Skip Navigation

Chinese Journal of International Law 2009 8(1):81-134; doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jmn043
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fry, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Désordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy

James D. Fry*

Correspondence: * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law (email: jamesfry{at}hku.hk); M.C.I.Arb. The author thanks Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler and Thomas Schultz of the University of Geneva Faculty of Law, as well as Douglas Arner, David Fry, Weixia Gu, Jean-Michel Jacquet, Katherine Lynch and Bertrand Ramcharan, for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. The author thanks the Swiss National Science Foundation for its generous financial support that made a considerable part of this research possible. This article was completed on 10 January, 2009.

Much confusion has revolved around the nature of the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) of United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) to the point that the French term for public policy, ordre public, ought to be changed to désordre public to reflect the general disorder in the discourse on this particular subject. This article takes an in-depth look at the public policy defense and challenges the notion that enforcement States are obliged to consider supranational public policy when deciding whether to recognize or enforce an international arbitral award, except in only a few cases where certain regional obligations are involved. Even then, this is not the type of truly international public policy that is advocated by numerous commentators. Nonetheless, States are free to rely on truly international public policy when deciding on enforcement. Despite the perceived benefits to relying on truly international public policy, there are significant reasons to refrain from pushing for such reliance. While reliance on truly international public policy may help mitigate some of the adverse side effects associated with globalization, it is important to ask what is the price we are willing to pay to counter these side effects. The price should not be the emasculation of the New York Convention itself.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.