Professor Robert Bird discussed the unclear future of arbitration awards after a primary jurisdiction of injury vacates the award and refuses its enforcement. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court refused to enforce the arbitration award in Termorio due to fundamental and policy considerations. In contrast, the court in Chromalloy enforced the arbitration award in the enforcing jurisdiction. Neither of these cases is widely accepted, leaving a wide ambiguity on this topic. There remains a strong need for a coherent rule of law so that a party does not choose a jurisdiction based on its enforcement law. For example, French law gives no deference to the first jurisdiction that set the arbitration award aside. This causes vast unpredictability and defeats the purpose of arbitration: clear recovery in the event of party conflict.
Read More... (Modernizing the New York Convention)
| Posted by Patricia I. Fernandez on Sun. February 26, 2012 12:04 PM
Categories: International Dispute Resolution, Symposium
For the panel discussion “Disputes Arising from Arbitration Agreements,” Professor Christoph Henkel addressed the problem of confidentiality in international commercial arbitration, gave illustrations of how international jurisdictions approach confidentiality differently, and offered a solution for the international community’s uncertainty towards confidentiality. Henkel’s recommendations did not, however, address the practical limitations of relying solely on protective drafting. This solution inevitably results in increased transactional costs, and creates further uncertainty. Furthermore, drafting for confidentiality itself could hinder potential litigation.
Read More... (Response to Professor Christoph Henkel)
| Posted by Rebecca Y. Yang on Sun. February 26, 2012 12:00 PM
Categories: International Dispute Resolution, Symposium