Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards is necessary where there is no voluntary compliance by the relevant parties. Courts world-wide may refuse to enforce arbitral awards if such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of their countries. This is known as ‘the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards’. It is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), which are two of the most prominent international instruments in promoting and regulating international commercial arbitration.The public policy exception is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of arbitral awards, causing judicial inconsistency and therefore unpredictability in its application. It is often likened to an ‘unruly horse’, which may lead us from sound law. The International Law Association’s Resolution on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Resolution) endorses a narrow approach to the public policy exception – namely, refusal of enforcement under the public policy exception in exceptional circumstances only. The ILA Resolution seeks to facilitate the finality of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention’s primary goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards. The courts of many countries refer to this as the New York Convention’s ‘pro-enforcement policy’, which demands a narrow approach to the public policy exception.This thesis explores the main controversies and complexities in the judicial application of the public policy exception from an Australian perspective. It is a critical analysis of the prevalent narrow approach to the public policy exception. It examines the extent of the ILA Resolution’s suitability and applicability in Australia, considering past problems experienced by the courts of other countries, the distinctive features of the Australian legal system, and future challenges confronting the Australian judiciary. It examines when and how the Australian judiciary may need to swim against the tide by departing from the narrow approach to the public policy exception. For instance, such departure may be appropriate for ensuring that their application of the public policy exception neither causes nor condones injustice, and thereby preserves the integrity and faith in the system of arbitration. The author’s perspective throughout this thesis is that of an academic lawyer, as she has not had the benefit of practical experience in this area of the law.The recommendations throughout this thesis are tailor-made for the Australian judiciary. They are Australian in perspective yet international in character. They canvass certain issues not addressed in the ILA Resolution, encouraging the Australian judiciary to participate in the ongoing debate and the ultimate resolution of those issues. In doing so, this thesis contributes to refining the judicial application of public policy in determining the enforceability of arbitral awards. The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards, or its application, need not be an unruly horse in Australia.“This version contains corrections of typographical errors identified in the original version of the thesis submitted for completion of the SJD program”.

The increase in international trade creates a growing number of disputes between parties from different countries. International arbitration is the most preferred mechanism to solve disputes in international trade. If the failing party does not voluntarily comply with the award, the successful party must apply for recognition and enforcement of the award in order to obtain the remedies. Since China is one of the major business markets in the world, several of the companies committed to arbitral procedures are likely to have assets in China. This means that, if a party fails to honour an award, an enforcement procedure may begin within a Chinese court. The enforcement procedures in China are said to be insufficient and not to comply with international standards. International conventions and treaties provide for a high level of security in the recognition and enforcement procedure of the arbitral award. The most used and important instrument for recognition and enforcement is the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, to which China as well as Sweden are Contracting States. According to the Convention, an international arbitral award may only be refused under certain grounds laid down in the Convention. An analysis of the legal situation in China confirms that there are problems associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards. These problems are not, however, connected with the concept of international arbitral awards, but rather with the entire judicial system in China. Even though an enforcing party can do little to overcome these problems, certain measures can be taken in order to ease the enforcement procedure.

This thesis analyses the role of international organizations in the West Bank and Gaza. The role of international organizations is discussed within the larger framework of global governance. In light of the theories on global transformation, the renewed role for international organizations as the agents of global governance is introduced within the Palestinian context. With a focus on the complex relationship between domestic and international actors, the role of international organizations as the promoters of good governance is examined in terms of Palestinian state building process. Several international organizations are introduced in terms of their objectives, projects and activities in Palestine.

<p>The increase in international trade creates a growing number of disputes between parties from different countries. International arbitration is the most preferred mechanism to solve disputes in international trade. If the failing party does not voluntarily comply with the award, the successful party must apply for recognition and enforcement of the award in order to obtain the remedies. Since China is one of the major business markets in the world, several of the companies committed to arbitral procedures are likely to have assets in China. This means that, if a party fails to honour an award, an enforcement procedure may begin within a Chinese court. The enforcement procedures in China are said to be insufficient and not to comply with international standards. International conventions and treaties provide for a high level of security in the recognition and enforcement procedure of the arbitral award. The most used and important instrument for recognition and enforcement is the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958, to which China as well as Sweden are Contracting States. According to the Convention, an international arbitral award may only be refused under certain grounds laid down in the Convention. An analysis of the legal situation in China confirms that there are problems associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards. These problems are not, however, connected with the concept of international arbitral awards, but rather with the entire judicial system in China. Even though an enforcing party can do little to overcome these problems, certain measures can be taken in order to ease the enforcement procedure.</p>

