Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in the Midst of Complex Boundaries and Exceptions : What is the extent of their impact?

Show simple item record

dc.contributor Helsingin yliopisto, Oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta fi
dc.contributor University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law en
dc.contributor Helsingfors universitet, Juridiska fakulteten sv
dc.contributor.author Zalmanovitch, Oded
dc.date.issued 2014
dc.identifier.uri URN:NBN:fi:hulib-201508063127
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10138/135328
dc.description.abstract The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is of paramount significance for the success of arbitration in the international arena. In fact, the enforceability of arbitral awards throughout the world is perceived as one of the main advantages of arbitration. Since the inception of the New York Convention in 1958, nearly 150 states have acceded to the Convention, making it one of the most successful international conventions in history. By means of establishing a mechanism through which arbitral awards are easily enforceable worldwide, the New York Convention has empowered commercial parties with an effective method of resolving their disputes via a neutral forum and a process they confide in. However, the ultimate test of any arbitration proceeding is its ability to render an award which, if necessary, will be recognized and enforced in relevant national courts. The recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards entangle a potentially complicated succession of topics. In numerous cases, enforcement of an arbitral award implicates the national law of the state where an award is made, the national law of the state where enforcement is sought, and the stipulations of feasible international conventions or treaties. Essentially, the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law and other national arbitration statutes not only form a common presumption that international arbitral awards are legitimate and must be recognized, but also allow for non-recognition and enforcement of awards on the same enumerated and considerably limited substantive grounds. In a theoretical sense, perhaps the most intriguing facet of the New York Convention resides in the limitations placed on the grounds for resisting enforcement. It is inevitable that the grounds for non-enforcement as stipulated under the New York Convention are susceptible to be interpreted divergently by various dissimilar courts seized in any particular matter. In an ideal world, the provisions of the New York Convention and of the Model Law would be understood and interpreted in the same exact way by courts everywhere. In practice, however, this ideal does not quite happen as there are recurring inconsistent decisions under the New York Convention. The main objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive legal analysis of the challenging boundaries and exceptions to the enforcement of international arbitral awards in an attempt to reach conclusive findings regarding the extent of their impact. The primary focus will be put on the obstacles and hurdles to the enforcement of international arbitral awards, namely the exhaustive resisting grounds stipulated under the New York Convention. These resisting grounds will be thoroughly explored and examined both theoretically and pragmatically. en
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Helsingfors universitet sv
dc.publisher University of Helsinki en
dc.publisher Helsingin yliopisto fi
dc.title Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in the Midst of Complex Boundaries and Exceptions : What is the extent of their impact? en
dc.type.ontasot pro gradu-avhandlingar sv
dc.type.ontasot pro gradu -tutkielmat fi
dc.type.ontasot master's thesis en
dc.subject.discipline International law en
dc.subject.discipline Kansainvälinen oikeus fi
dc.subject.discipline Folkrätt sv
dct.identifier.urn URN:NBN:fi:hulib-201508063127

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
Master Thesis.pdf 524.8Kb application/pdf View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record