Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-Regime Remedies for a State’s Failure to Comply with the New York Convention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht

  • 1513 Accesses

Abstract

This article deals with a topic arising from the fragmentation of international law: It addresses the question of whether a State’s failure to comply with the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards dated 10.06.1958 (the “New York Convention”) may be remedied under a different regime of international law.

Dr. Friedrich Rosenfeld is Partner at Hanefeld Rechtsanwälte, an arbitration boutique with offices in Hamburg and Paris. Alongside his full-time practice, he is also Global Adjunct Professor at NYU Law in Paris, Honorary Professor at the International Hellenic University in Thessaloniki and Lecturer at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg.

This article draws in part on Rosenfeld F, Ferrari F (2016) Regime Interactions between the New York Convention and International Investment Law – On Bridging the Gap between Commercial and Investment Arbitration at the Enforcement State, New York University Journal of Law and Business 12:295 (295 et seq.) and Rosenfeld F et al. (2023) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – A Concise Guide to the New York Convention’s Uniform Regime. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    On fragmentation, see, e.g., International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law – Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006) as corrected by U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682/Corr.1 (11 August 2006) (finalized by Martti Koskenniemi); Benvenisti and Downs (2007), p. 595 et seq.; Fischer-Lescano and Teubner (2004), p. 999 et seq.; Fauchauld and Nollkaemper (2012); Koskenniemi and Leino (2002), p. 553 et seq.; Matz-Lück (2012), p. 201 et seq.; Trachtman (2013), p. 217 et seq.

  2. 2.

    Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 4739.

  3. 3.

    For earlier contributions on this topic, see, e.g., Alvarez (2012), p. 400 et seq.; Clasmeier (2017); Mistelis (2013), p. 1 et seq.; Priem (2013), p. 189 et seq.; Sattorova (2010), p. 35 et seq.; Sattorova (2012), p. 234 et seq.; Alberro (2013), p. 199 et seq.; Kaufmann-Kohler (2013), 153 et seq.; Demirkol (2015), p. 56 et seq.; Demirkol (2018).

  4. 4.

    On the New York Convention, Rosenfeld et al. (2023); Wolff (2019); Fach Gómez and López Rodríguez (2019).

  5. 5.

    See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html, accessed 10.10.2022.

  6. 6.

    Article V (1) lit. a and c and Art. V (2) lit. a of the New York Convention.

  7. 7.

    Article V (1) lit. b and d of the New York Convention.

  8. 8.

    Art. V (1) lit. e of the New York Convention.

  9. 9.

    Art. V (2) lit. b of the New York Convention.

  10. 10.

    On the notion of uniform law, see Ferrari (2017), p. 1772.

  11. 11.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 22 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

  12. 12.

    Telenor Mobile Commc’n AS v. Storm LLC, US Cout of Appeals, Second Circuit, 08.10.2009, 584, F.3d 396, 405 (2d Cir. 2009); Diag Human SE v. The Czech Republic, UK High Court of Justice, 22.05.2014 (2014) XXXIV Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 521.

  13. 13.

    During the preparation of the New York Convention, some delegates proposed to create autonomous rules of procedure that would apply uniformly across all signatory States. See Comments on Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 06.03.1958, UN DOC. E/CONF.26/2, para. 7 et seq. However, this proposal was ultimately discarded.

  14. 14.

    OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation) v. Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg), Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 25.06.2010 (2010) XXXV Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 423, para.. 6.

  15. 15.

    See, e.g., Seatramp Tankers Inc. y otro c. Proyectos y Construcciones SRL, Tribunal de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial de Asunción, Paraguay, 07..12.2021 (finding that the New York Convention imposes the outer limitations as to what constitutes “rules of procedure”). See also Bermann (2021), p. 65 et seq.; Siyang Lim (2021), p. 84 et seq.

  16. 16.

    Restatement, § 4.27.

  17. 17.

    See, e.g., the majority opinion in Figueiredo Ferraz e Engenharia de Projeto Ltda v. The Republic of Peru, US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 14.12.2011 (2012) XXXVII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, p. 346. See also Monegasque de Reassurances s.a.m. (Monde Re) (Monaco) v. NAK Naftogaz of Ukraine, State of Ukraine, US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 15.11.2002 (2003) XXVIII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, p. 1096.

  18. 18.

    Balkan Energy Limited et al. v. Republic of Ghana, US District Court, District of Columbia, 22.03.2018 (2018) XLIII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 1; The Government of Belize v. BCB Holdings Limited et al., US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 13.05.2016 (2016) XLI Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 710; TMR Energy Ltd. v. State Property Fund of Ukraine, US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia District, 17.06.2005, 41 F. 3d 296.

