by the judiciary, thus making them nonarbitrable. Classic examples include antitrust, the validity of intellectual rights (patents, trademarks, etc.), family law and the protection of weaker parties, all of wh ich differ from country to country.93

Theo iu II (1) Cng c New York, mi trng ti gi nh s tn ti ca mt tho thun trng ti c hiu lc. Mt trong nhng iu kin hiu lc c quy nh trong cung cp cng l s phn x vn . Cc khi nim v S phn x cng c thy trong iu V (2) (a) tuy nhin, cn c t chi thi hnh cc quyt nh: quyt nh khng cn phi c cng nhn v thi hnh nu "lnh vc ... khng c kh nng gii quyt bng trng ti "theo php lut ca quc gia ni cng nhn v thi hnh quyt nh. V phn mnh, h thng php lut quc gia t nhiu vn xt x bi t php, do khng phn x c. V d c in bao gm chng c quyn, tnh hp l ca quyn s hu tr (bng sng ch, thng hiu, vv), h thng php lut l bo v bn yu hn, tt c u khc nhau t quc gia ny sang Quc gia khc. hn ch s kim sot ta n gii

As a means of limiting court control of the arbitrabi

lity of a dispute, more and more countries are making a distinction between th e arbitrability of domestic and of international disputes. According to Gaill ard and Savage, such a distinction enables a dispute to be found nonarbitrable under a countrys domestic law, without necessarily preventing the r ecognition in that country of a foreign award dealing with the same subjec t matter.94 By using this approach, United States federal courts have reco gnized the arbitrability in international arbitrations of disputes concerning se curities and antitrust law, although at the time these subjects were conside red non-arbitrable under national law.

quyt tranh chp, nhiu quc gia ang lm c s phn bit gia gii quyt trong nc v cc tranh chp quc t. Theo Gaillard v Savage, s phn bit cho php "mt tranh chp khng c phn x theo php lut trong nc, m khng nht thit phi ngn chn vic cng nhn trong nc mt quyt nh nc ngoi i ph vi cng mt vn ". Bng phng php tip cn ny, ta n lin bang Hoa K nhn ra s gii quyt trong trng ti quc t ca tranh chp lin quan n chng khon v php lut chng c quyn, mc d vo thi im cc i tng ny c coi l khng phn x theo lut php quc gia.

For example, in Scherk v. AlbertoCulver Co.,95 the parties had signed a contract containing an arbitral clause providing that any co ntroversy or claim arising out of the agreement would be referred to arbitrati on before the ICC in Paris. The applicable law was agreed to be the law of Illinois, United States of America. When AlbertoCulver Co. (U.S.) commenced an action before a federal court in Illinois, Scherk filed a motion t o stay the action pending arbitration in Paris according to the arbitral claus e. The case turned on the issue of arbitration : under the United States Se curities Exchange Act of 1934, agreements to arbitrate liabilities had been held to be void and inoperative. Contrary to its practice in domestic arbitrations , the court nevertheless recognized the validity of the agreement of the parties

V d, trong cng ty Scherk v Alberto Culver cc bn k kt mt hp ng ghi nhn iu khon trng ti quy nh rng bt k tranh ci hoc khiu ni pht sinh ra khi tha thun ny s c a n trng ti trc khi n ICC ti Paris. Lut p dng c ng l lut ca bang Illinois, Hoa K. Khi cng tyAlberto Culver (M) bt u mt hnh ng trc khi n ta n lin bang Illinois, Scherk np mt chuyn ng hnh ng cp pht chnh thc trng ti Paris theo iu khon trng ti. Trng hp vn trng ti: di o lut Giao dch chng khon Hoa K nm 1934, hip nh phn x n c t chc l v hiu v khng hot ng.Tri vi thc t ca n trong th tc trng ti trong

to arbitrate and concluded that the award would be enforced by the federal cou rts in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. In its reasons, t he United States Supreme Court stated:

nc, ta n vn cng nhn tnh hp l ca tho thun trng ti phn x v kt lun rng quyt nh s c thc thi bi cc ta n lin bang theo quy nh ca Lut Trng ti. Trong nhng l do, l ta n ti cao Hoa K pht biu: "S v hiu ca mt tha thun nh vy ... s khng ch cho php ngi tr li bc b tho thun ca mnh nhng s tt, nu phn nh mt "s chp nhn tt c cc tranh chp phi c gii quyt theo php lut ca chng ti v trong cc ta n ca chng ti ... Chng ti khng th c thng mi v thng mi ti cc th trng th gii v vng bin quc t c quyn v cc iu khon ca chng ti, chi phi bi lut ca chng ti, v gii quyt ti ta n ca chng ti. "

The invalidation of such an agreement would not only allow the respondent to repudiate its solemn promise but would, as well, ref lect a parochial concept that all disputes must be resolved under our laws and in our courts We cannot have trade and commerce in world markets and international waters exclusively on our terms, governed by our laws, and r esolved in our courts.96

With regard to the public policy ground for refusal, t he question arises whether the notion of public policy is to be interpreted in the s ame way in both domestic and international cases. As seen in the AlbertoCulver case, the courts may make a distinction between these two situations. A lthough paragraph 2(b) is not explicit on this point, the view prevails that the r eference in that provision to public policy is in fact a reference to the interna tional public policy of the host jurisdiction.97 As a rule, the courts constru e this ground for refusal narrowly

i vi chnh sch cng cho vic t chi, cu hi t ra l liu khi nim v chnh sch cng cng phi c gii thch trong cng mt cch trong c nc v cc trng hp quc t. Nh thy trong trng hp Alberto-Culver, To n c th phn bit gia hai tnh hung ny. Mc d khon 2 (b) l khng r rng im ny, quan im chim u th m cc ti liu tham kho trong iu khon n chnh sch cng l "thc ra l mt tham chiu n chnh sch cng quc t v thm quyn ".