There is unanimity within the arbitration community that corruption is disrupting international trade and that arbitrators must not let arbitration be a safe forum for enforcement of contracts tainted by such illicit acts. Due to the hidden nature of corruption, often hiding behind an agency agreement, the most challenging question facing arbitrators has shown to be how to handle the rules of evidence. Awards show that there is an inconsistency in the treatment of the burden and standard of proof as well as the significance given to circumstantial evidence. Two trends can be spotted where the first approach is to argue that the seriousness of the accusations calls for a heightened standard of proof. The second trend is to argue that the seriousness to the contrary calls for a pragmatic approach to the rules of evidence, allowing a less rigid view on the standard of proof and use of circumstantial evidence or even a shift in the burden of proof. The focus of the thesis is on evidentiary aspects of corruption cases and how arbitrators have dealt with these challenges. The overall question is how arbitrators should handle the rules of evidence in corruption cases from a lege ferenda perspective. It is argued that the inconsistency in the handling of proof is sometimes misguided and that there are reasons to agree on a common starting point for applying the rules of evidence to corruption cases. Arbitrators should realise the frightening fact that it is their weighing of the evidence which is usually decisive for the outcome and accordingly there is a responsibility to conduct this operation carefully. The tools and procedural flexibility to reveal corruption exist even if there is no perfect solution on how to do it.

Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards is necessary where there is no voluntary compliance by the relevant parties. Courts world-wide may refuse to enforce arbitral awards if such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of their countries. This is known as ‘the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards’. It is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), which are two of the most prominent international instruments in promoting and regulating international commercial arbitration.The public policy exception is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of arbitral awards, causing judicial inconsistency and therefore unpredictability in its application. It is often likened to an ‘unruly horse’, which may lead us from sound law. The International Law Association’s Resolution on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Resolution) endorses a narrow approach to the public policy exception – namely, refusal of enforcement under the public policy exception in exceptional circumstances only. The ILA Resolution seeks to facilitate the finality of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention’s primary goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards. The courts of many countries refer to this as the New York Convention’s ‘pro-enforcement policy’, which demands a narrow approach to the public policy exception.This thesis explores the main controversies and complexities in the judicial application of the public policy exception from an Australian perspective. It is a critical analysis of the prevalent narrow approach to the public policy exception. It examines the extent of the ILA Resolution’s suitability and applicability in Australia, considering past problems experienced by the courts of other countries, the distinctive features of the Australian legal system, and future challenges confronting the Australian judiciary. It examines when and how the Australian judiciary may need to swim against the tide by departing from the narrow approach to the public policy exception. For instance, such departure may be appropriate for ensuring that their application of the public policy exception neither causes nor condones injustice, and thereby preserves the integrity and faith in the system of arbitration. The author’s perspective throughout this thesis is that of an academic lawyer, as she has not had the benefit of practical experience in this area of the law.The recommendations throughout this thesis are tailor-made for the Australian judiciary. They are Australian in perspective yet international in character. They canvass certain issues not addressed in the ILA Resolution, encouraging the Australian judiciary to participate in the ongoing debate and the ultimate resolution of those issues. In doing so, this thesis contributes to refining the judicial application of public policy in determining the enforceability of arbitral awards. The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards, or its application, need not be an unruly horse in Australia.“This version contains corrections of typographical errors identified in the original version of the thesis submitted for completion of the SJD program”.

Die Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel hat diese Arbeit im Jahre 2006 als Dissertation angenommen. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

Thesis (M.A.)--City University of Hong Kong, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on Oct. 3, 2008) "Master of Arts in arbitration and dispute resolution" Includes bibliographical references (p. 106-107)

Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of Queensland, 2005. / Includes bibliography.

The last 30 years have been a really exceptional time for international arbitration. The author resembles international arbitration with the SevenKingdoms of “Game of Thrones” where everything went right under the umbrella of the New York Convention.Gary Born states: “Winter is Coming” for international arbitration. The arbitration community should be prepared to defend itself from a metaphorical “armyof undead” who could demand more government control of the arbitration process in the future. In that regard, the author states that instead of beinghunted in defending arbitration, we ought to hunt a little bit. The time to stop fending off attacks and start going on the offensive against arbitration’s critics have come. / Los últimos 30 años han sido una época realmente excepcional para el arbitraje internacional. Gary Born lo asemeja a los Siete Reinos de “Juego de Tronos”, pues todo ha funcionado bien bajo el marco de la Convención de Nueva York. Sin embargo, según Gary Born: “se acerca el invierno” para el arbitraje internacional. La comunidad del arbitraje debe estar preparada para defenderse de un metafórico “ejército de muertos vivientes” que podría exigir un mayor control del gobierno sobre el arbitraje en el futuro. En ese sentido, el autor señala que en vez de ser cazados defendiendo el arbitraje, debemos cazar un poco. El momento de dejar de defenderse de los ataques y empezar a ir a la ofensiva contra los críticos del arbitraje ha llegado.