Click to view: 

Stockholm Arbitration Report (SAR)

 Preview Page SAR 2001 - 2

Table of Contents

I. THE ENFORCEMENT IS CENTRAL TO THE ARBITRAL PROCESS

II. TO ENSURE ENFORCEMENT COURTS OFTEN GIVE BROAD INTERPRETATION TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION

1. Formal Designation as an Award Is Not Decisive for Confirmation Under the Convention

2. The Courts’ Competence to Take Interim Measures Notwithstanding an Ongoing Arbitration

3. An Enforcement Procedure May Be Directed against Third Parties/Non-signatory to the Arbitration Agreement

4. Notwithstanding a Ground for Refusal, Courts Overlook the Language of the Convention and in Their Discretion Confirm the Award

(i) The Theory of Discretion

a. Polytek

b. Metalcad

(ii) The Theory of the Waiver

III. COURTS HAVE SUGGESTED SOME LIMITS TO THE CONVENTION’S APPLICATION

1. A National Authority, Other that the Confirming Court, May Interpret a Foreign Award

2. The Convention May Be Excluded by Way of Agreement

3. Towards the Opposability of the Objection of the Forum Non conveniens?

IV. ADDITIONAL SHORT REMARKS

V. CONCLUSION