Theo quy nh, cc ta n quc gia gii quyt l t chi trong gang tc

This was confirmed by the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania in its decision in CBS and others v. W AK Orient Power & Light Ltd.98 With regard to the public policy exception in voked by WAK, the court found:

iu ny c xc nhn bi cc Ta n Hoa K cho cc huyn Pennsylvania v quyt nh ca mnh trong CBS v nhng ngi khc WAK Orient Power & Light Ltd.Lin quan n cc trng hp ngoi l chnh sch cng bng cch gi WAK, ta n cho rng: "Ngoi l ca chnh sch cng l rt hp .... Cc ta n cho rng ngoi tr ch p dng khi "thc thi s vi phm khi nim c bn nht ca nh nc v o c v cng l"

[T]he public policy exception is very narrow. T he courts have held that the exception is only applicable when enforcement would violate the forum states most basic notions of morality and justice.

Similarly, the Swiss Supreme Court rejected the re quest invoking the public policy exception in its decision of 9 January 1995. 99 According to the court, the public policy defence has to be narrowly construed, especially in enforcement proceedings so as to be understood a s opposing:

Tng t nh vy, Ta n ti cao Thy S bc b yu cu gi chnh sch ngoi l trong chnh sch quyt nh ngy 09 thng 1nm 1995. Theo ta n, vic bo v chnh sch cng phi c hiu hp, c bit l trong th tc thc thi c hiu nh l i lp: "Vic thi hnh quyt nh trng ti nc ngoi v xc phm php lut Thy S mt cch khng th chp nhn v vi phm cc nguyn tc c bn ca h thng php lut Thy S "

the enforcement of forei gn arbitral awards which hurt the Swiss legal feeling in an intolerable manner and violate the fundamental principles of the Swiss legal system

As seen in the above cases , international public policy is basically national as it can be sanctioned only 100 by national judges. There is, however, a different approach that is truly inter national, hence the name ordre public rellement international.

Nh thy trong cc trng hp trn, chnh sch cng quc t c bn l quc gia "N c th ch b x pht bi thm phn quc gia" . Tuy nhin, mt cch tip cn khc l quc t tht s, do tn "trt t cng cng quc t . "

This view, which is in the m inority, is found in Allsop Automatic Inc. v. Techoski snc,101 where the Corte di Appello (Court of Appeal) of Milan defined the notion of international pu blic policy as follows:

Quan im ny, trong cc dn tc thiu s, c tm thy trong Allsop Automatic Inc v Techoski snc, ni Corte di Appello (Ta n cp phc thm) Milan xc nh khi nim v chnh sch cng quc t nh sau:

We must say where the consistency [with public poli cy] is to be examined, reference must be made t o the socalled international public policy, being a body of universal princ iples shared by nationals of similar civilizations, aiming at the protection of fundamental human rights, often embodied in international declaration s or conventions.

Phi ni ni thng nht [vi chnh sch cng] l c kim tra, ti liu tham kho phi c thc hin vi chng trnh chnh sch cng quc t, l mt nguyn tc ph qut chia s cc cng dn ca nn vn minh tng t,nhm bo v cc quyn c bn ca con ngi, thng c th hin trong quy c t khai quc t c. " Cc quy tc ca mt chnh sch c th ni l bao gm "nguyn tc c bn ca lut t nhin, cc nguyn tc ca cng l ph qut trong php lut quc t v cc nguyn tc chung v o c c chp nhn bi nhng g c gi l'Quc gia vn minh. "

The rules of such a polic y can be said to comprise fundamental rules of natural law, the principles o f universal justice, jus cogens in public international law and the general princi ples of morality accepted by what is referred to as civilized nations.102

In comparative case law o n the NYC, several matters are deemed to constitut e a violation of public poli cy: lack of impartiality of the arbitrators, lack o f reasons in the award, irre gularities in the arbitral procedure etc. One of th e fundamental requirements of every commercial arbitration, the independence of the arbitrators, presuppo ses that there are no connexions between the parties and the arbitrators that co uld result in a personal interest on the part of an arbitrator; any conflict of in terests amounts to impartiality, making it impossible for the arbitrator to act in dependently.

