Originally from Practice of International Litigation - 2nd Edition

Preview Page

“Manifest disregard of the law” are the words often heard in
international arbitration conferences as part of the clarion call trumpeted
by those seeking to undermine New York as a venue for the conduct of
international arbitration. The argument is made that courts in New York
(and elsewhere in the United States) use the manifest disregard doctrine as
a basis for second-guessing the decisions of arbitrators, thereby
undermining the arbitral process. The allegation raises the question, “truth
or myth?”

As a factual matter, how often have New York courts (and U.S.
courts) actually used the manifest disregard doctrine to vacate an
international arbitration award? And, do the courts of other countries
have their own ways of undoing arbitral awards that they regard as going
beyond what the arbitrators should have done, yet do so under principles
that they call something other than manifest disregard? In a recent report,
the International Commercial Disputes Committee (ICDC) of the New
York City Bar Association looked closely at these issues and made
findings that are arresting. Coauthor David Zaslowsky is a member of the
committee.1