Dr. Anton G. Maurer, LL.M. has been actively involved in international arbitration for more than 20 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 in more than 55 countries and in over 80 jurisdictions. He graduated with a law degree as well as a PhD in public international law from the University of Tübingen, Germany, and a Master of Laws in U.S. and Global Business Law from Suffolk University, Boston, MA. Anton Maurer has been a Partner with CMS Hasche Sigle since 1987. He started his career with Sigle Loose Schmidt Diemitz & Partners in Stuttgart, Germany and then worked as a foreign attorney with Johnson & Swanson in Dallas, Texas. He currently serves on the board of directors of the International Association of Defense Counsel; as Chair of the Advisory Board of The Southwestern Institute for International and Comparative Law; and, as a member of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration, and the Board of Trustees, all with the Center for American and International Law, Plano, Texas.
The Application of the Public Policy Exception in Various Countries - Chapter 5 - Public Policy Exception Under The New York Convention: History, Interpretation, and Application - Revised Edition
Originally from: Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention - Revised Edition
Preview Page
How do the states which became a party to the New York Convention apply the public policy exception of Art. V (2) (b)? Of special interest are especially the states which do not observe the narrow interpretation of the public policy exception or which even violate their obligations under the New York Convention. Chapter 5 explains how the public policy exception is applied in a variety of countries which are either economically important or apply the public policy exception unexpectedly broadly. In Chapter 6, the application of the public policy exception in Brazil, Russia, India, and China is explored.
I. Austria
A. Law
B. Public Policy: Violation Must Concern Basic Principles of the Austrian Legal System
C. Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement
1. No Distinction between Domestic and International Public Policy
2. Irreconcilable with Austrian Fundamental Principles
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
C. Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement
1. Illegal English Contract
2. Uncompromisible Moral Principles
IV. France
A. Law
B. Blatant, 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
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
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