Public Policy: An Amorphous Concept in the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

Abstract

Public policy permeates the legal principles of a state and its ruling government. The justification of public policy is topical to the ethics and canons acknowledged by that state. These values are determined by the applicable political, social, economic, religious, and legal systems, which differ among states. As public policy usually best illuminates the broad area of government laws, regulations, provincial ordinances, and court decisions, the standards creating public policy alter as states develop. The motif of public policy is critical when the question of enforcement of arbitral awards suffice. There is no definite meaning of the term in the famous Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Arbitration Convention) to enforce foreign arbitral awards. Hence, this paper explores and traces some contemporary trends in defense of public policy as an exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards worldwide.

Between commitment and reality: A critical examination of Jordan's adherence to the New York Convention 1958

“…The term “foreign arbitral awards” in the Convention is debated among scholars. Some see its vagueness as allowing legal flexibility (Mayer & Sheppard, 2003), while others view it as a source of uncertainty (Akoto, 2021). Article 1 of the Convention provides a broad definition, but Article 3, which mandates enforcement, needs more specificity in the types of awards covered (Adeleke & Adewole, 2019; Shehab, 2020).…”