Originally from Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation

PAGE PREVIEW

There has been a significant body of U.S. federal case law where jurisdictional issues concerning the 1958 Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards have been litigated in the U.S. This article focuses on federal courts’ interpretation on certain—not all—of those jurisdictional issues in connection with the Federal Arbitration Act—state law and state courts are out of the scope of this article.

International arbitration practitioners in the United States are familiar with the 1958 Convention, commonly known as the New York Convention, which was acceded to and implemented into law in the United States in 1970, pursuant to the FAA’s Chapter 2 (9 U.S. Code §§ 201-208) (available at https://bit.ly/43h4buX).

This article focuses on Chapter 2 and the New York Convention only, although the analysis here may have reference value to Chapter 3 (Chapter 3—Inter-American Convention On International Commercial Arbitration, best known as the Panama Convention) as well. See Vantage Deepwater Co. v. Petrobras Am. Inc., 966 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2020) (apply New York Convention case law to a dispute subject to the Panama Convention); Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, 832 F.3d 92, 105 (2d Cir. 2016); Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, W.L.L. v. Toys “R” Us Inc., 126 F.3d 15, 20 (2d Cir. 1997).