Preview Page SAR 2001 - 2
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
I. THE ENFORCEMENT IS CENTRAL TO THE ARBITRAL
PROCESS