  19. 19.

    Restatement, § 4.27.

  20. 20.

    On the role of domestic courts in interpreting international law, see, e.g., D’Aspremont (2012), p. 141 et seq.

  21. 21.

    Reinisch (2021), p. 4. Even in the United States, where there is a lively debate over the propriety of citing the decisions of foreign courts in constitutional matters, a transnational dialogue between courts is common when interpreting the meaning of treaties; see, e.g., Olympic Airways v. Husain, US Supreme Court, 12.11.2022, 124 S. Ct. 2065, 1232 (2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“We can, and should, look to decisions of other signatories when we interpret treaty provisions .... [I]t is reasonable to impute to the parties an intent that their respective courts strive to interpret the treaty consistently.”)

  22. 22.

    UN Econ. & Soc. Council, Report of the Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards, 28.03.1955, UN Doc. E/2704 and UN Doc. E/AC.42/4/Rev.1, Annex, 6.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022.

  24. 24.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 6–11.

  25. 25.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 14.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 16.

  27. 27.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 17.

  28. 28.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 23.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 23–30.

  30. 30.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 67.

  31. 31.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 68–71.

  32. 32.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 50–53.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 72.

  34. 34.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 76.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 84.

  36. 36.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 85.

  37. 37.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 87.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR, BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia, Appl. No. 55617/17, judgment, 30.06.2022, para. 94.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, Appl. No. 13427/87, judgment, 09.12.1994, para. 57 et seq.; ECtHR, Regent Company v. Ukraine, Appl. No. 773/03, judgment, 03.04.2008, para. 59 et seq.; ECHR, Kin-Stib and Majkic v. Serbia, Appl. No. 12312/05, judgment, 20.04.2010, para. 85. For case law dealing with the interference of court judgements, see ECtHR, Fuklev v. Ukraine, Appl. No. 71186/01, judgment, 07.06.2005, para. 91 (finding that “States are under an obligation that the procedures enshrined in the legislation for the enforcement of final judgements […] are complied with”); ECtHR, Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, Appl. Nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, judgment, 09.10.2014, para. 183 (finding that “[w]here a judgment is against the State, the latter must take the initiative to enforce it fully and in due time”); ECtHR, Burdov v. Russia, Appl. No. 59498/00, judgment, 07.05.2002, para. 34 (finding that the right of access to justice would be “illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party”); ECHR, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, Appl. No. 22774/93, judgment, 28.07.1999, para. 63 (finding that “the right to a court would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party”).

  40. 40.

    See, e.g., Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, Award, 30.06.2009; Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, Final Award under the UNCITRAL Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 12.11.2010; White Industries Australia Limited and The Republic of India, UNCITRAL Arbitration in Singapore under the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Final Award, 30.11.2011. Other cases include: KBR, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/1; Enel Green Power S.p.A. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/18; GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16, 31.03.2011; ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/2, Award, 18.05.2010; Helnan International Hotels A/S v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. 05/19, Award, 03.07.2008; Anglia Auto Accessories Limited v. The Czech Republic, SCC Arbitration Case V 2014/171, Final Award, 10.03.2017.

  41. 41.

    Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures, 21.03.2007, para. 114 et seq.; White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 31.11.2011, para. 7.6.10; Romak S.A. (Switzerland) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, Award, 26.10.2009, para. 211; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 21.04.2015, para. 120.

  42. 42.

    Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 12.11.2010, para. 231.

  43. 43.

    Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland and the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic dated 10.07.1990.

  44. 44.

    Anglia Auto Accessories Limited v. The Czech Republic, SCC Arbitration Case V 2014/171, Final Award, 10.03.2017, para. 151.

  45. 45.

    GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16, Award, 31.03.2011, para. 161.

  46. 46.

    GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16, Award, 31.03.2011, para. 162.

  47. 47.

    See, however, Demirkol (2018), p. 234, arguing that tribunals might do so on a broadly phrased jurisdictional basis.

  48. 48.

    White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 31.11.2011, para. 10.4.22.

  49. 49.

    Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, Award, 30.06.2009, para. 122.

  50. 50.

    Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, Award, 30.06.2009, para. 170.

  51. 51.

    White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 31.11.2011, para. 10.3.13.

  52. 52.

    White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 31.11.2011, para. 11.4.20.

  53. 53.

