PDF OF TITLE PAGE AND T.O.C.

CONTENTS

Preface
About the Author         

CHAPTER 1     Introduction
CHAPTER 2     Interpretation of International Conventions

CHAPTER 3     Drafting History of Article V (2) (b) of the New York Convention

I.          Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927  
II.         ICC Reviewed Geneva Convention and Prepared Preliminary Draft Convention      
A.        Study of Improvements to International Arbitration  
B.         ICC Draft Convention  
C.         ICC Draft Convention and Public Policy Exception           

III.        ECOSOC’s Ad Hoc Committee Prepared Draft Convention        
A.        Ad hoc Committee to Submit a Draft Convention           
B.         Comments by Governments to ICC Draft Convention    
C.         Meeting of the Ad hoc Committee         
D.        Discussion of Public Policy Clause       
E.         Draft Convention of Ad hoc Committee           

IV.       Comments from Governments and NGOs to Draft Convention   
A.        Comments from Governments  
B.         Comments from NGOs 
C.         Comments and Recommendation of the Secretary-General         
D.        Memorandum by the Secretary-General 
E.         Further Comments       
F.         Consolidated Report by the Secretary-General 

V.        United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration           
A.        General Debate
B.         Proposals on, and Discussion of the Public Policy Clause in the Plenary Sessions          
C.         Discussion of Public Policy Clause       
D.        Working Party No. 3 for Articles III – V
E.         Discussion of the Proposal of Working Party No. 3  and Decision on Wording          
F.         Drafting Committee      
G.        Final Text Approval     
H.        Resolution on Measures for Increasing Effectiveness of Arbitration           
I.          Signing
 

CHAPTER 4    Interpretation of Art. V (2) (b)

I.          Limitation of Grounds  
A.         Literal Interpretation     
B.         Confirmed by Drafting History
           
II.        Contrary to the Public Policy “of That Country” 
A.        Literal Interpretation     
B.        Not Governing Law nor Lex Arbitri      
C.        No Transnational Public Policy Intended
D.        Differences Were Accepted
           
III.       Literal Interpretation: “Public Policy” Is Not Identical with “Domestic Law”          
A.        Making Enforcement Easier Than under the 1927 Geneva Convention      
B.        Mistake in Fact or Law is Not Included in Art. V
C.        Even the 1927 Geneva Convention Was Narrower Than “Domestic Law”   
D.        Differences in the Wording of the Public Policy Clause  
E.         Confirmed by Drafting History
 
IV.       “May Also Be Refused”
A.         Discretion        
B.         Pro-Enforcement Bias  
C.         Discretion Can Also Be Exercised in Implementing the Convention in Domestic Law

V.        “Public Policy”—Narrow or Wide Interpretation?
A.        Goal to Uphold Finality of an Award     
B.         Drafting Changes Support Narrow Interpretation
C.         Guidance from Art. 34 and 36 UNCITRAL Model Law?
D.        Pro-Enforcement Policy

VI.       Relationship between Article V(1) and V(2)(b)  
A.        Art. V(1) Has Its Own Meaning and Is Not Included in Art. V(2)
B.         Working Papers Support Back-up Position of Public Policy        
C.         Party Autonomy and Burden of Proof    
D.        ILA Recommendation   
       

CHAPTER 5.     The Application of the Public Policy Exception in Various Countries

I.          AUSTRIA
A.         Law     
B.          Public Policy: Violation Must Concern Basic Principles of the Austrian Legal System 
C.         Parties Cannot Waive the Public Policy Defense
D.         Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement           
1.           No Distinction between Domestic and International Public Policy             
2.          Irreconcilable with Austrian Fundamental Principles       
3.          Lack of Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrators     
4.          Different Standards Based on Closeness to Austria         
5.          Time of Violation Is Relevant     
6.          Burden of Proof            

II.         CANADA
A.         Law     
B.         Public Policy: Fundamental Notions and Principles of Justice     
1.          No Review of Facts or Law          
2.         Fundamentally Offensive to Canadian Principles of Justice and Fairness            
C.         Refusal Is Permissive, Not Mandatory   

