Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article analyses the problematics of regulation of the institute of postponement and instalment of execution of arbitral awards adopted by arbitral (national) tribunals of the Republic of Lithuania and seeks effective solutions to the stated problematics. The research revealed that the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania (CCP) and the Law on Commercial Arbitration (LCA) do not regulate the institute of postponement and instalment of the execution of national arbitral awards. For this reason, Lithuanian courts refuse to examine requests of the parties to the arbitration proceedings regarding the postponement and/or instalment of the execution of national arbitral awards, i.e., refuse to protect the rights and interests of the parties to the arbitration proceedings, whereas, in a similar case, the provisions of the CCP allow the Lithuanian courts to postpone and/or install the execution of foreign arbitral awards upon the requests of the parties to the arbitration proceedings. The study analysed the ways to eliminate the existing loopholes in the legal regulation of the CCP and the LCA, and it was concluded that these loopholes can be eliminated: (1) by applying the analogy of law – on the basis of Article 284 of the CCP and Paragraph 4 of Article 41 of the LCA, local Lithuanian district courts can assume the competence and jurisdiction to examine requests of concerned persons to postpone and/or install the execution of national arbitral awards; (2) legislatively – by supplementing the LCA with a new Article 411 and by regulating the institute of postponement and instalment of execution of national arbitral awards, thereby providing the parties to the arbitration proceedings a legal certainty and clarity regarding the actual exercise and protection of their rights and interests.

On June 1, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention or Convention) does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories. The Court interpreted the text of the Convention as being silent on the issue of enforcement by nonsignatories and thus leaving this issue to domestic law. The Court noted that some postratification practice (including the recommendation of a UN commission) and the views of the executive branch were consistent with its conclusion, but it did not determine how much weight should be accorded to these sources.

Imagine that you manage an Australian pharmaceutical company. Because your patent permitting the sale of diabetes medication in Australia will expire in one year, you look to sell your product in Japan. Unfamiliar with the Japanese market, you enter into a co-promotion agreement with Beta, a Belgian pharmaceutical company with extensive experience in Japan. Wary of litigating in a foreign, civil law jurisdiction, your counsel recommends that you include an arbitration clause in your co-promotion agreement, which you adopt.

The Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides a detailed analysis of the judicial interpretation and application of the New York Convention by reference to case law from 45 Contracting States. The Guide, and the newyorkconvention1958.org website which supplements it, will become an essential tool that benefits all those involved in the interpretation and application of the New York Convention.

Purpose: The arbitral awards are enforceable internationally under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. The Convention provides the discretion to the courts in enforcing State either to enforce or reject the international arbitral awards. The award set aside at the seat of arbitration is not enforceable, however the courts in some jurisdictions enforced such awards. In this context the paper examines how the courts in different jurisdictions justified while enforcing the annulled awards.   Theoretical framework: Arbitration mechanism is frequently used for settlement of international commercial disputes. It enables party autonomy in drafting arbitration agreements, choosing the applicable law and determining the arbitration seat. According to Article V (1)(e) of the New York Convention the national courts may refuse to recognize or enforce the foreign award if it was set aside or annulled at the seat of arbitration or under law of which such award was given.  In some jurisdictions the enforcing courts considered the annulment procedure followed by the courts and if such procedure was unfair, the courts in enforcing country have agreed to enforce the set aside awards.   Design/methodology/approach: The author followed the legal analysis method to examine the approach of the courts from different jurisdictions that have enforced the annulled foreign arbitral awards and the legal comparative method observed to study the judicial decisions from various jurisdictions.   Findings: The study concludes that Article V (1) of the New York Convention gives discretionary power to the enforcing courts regarding enforcement of foreign arbitral award. Hence, the courts in some jurisdictions enforced the annulled award if the set aside procedure was unfair, based on local grounds, biased, violated basic norms of justice, against the parties’ agreement or applied domestic law instead of the New York Convention. To secure the enforcement of award, the parties to the arbitration may agree that the arbitral award is not subject to challenge in any court at the arbitration seat or in the state in which the award is enforced and prefer a pro-arbitration State as a seat of arbitration.   Research, Practical & Social implications: The study provides practical guidance to the arbitrating parties in drafting arbitration agreements to ensure the enforcement of an arbitration award internationally.   Originality/value: The research on enforcement of annulled award under the New York Convention immensely helpful in guiding the arbitration parties in drafting the arbitration agreement, choosing arbitration procedure and seat of arbitration.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(2), 533-543 | European Forum Insight of 28 July 2022 | (Table of Contents) I. Preliminary remarks. - II. The facts in Commission v European Food. - III. Damage compensation as State aid: generalities. - IV. The relevant date for the application of State aid rules. - V. The measure constituting State aid - next episode of the saga. | (Abstract) In case C-638/19 P Commission v European Food ECLI:EU:C:2022:50, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Commission was competent to assess the compatibility of State aid granted as a consequence of an arbitral award issued against Romania by a tribunal established under a bilateral investment treaty, even though the facts occurred and the proceedings were initiated before the accession of that State to the EU. In so doing, the CJEU focused on the date of the granting of the aid according to principles arising from art. 107(1) TFEU, finding that only at the end of the arbitral proceedings could the right to receive damage compensation be considered as acquired by the beneficiaries. The judgment, which is not completely convincing in the methodology employed or in its conclusions, may have significant implications for the notion of State aid, insofar as it includes measures enshrined in arbitral or judicial decisions, and on the problematic interaction between EU State aid rules and investment arbitration.