Trong trng hp php lut so snh trong Cng c New York, mt s vn c coi l cu thnh vi phm chnh sch cng: thiu cng bng ca cc trng ti, thiu l do trong cc gii thng, nhng vi phm trong t tng trng ti Mt trong nhng yu cu c bn ca tt c cc trng ti thng mi, s c lp ca trng ti vin, gi nh rng khng c s tham gia gia cc bn v cc trng ti vin c th dn n mt li ch c nhn trn mt phn ca mt trng ti vin; bt k xung t li ch lin quan n vic cng bng, lm cho trng ti khng th hot ng c lp. Trong quyt nh ngy 24 thng 3 nm 1998 trong phim truyn hnh excelsior, srl v UGC-PH, cc gim c thm Php (Ta n ti cao) t chi li ku gi Excelsior v khng nh quyt nh ca ta cp di t chi thi hnh phn quyt trng ti cung cp ti Rome vo cn c ca chnh sch cng cho thiu cng bng ca cc trng ti. B nhim cc bn cng trong th tc trng ti song song din ra ti Php v Roma, trng ti cho bit truyn t thng tin sai lch ca Hi ng trng ti La M, do nh hng n s quyt nh ta n v quyn ti phn. Gii quyt vn khng thin v, Ta n ti cao khng nh kt lun ca ta cp di:

In its decision of 24 Marc h 1998 in Excelsior Film TV, srl v. UGC-PH,103 the French Cour de Cassatio n (Supreme Court) denied Excelsior s appeal an d affirmed the lower courts decision to refuse enforcement of the arbitral award rendered in Rome on grou nds of public policy for lack of impartiality of one of the arbitrators. Appoint ed by the same party in parallel arbitrations taking place in France and Rom e, the said arbitrator was found to have conveye d erroneous information to the Roman arbitral panel, thus influencing the tribunals decision on juri sdiction. Addressing the issue of impartiality, the Supreme Court affirmed t he lower courts conclusion:

The court drew the conclusion that this disloyality of an arbitrator, who was connected to one of the parties as revealed in the award, so that it cannot be inferred from UGCPHs failure to challenge this ar bitator that it waived its right to rely on this irregularity created an imbalance between the parties, amounting to a violation of due process, so that the award rendered in Italy under such conditions violates French public policy in the sense of both Articles mentioned above [Art. V(2)(b) NYC and Art. 150 2(5) of the new French CCP].

"Ta n n kt lun rng trng ti vin khng trung thc, l ngi kt ni vi mt trong cc bn - nh tit l trong cc quyt nh, do n khng th c suy ra t tht bi thch thc UGCPH thay i phn quyt, phi da vo bt thng ny to ra s mt cn bng gia cc bn, s tin l vi phm th tc, cc quyt nh xut hin trong iu kin , nh vy vi phm chnh sch ca cng chng Php trong ngha ca c hai iu cp trn "[iu V (2) (b) Cng c New York v iu1502 (5) ca Php " Ngoi tr chnh sch cng cng c th c p dng trong trng hp quyt nh khng cha nhng l do.Tuy nhin, vic khng cung cp l do thng khng dn ti mt hnh vi vi phm chnh sch cng. Mt khc, nu cc quyt nh c l do, nhng c nhng mu thun nghim trng trong l lun, iu nyc th c coi l mt hnh vi xm phm chnh sch cng. Gim c thm Php c thm quyn trong vn ny cho rng vic khng a ra l do khng phi l "bn thn tri vi s hiu bit ca chnh sch cng quc t Php ". Nu php lut t tng hin hnh hoc quy tc trng ti yu cu l do c a ra, s khng tun th cc yu cu "bin minh cho quyt nh c t sang mt bn hoc t chi thc thi, vi l do cc trng ti vin khng tun th

The public policy exception may also be invoked in cases where the award contains no reasons.104 However, the failure to pro vide reasons usually does not amount to a violation of public policy. On the other hand, if the award contains reasons, but there are serious contradicti ons in the reasoning, this may be considered an infringement of public polic y.105 Ruling on the matter, the French Cour de cassation held that the failure to give reasons is not in itself contrary to the French understanding of inter national public policy.106 Only if the applicable procedural law or arbitration rules require that reasons be given, would failure to comply with such requi rement justify the award being set aside or refused enforcement, on the gr ounds that the arbitrators failed to comply with their brief.107

Summary: The recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused ex officio. The grounds for such refusal are: a) nonarbitrability of the subject matter, and b) violation of the public policy of the law of the country where recognition and enforcement is sought . The nonarbitrability of an award is determined acco rding to the law of the country where recognition and enforcement is sought. Matters deemed to constitute a violation of public policy include, inter alia, impartiality of the arbitrator s, lack of reasons in the award, and irregularities in the arbitral procedur e.

Tm tt: c cng nhn v thi hnh quyt nh trng ti c th ng nhin t chi. cn c t chi l: a) khng phn bit ca cc vn b) vi phm cc chnh sch cng cng ca php lut ca nc ni cng nhn v thi hnh quyt nh. t ca t quyt nh c xc nh theo php lut ca nc ni cng nhn v thi hnh quyt nh. n coi l cu thnh mt s vi phm chnh sch cng bao gm, trong c vic cng bng ca cc trng ti, thiu l do trong quyt nh, v nhng vi phm trong t tng trng ti