III.       ENGLAND       
A.        Law     
B.         Public Policy: Clearly Injurious to the Public Good or Wholly Offensive         
1.          International Public Policy          
2.         Serious Irregularity        
3.         Contrary to Natural Justice         
4.         Harmful to International Relations         
5.         Illegality             
6.         Contractual Penalty under Swiss Law Was Held Enforceable 
C.         Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement           
1.          Illegal English Contract
2.         Uncompromisable Moral Principles      

IV.       FRANCE
A.        Law     
B.         Flagrant, Actual, and Concrete Violation of International Public Policy  
C.         Judge of the Award, Not the Dispute?   
D.        Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement   
1.          Lack of Impartiality      
2.         Failure to Comply with Time-Limit       
3.         Corruption       
4.         Procedural Fraud          
5.         Incompatibility with Res Judicata      

V.        GERMANY       
A.        Law     
B.        Ordre Public International         
C.        Only Severe Defects Can Violate International Public Policy      
1.         Grave Violation of Fundamental Principles of State and Economic Life     
2.         Decisive Impartiality    
3.         Violation of Competition Law   
4.         No Review of the Merits           
5.         The German Constitution Doesn’t Demand an Oral Hearing       
D.        Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement     

VI.       HONG KONG   
A.        Law     
B.         May Refuse     
C.         Narrow Interpretation  
1.          Violation of Most Basic Notions of Morality and Justice
2.         International Public Policy
D.         Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement           

VII.      HUNGARY         
A.        Law     
B.         Public Policy: Broad Interpretation        
C.        "High Amount" of Legal Fees are Contrary to Public Policy       

VIII.     IRELAND
A.         Law     
B.         Public Policy: Narrow Scope    

IX.       ITALY 
A.         Law     
B.         No Review of the Merits           
C.         International Public Policy 
       
X.        JAPAN 
A.        Law     
B.         Public Policy: Basic Principles or Rules of Japanese Judicial Order          

XI.       REPUBLIC OF KOREA       
A.         Law     
B.         Public Policy: Narrow Interpretation      
C.         Good Morals and Social Order  
D.        Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement           

XII.      MALAYSIA       
A.         Law     
B.         Convention Award—Foreign Award     
C.         Public Policy: Malaysian Law, Governmental Policy, and Moral Values 

XIII.     MEXICO       
A.        Law     
B.        No Review of the Merits           
C.        Public Policy   
D.        Exception: Amparo Lawsuits    

XIV.    NEW ZEALAND
A.        Law     
B.        Public Policy: Breach of Fundamental Principle of Law and Justice           
C.        Public Policy: Obvious, Substantial Miscarriage of Justice         

XV.     REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES   
A.        Law     
B.         Mixed Application       

XVI.    SINGAPORE
A.        Law     
B.        Purpose of the International Arbitration Act: Establishing an International Arbitration Center
C.        Primary and Secondary Jurisdiction       
D.        Public Policy: Extremely Narrow Interpretation 
E.         Application of Public Policy of Singapore under Art. V (2) (b)    

XVII.    SPAIN
A.        Law     
B.         Foreign Award 
C.         No Review of the Merits           
D.        International Public Policy        

XVIII.  SWEDEN
A.        Law     
B.         Public Policy: Clearly Incompatible with Basic Principles          

XIX.    SWITZERLAND
A.        Law     
B.         Public Policy: Art. V (1) is Lex Specialis to Art. V (2)    
C.         International Public Policy        
D.         Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement           

XX.     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA        
A.        Law     
B.         Public Policy: Pro-Enforcement Bias, and Very Narrow Interpretation   
1.          M/S Bremen, and Scherk          
2.         Most Basic Notions of Morality and Justice       
3.         Antitrust Claims           
4.         Manifest Disregard of the Law  
5.         Violations of U.S. Sanctions     
6.         Inconsistent Testimony and Forged Agreements
7.          High Legal Fees 
C.         Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement       
    

CHAPTER 6      The Application of the Public Policy Exception in Brazil, Russia, India and China

