Courts in the United States strongly support the recognition and

enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Parties use arbitration more

and more as a way to settle cases expeditiously out of court. This

method is especially useful in international transactions, where parties

would rather avoid foreign courts. Once an arbitration clause is

created, U.S. courts choose to honor the agreements, as manifest in

the multitude of treaties the international community has dedicated to

this issue. In fact, there are only seven key exceptions to enforcement

under the New York Convention, and even these are interpreted

narrowly. This article will endeavor to examine the processes, values,

and tensions underlying the United States’ positive attitude toward

enforcing foreign arbitration awards.

 

 

Arbitration is a procedure by which parties agree in writing to refer

disputes to an impartial neutral body for final and binding resolution.

This process is considered an increasingly viable alternative to

litigation. Parties often prefer arbitrating to litigating, since it is a

speedier process, which helps both the involved parties and the courts

save time and money. Arbitration also offers more limited grounds

for appeal than does litigation. While parties may view this aspect as

a gamble, it nonetheless proves to be a useful tool, allowing parties to

mitigate their uncertainty over a particular outcome and access more

prompt recovery. Arbitral procedures are also more informal, in that

there are relaxed standards for evidence and no uncertainty over jury

reaction. Many parties also choose to engage in arbitration, since it is

confidential and binding.

 

 

The sophisticated parties that engage in international transactions

find arbitration especially attractive. When they choose to arbitrate,
these parties have the option of selecting a neutral arbitral forum,