scholarly journals The New York Convention and the American Federal System

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54
Author(s):  
Christopher Drahozal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Court ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
State Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Preemptive Effect

Virtually all American states have statutes that make arbitration agreements and awards enforceable and that set out procedures for their enforcement in state courts. A number of states, including California, Texas, and Florida, have enacted international arbitration statutes to supplement their domestic arbitration laws.2 But this extensive body of state arbitration law has had only a “marginal impact” on American arbitration practice – particularly international arbitration practice because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts conflicting state arbitration laws, even in state court. Although we know that the FAA preempts state law, the scope of that preemptive effect is not clear. Indeed, a pair of United States Supreme Court cases have suggested a possible broader role for state law in arbitration matters. In Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel Inc., the Court indicated in dicta that parties might be able to contract for expanded review under state law although the FAA does not permit them to do so.5 And in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., the Court suggested that the arbitrators might not have exceeded their powers in construing an arbitration clause to permit class arbitration if they had relied on a state default rule permitting class arbitration. Whether state law can play a broader role in international arbitration matters in the United States depends on the extent to which the New York Convention and Chapter Two of the FAA (which implements the Convention) preempt state arbitration law. This article undertakes a preliminary analysis of that broad topic by examining several legal questions central to determining the preemptive effect of the New York Convention: (1) What effect, if any, does the federal-state clause (Article XI) have on U.S. obligations under the Convention? (2) To what extent does Chapter Two of the FAA apply in state court? and (3) Is the New York Convention self-executing? Part II briefly sets out background information on the New York Convention and its implementation in the U.S. Part III describes three models of how an arbitration convention might be implemented: the “exclusive spheres” model, the “federal preemption” model, and the “access” model. Part IV analyzes the legal questions identified above and considers their implications for the models. Part V discusses the extent to which parties can contract out of the FAA and into state arbitration law. Finally, Part VI identifies some possible implications of this analysis and concludes.

1 The Law Applicable to International Arbitration in New York

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey David M ◽  
Lahlou Yasmine
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York State ◽  
State Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
York State ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
The U.S

This chapter focuses on applicable arbitration law in the context of arbitration agreements and awards that fall under the New York Convention or the Panama Convention, and how those two treaties interact with the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), New York state law, and possibly foreign law in the context of international arbitration in New York. It first summarizes the FAA and explains FAA preemption of state law that is inconsistent with the FAA. The chapter then discusses the application of the Conventions and difficult issues that can arise when determining the applicable law. In particular, it focuses on choice of law issues that arise when enforcing the agreement to arbitrate under Article II of the New York Convention. U.S. courts have struggled to employ a consistent choice of law analysis when interpreting the “null and void” provisions in Article II(3) of the Convention.

scholarly journals Enforcing annulled arbitral awards

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-240
Author(s):  
Vesna Lazić-Smoljanić
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Difference ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Judgment Setting

This contribution examines the procedural aspects of the enforcement of arbitral awards that were set aside in the jurisdiction where they were rendered. It focuses on recent cases in the United States and the Netherlands, which adopted a different line of reasoning than the approach taken by French judiciary many years ago. According to the latter, an arbitral award set aside in the ‘country of origin’ may be enforced in France in reliance on national law. Namely, French law on enforcement is more favourable than the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral. The courts in the United States and in the Netherlands in recent cases have taken a different approach. They examine the judgment setting aside the award and ignore the effects of the annulment in certain circumstances. Even though there are some common denominators, there are substantial differences between the line of reasoning of the courts in the US and the Netherlands. They remain distinct although a more recent decision of the Dutch Supreme Court emphasises an exceptional nature of such enforcement so that the difference between the two approaches may seem somewhat mitigated. However, a closer look reveals that substantial discrepancies between the courts in these two jurisdictions have remained. The article provides for a critical view on the enforcement of annulled arbitral awards in general. In particular, it points to drawbacks of variety of unilateral approaches amongst various jurisdictions. Additionally, it suggests the development of internationally accepted standards for the sake of legal certainty and predictability of arbitration, should the acceptance of the enforcement of annulled arbitral appear a majority view amongst academics and arbitration practitioners. 

Introduction: The New York Arbitration Landscape

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carter James H ◽  
Fellas John
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Capital ◽  
Court System ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Leading Position ◽  
Governing Law

This introductory chapter presents New York City as the leading venue for international commercial arbitration in the United States. It estimates that at least one-third of all significant international commercial arbitrations in the United States take place within the city. New York’s role as a financial and legal capital leads to the choice of New York governing law for many commercial documents, often resulting in a choice of New York as the venue for any disputes arising from those documents. The city’s leading position in international commercial arbitration also derives from the fact that a number of leading arbitration institutions are based in New York. The local court system strongly supports international arbitration; and the community of supporting organizations, such as the New York International Arbitration Center, bar associations, universities, and others is quite strong.

5 Applicable Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Joongi
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Private Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
International Private Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
New York Convention

This chapter focuses on the choice and enforcement of applicable law in arbitration agreements. In international arbitration cases, Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention provides that the validity of an arbitration agreement should be first determined under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made. Hence, if the parties have not chosen the applicable law for an arbitration agreement, ‘the default rule’ is that the law of the place of arbitration shall apply. This chapter addresses the question as it applies to Korea and considers cases where conflict or a misapplication of the law is in effect. Moreover, it also covers several cases in which courts have applied the Act on International Private Law (AIPL), Korea’s conflict-of-laws statute, to determine the applicable law.

Court-Ordered Provisional Measures under the New York Convention

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-42
Author(s):  
Charles N. Brower ◽  
W. Michael Tupman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

In recent years, several courts in the United States have denied requests for pre-award attachments on the ground that such remedies were contrary to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, and thus to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention or Convention). Despite these decisions, pre-award attachment is an available remedy in certain jurisdictions in the United States. Furthermore, pre-award remedies to secure assets located outside the United States can be obtained through the courts in other countries.

19 United States (New York, Miami, Houston)

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fellas John ◽  
Elul Hagit
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
Institutional Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Arbitration

This chapter evaluates the merits of the United States as a venue for international arbitration proceedings. It discusses the history and development of arbitration in the United States; the processes and rules involved as well as the role of courts in the conduct of arbitration proceedings; and rules for arbitral awards. It concludes that the United States — and New York, Florida, and Texas, in particular — offers a favorable venue for international arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act offers a simple, yet effective, framework for the enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards. US courts will act to further the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration by strictly enforcing arbitration agreements and awards, while at the same time minimizing judicial interference into the arbitral process. In addition to enjoying legislative and judicial support, parties to international arbitration can find the institutional support they need from experienced arbitral institutions that offer well developed arbitral rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document