I.          BRAZIL          
A.        Law     
B.         Foreign Awards
C.         Brazilian Public Policy: No Review of the Merits           
1.         Public Policy is Defined by Doctrine     
2.         Assessment of Formal Requirements Only         
3.         No Refusals Based on Public Policy 
D.        Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement     

II.         RUSSIAN FEDERATION       
A.        Law     
B.         Public Policy: Basic Principles of Russian Law  
1.         Basics of the Social Formation of the Russian State        
2.         Informational Letter No. 96          
C.        Enforcement Despite Broad Interpretation of Public Policy         
D.        Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement           
E.         Very Broad Interpretation Leading to Refusal     
1.         Social and Economic Interest    
2.         Review of Merits         
3.         Mandatory Russian Rules and National Property
4.         Missapplication of Russian Law
F.         Other Ways to Refuse Enforcement: Third Party Litigation         
G.        Very Mixed Picture      

III.        INDIA        
A.        Implementation of the New York Convention           
1.         Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961         
2.         Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
B.         Foreign Awards—Two Major Restrictions           
1.          Foreign Awards under the New York Convention          
2.         Foreign Awards under the Foreign Awards Act, 1961     
3.         Foreign Awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996           
4.         Was Limitation “Governed by Indian Law” Dropped?    
5.         Indian Definition of “Foreign Award” Violates New York Convention
C.        Public Policy Exception—Statutory Law
1.         Foreign Awards Act 1961         
2.         Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 
D.        Public Policy is Not Limited to Fraud, and Corruption    
E.         The Philosophy of Legal Interpretation of the Supreme Court of India    
F.          Application of the Public Policy Exception by the Supreme Court of India: from Narrow to Broad Interpretation    
1.          Public Policy Doctrine—Modifications and Expansion   
2.         Application of the Public Policy Exception under the Foreign Awards Act     
3.         Application of the Public Policy Exception under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
G.        Public Policy Exception as Gateway to Full Judicial Review       
H.        Is There New Hope?     

IV.       PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
A.        Law     
1.         Notice of the Supreme People's Court    
2.         Arbitration Law and Several Other Laws are Applicable
B.         Foreign Awards
1.         Foreign Arbitral Institution       
2.         Two Years' Deadline          
C.        Centralized Decision by Supreme People's Court in Case of Refusal           
D.        Public Policy: Contrary to Social and Public Interest and Fundamental Principles
E.         Inconsistent Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception           
1.          Insensitive to Feelings of Chinese People          
2.         Breach of Mandatory Provisions of PRC Laws   
3.         Mere Unfairness or Injustice     
4.         Violation of China's Judicial Sovereignty       
F.         More Successes than Failures  
 

CHAPTER 7   Conclusion

Bibliography    
Index   

Dr. Anton G. Maurer, LL.M., FCIArb has been actively involved in international arbitration for more than 30 years, concentrating on commercial, post M&A, and corporate disputes, and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. He is also actively involved in international litigation and has been professionally involved in disputes or transactions in more than 65 countries and in over 90 jurisdictions. He graduated with a law degree as well as a PhD in public international law from the University of Tübingen, Germany, a Master of Laws in U.S. and Global Business Law from Suffolk University, Boston, MA, and a CIArb Diploma in International Arbitration.

He is an independent arbitrator, and the managing director of Anton Maurer International Legal Services GmbH which is seated in St. Moritz, Switzerland, and Anton Maurer International Legal Services Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH which is seated in Stuttgart, Germany. He frequently is appointed as an arbitrator.

Formerly a Partner with CMS Hasche Sigle from 1987‒2016, he started his career with Sigle Loose Schmidt Diemitz & Partners in Stuttgart, Germany, in 1983, and also worked as a foreign attorney with Johnson & Swanson in Dallas, Texas.  He serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Center of American and International Law and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration, both located in Plano, Texas; he served on the board of directors of the International Association of Defense Counsel, and as chair of her International Arbitration Committee, and as Chair of the Advisory Board of The Southwestern Institute for International and Comparative Law. He is listed on the panel of arbitrators of many international arbitral institutions in Asia, Europe, and in the US.