    KBR, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/1, Claimant’s Notice of Arbitration, 30.08.2013. http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3306.pdf, accessed 11.10.2022, para. 23.

  54. 54.

    Anglia Auto Accessories Limited v. The Czech Republic, SCC Arbitration Case V 2014/171, Final Award, 10.03.2017, para. 294. The tribunal further noted that some of the delays in the court proceedings were not attributable to the State.

  55. 55.

    White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 31.11.2011, para. 10.3.13.

  56. 56.

    See also Matz-Lück (2012), p. 227 et seq.

  57. 57.

    On this effect of de-fragmentation, see Trachtman (2013), p. 245 et seq.

References

  • Alberro J (2013) Estimating damages when an investment treaty is used to enforce a commercial arbitration award. Int Arbitr Law Rev 114(1):195–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez JE (2012) Crossing the ‘Public/Private’ divide: Saipem v. Bangladesh and other ‘Crossover Cases’. In: Van den Berg AJ (ed) ICCA Congress series no. 17, pp 400–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti E, Downs GW (2007) The Empire’s new clothes: political economic and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Rev 60:595–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermann G A (2021) Procedures for the enforcement of New York convention awards. In: Ferrari F, Rosenfeld F (eds) Autonomous versus domestic concepts under the New York convention. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 55–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Clasmeier M (2017) Arbitral awards as investments: treaty interpretation and the dynamics of international law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aspremont J (2012) The systemic integration of international law by domestic courts: domestic judges as architects of the consistency of the international legal order. In: Fauchauld OK, Nollkaemper A (eds) The practice of international law and national courts and the (de-)fragmentation of international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 141–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirkol B (2015) Enforcement of international commercial arbitration agreements and awards in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 30:56–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirkol B (2018) Judicial acts and investment treaty arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fach Gómez K, López Rodríguez AM (eds) (2019) 60 years of the New York convention: key issues and future challenges. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauchauld O K, Nollkaemper A (eds) (2012) The practice of international law and national courts and the (de-)fragmentation of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari F (2017) Uniform substantive and private international law. In: Basedow J, Ferrari F, Miguel Asensio PA, Rühl G (eds) Encyclopedia of private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano A, Teubner G (2004) Regime collisions: the vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Mich J Int Law 25:999–1046

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G (2013) Commercial arbitration before international courts and tribunals – reviewing abusive conduct of domestic courts. Arbitr Int 29(2):153–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M, Leino P (2002) Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 15:553–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück N (2012), Norm interpretation across international regimes, competences and legitimacy. In: Young MA (ed) Regime interaction in international law – facing fragmentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 201–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Mistelis L (2013) Award as an investment: the value of an arbitral award or the cost of non-enforcement. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 28:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem C (2013) International investment treaty arbitration as a potential check for domestic courts refusing enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. NYU J Law Business 10:189–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2021) The New York convention as an instrument of international law. In: Ferrari F, Rosenfeld F (eds) Autonomous versus domestic concepts under the New York convention. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld F, Ferrari F (2016) Regime interactions between the New York convention and international investment law – on bridging the gap between commercial and investment arbitration at the enforcement stage. NYU J Law Business 12:295–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld F, Ferrari F, Kotuby C (2023) Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards – a concise guide to the New York convention’s uniform regime. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattorova M (2010) Judicial expropriation or denial of justice? A note on Saipem v. Bangladesh. Int Arbitr Law Rev 13(2):35–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattorova M (2012) Denial of justice disguised? Investment arbitration and the protection of foreign investors from judicial misconduct. Int Comp Law Quart 61:223–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siyang Lim L (2021) Four roads diverged in a wood: exploring the various interpretations of Article III of the 1958 New York convention. In: Ferrari F, Rosenfeld F (eds) Autonomous versus domestic concepts under the New York convention. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 79–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Trachtman JP (2013) The future of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff R (ed) (2019) Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards of 10 June 1958 – a commentary, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hamburg, Deutschland

    Friedrich Rosenfeld

Authors
  1. Friedrich Rosenfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friedrich Rosenfeld .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Europäische Akademie der Arbeit in der Universität Frankfurt am Main, University of Labour, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Philipp B. Donath

  2. Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Alexander Heger

  3. Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Moritz Malkmus

  4. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer PartG mbB, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Orhan Bayrak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rosenfeld, F. (2023). Cross-Regime Remedies for a State’s Failure to Comply with the New York Convention. In: Donath, P.B., Heger, A., Malkmus, M., Bayrak, O. (eds) Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_54

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_54

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-66977-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-66978-5

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation