Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The deficiencies of the New York Convention of 1958 relating to the enforcement refusal ground V (1) (e) and their effects on the enforcement of annulled foreign arbitral awards|
|Authors:||Al-Malahmeh, Firas Abdel-Karim|
|Presented at:||University of Leicester|
|Abstract:||This work examines the deficiencies of the New York Convention of 1958, on the "recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards", relating mainly to the enforcement refusal ground V (1) (e) dealing exclusively with annulled foreign arbitral awards. Chapter One deals with the importance of the New York Convention and also clarifies its deficiencies reflected in the ambiguous language of Article V (1) and in failing to mention the grounds upon which rendered arbitral awards can be annulled. Chapter Two examines the attempts of the Contracting States adhering to the 1958 Convention and the extent of such attempts to cover its deficiencies, in particular the absence of the annulment grounds. Chapter Three mainly examines the effect of the absence of the annulment grounds, under the Convention, on the Contracting States' attempts, discussing, in particular, the grounds upon which the rendered arbitral awards can be annulled. In other words, this chapter examines whether the annulment grounds listed under the national arbitration laws are mandatory or have adequately covered the 1958 Convention's deficiency and thus cannot be waived or expanded either by the provisions of national arbitration laws or parties' agreements. Chapter Four concentrates on the academics' and national courts' approaches when recognition and enforcement of annulled foreign arbitral awards are sought. This determines the vital role of the deficiencies of the 1958 Convention and their effects on the national enforcement courts' decisions and on the extent of the discretion which they should exercise. This work concludes that the implementation of the enforcement refusal ground V (1) (e) is affected. The conclusion will demonstrate that arbitral awards annulled in their countries of origin can survive and be capable of being recognised and enforced when enforcement applications are made in a state other than the state where the arbitral award is annulled.|
|Rights:||Copyright © the author. All rights reserved.|
|Appears in Collections:||Theses, School of Law|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.