"Anton G. Maurer has made a serious and comprehensive study of the history, interpretation and application of various relevant jurisdictions, and it contains a detailed description of the developments in Brazil, Russia,
India, and China. The result of his work will surely become a valuable tool for both academics and practicing lawyers."
--Eduardo Zuleta, Vice President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration 

"Dr. Maurer has written a tour de force that will be a valuable work of reference for all international arbitration practitioners with its width and depth of coverage, and its detailed analysis of critical court decisions from all the major arbitration centres. This is a true work of scholarship on one of the most controversial subjects in international arbitration, which also provides in its footnotes a valuable source of other primary materials on the subject."
--Michael Hwang S.C., Michael Hwang Chambers

"In practice, when an award is refused enforcement under the New York Convention, it is done on the basis of the public policy exception. The major interest of Mr. Maurer's book is that it combines an in-depth analysis of the history of Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention and a very detailed study of the way it is applied in the major jurisdictions. It is an indispensable complement to all the studies which were published these last years on public policy in international arbitration."
--Bernard Hanotiau, Hanotiau & van den Berg; Professor of Law, Universities of Louvain and Namur (Belgium)

"This book offers a very valuable resource in understanding one of the most controversial exceptions to enforcement under the New York Convention. It provides an in-depth analysis of the drafting history of the Convention and a very useful survey of how important arbitral jurisdictions have interpreted the public policy principle."
- Barry Leon, independent arbitrator and mediator, past Presiding Judge, BVI Commercial Court

"A thorough and thoughtful examination of the public policy exception with a global panorama of jurisprudence; particularly striking for the reader is the analysis of the history of how the New York Convention came into being and is therefore of enormous practical assistance to the present-day practitioner. A book for the desk top."
- Klaus Reichert, S.C., Brick Court Chambers, London; Advisory Board Member, ICCA

"Thoroughly researched and well written, The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention will become a reference work for practitioners and scholars at the cutting edge of modern arbitration. Congratulations to Anton G. Maurer on his outstanding achievement!"
- Ariel (Lu) Ye, Partner and Head of Cross Border Dispute Resolution, King & Wood, Mallesons, Beijing

"This book is a valuable addition to the development of international arbitration especially with regard to the interpretation of the New York Convention. The book deals incisively with the drafting history and interpretation of Article V(2)(b). The comparative study of the public policy exception in various countries is extremely useful to arbitration practitioners as they would be able to have an immediate insight as to the manner in which the courts of those jurisdictions are interpreting the public policy exceptions. The decisions of the courts of the various jurisdictions are discussed critically. This is supplemented by copious footnotes and references to academic writings. The book deals in detail, with the approach of the courts of BRIC countries namely Brazil, Russia, India and China, where the problems of enforcement of arbitral awards are legion. This is a book that a practitioner of international arbitration should have in his library."
- Cecil Abraham, Senior Partner, Cecil Abraham & Partners

"Anton G. Maurer has accomplished an extraordinary and impressive work by presenting a very detailed and profound analysis of the history, interpretation and application of the public policy exception under the New York Convention. Maurer's publication surely will become a well-thumbed handbook for anyone dealing with the enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention."
- Dr. Georg von Segesser, FCIArb., von Segesser Law Offices

"Mr. Maurer's treatise is a tour de force, providing a comprehensive analysis of the New York Convention's 'Public Policy Exception,' including its travaux preparatoires and application by courts worldwide. It is an indispensable resource for any law firm that seeks to enforce or to challenge the enforcement of an international arbitration award in domestic courts."
- Kenneth B. Reisenfeld, Partner, BakerHostetler, Investor-State Team, former Chair, ABA Section of International Law

"This is a very well written book and a result of extensive research. It is a must for those professionals who deal with private international law and international arbitration."
- Fernando Eduardo Serec, Head Partner in the Litigation and Arbitration practice groups of Tozzini Freire Advogados, Sao Paulo