Can blockchain arbitral awards be enforced under existing legal frameworks? Blockchain arbitration offers an efficient and transformative arbitration approach. While on-chain awards self-enforce within the blockchain ecosystem, off-chain awards concerning external assets require court recognition. Using a normative-doctrinal methodology, we analyse the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law and Indonesia's Arbitration Act. We find that blockchain arbitration satisfies core arbitral elements: party consent, submission to a neutral decision-maker, binding outcomes, and fair procedures. Its awards meet typical criteria: they arise from an agreement to arbitrate, are issued by a neutral decision-maker in a quasi-judicial role intended to deliver final, binding resolution. Moreover, the awards can fulfil the formal requirements under the New York Convention and the Model Law through broad interpretations of the in-writing requirement. We demonstrate this interaction with a case study from Mexico, where blockchain award was recognised using a hybrid mechanism. We then contextualise blockchain awards in Indonesia, where enforceability depends on classification: international or domestic. Both are governed by the Arbitration Act and further clarified in a Constitutional Court Decision. Under these, Indonesia imposes formal hurdles, including jurisdictional and wording criteria, however these do not bar enforcement. Blockchain arbitral awards ultimately comply with Indonesian law.

Irrespective of the existence of a legislative environment complying with the most recent international texts in the field of Arbitration in most GCC states; such as UNCITRAL Model Law of international Commercial Arbitration, 1985, Islamic sharia may not be sufficiently clear to foreign investors and western jurists who might consider it as an impediment jeopardizing recognition and enforcement of arbitral proceedings in Arab states especially in GCC. This article clarifies the relationship between Arbitration and the real concepts of Islamic sharia, concluding that rules of Islamic sharia would not be an impediment to the enforcement of Arbitral Awards in GCC states. The article illustrates the real concept of Islamic sharia as a part of public policy and analyzes the attitudes of recent GCC legislations, and court decisions, concerning matters looking contradictory to Islamic sharia and might constitute a legal ground to challenge arbitral awards, such as religion and gender of Arbitrators, interest rates and aleatory contracts.

The Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreements (\"Convention\" or \"Choice of Court Convention\") aspires to be one of the most significant private international law treaties of this century. The Convention would substantially alter existing rules in many jurisdictions, including the United States, governing the recognition and enforcement of both international choice-of-court agreements and judgments obtained in proceedings based on such agreements. The Convention's drafters and other proponents promote it as replicating both the terms and success of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (\"New York Convention\"), transposed to cross-border forum selection agreements.