Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship Fall 11-12-2012 Arbitrability and Public Policy in Regard to the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award in International Arbitration : the United States, Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia Veena Anusornsena Golden Gate University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/theses Part of the Commercial Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, International Business Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Anusornsena, Veena, "Arbitrability and Public Policy in Regard to the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award in International Arbitration : the United States, Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 33. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/theses/33 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY ARBITRABILITY AND PUBLIC POLICY IN REGARD TO THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: THE UNITED STATES, EUROPE, AFRICA, MIDDLE EAST AND ASIA VEENA ANUSORNSENA, LL.B.,LL.M. SUBMITTED TO THE GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STUDIES, IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONFERMENT OF THE DEGREE OF SCIENTIAE JURIDICAE DOCTOR (SID). CHRISTIAN N. OKEKE, L.L.M., Dr.Jur., Professor of Law, Director of the LL.M. and S.J.D.International Legal Studies, and Director of the Sompong Sucharitkul Center for Advanced International Legal Studies JON H. SYLVESTER, JD., MJ., BA., Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Graduate Program ARTHUR J. GEMMELL, JD., LL.M., S.J.D. International Legal Studies, Professor of Law, Senior Fellow at Golden Gate's Center for Advanced Legal Studies SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 16, 2012 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to those who gave me the possibility to compete this dissertation. I am deeply indebted and thankful to my advisors, Professor Christian N. Okeke, Professor Jon H. Sylvester and Professor Arthur J. Gemmell, who have helped encouraging and been patient with my writing this dissertation for several years. They all patiently made me believe in myself and guided me through the dissertation process. I would never been finished my dissertation without the financial support of the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the administrative assistance of Golden Gate University. I thank especially John Pluebell for his friendly assistance and administrative support. Last but not least, the accomplishment of this doctoral program would not have been possible without support from my family, especially my parents, my husband and my beloved daughter, the Anusomsena Family, Paween Skulgunbundit and Lorynda Zoe Skulgunbundit. Veena Anusomsena San Francisco, California November 2012 ABSTRACT Party autonomy in international arbitration is the most compelling reason for the contracting parties to enter into arbitration agreement, rather than opting for litigation. However, arbitration functionalities may be hindered by several factors, one of which is 'arbitrability and public policy'. The 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides arbitrability and public policy as the grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award for signatory states, thus allowing national courts to use their own discretion when determining the scope of these two issues. Public policy is a concept that is adapted periodically in order to meet the changing societal needs, including political, social, cultural, moral and economic dimensions. As my study focuses on how each state balances its justice system and determines the finality of arbitration award, this paper will describe how each state applies arbitrability and public policy as a safeguard for their national legal system. It appears that, in the United States, legal matters are referred to arbitration relatively often, while European countries (specifically England, France and Switzerland, which are referred to in this paper) apply arbitrability and public policy only when it is necessary. Moreover, public policy in Mrica and Middle East is interpreted in a broader sense and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be more difficult because of the inherent political risks and influence of Islamic law, while most Asian countries have attempted to model their public policy theory on the Western principles. ii This dissertation will explore and assess each state's approach of arbitrability and public policy toward international arbitration in order to understand how public policy has changed and developed over time. iii TOPIC: ARBITRABILITY AND PUBLIC POLICY IN REGARD TO TilE RECOGNITIO~-; AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD IN INTER.l\fATIONAL AFR!TF~A..TION: THE UN!TED STATES, EUROPE, AFFJCA, MIDDLE EAST AND ASIA Table of Contents Chapter 1: Arbitrability and Public Policy as a Bar to Enforce the Foreign Arbitral Award A. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 B. History of Enforcement of Arbitration Award ............................................................ 5 Geneva Protoco/1923 and Geneva Convention 1927 ... ............................................. 7 C. Definition and Concept of Public Policy and Arbitrability .................................................................................................. 9 Public Policy ... ................................................................................................... 9 Arbitrability ... .................................................................................................. 12 D. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration 1985 ........................................................................................................ 15 E. The New York Convention ............................................................................ .17 Chapter 2: The United States' Perspective on Arbitrability and Public Policy ................................... 20 A. Historical Background ................................................................................... 20 B. Definition and Concept of Arbitrability and Public Policy in the U.S ............................ 22 C. Relevant Arbitration Laws .............................................................................. 23 The Federal Arbitration Act 1925 ... ..................................................................... 23 D. Arbitrability and Public Policy in the U.S ............................................................ 24 Wiko v. Swan ................................................................................................... 24 Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co ... ..................................................................... 26 Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L 'Industrie du Papier ... .......................................................................................................... 28 MitsubishiMotors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc ....................................... 29 Northrop Corp. v. Triad International Marketing S.A ... ........................................... 33 Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson .................................................................. .. 35 Granite Rock v. International Brotherhood ofTeamsters ... ....................................... 37 Laminoirs-Trejileries-Cableries de Lens, S.A. v. Southwire Co ... ............................... 39 Arbitrabilityofintellectual Property in the US...................................................... 41 E. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 42 Chapter 3: The Arbitrability and Public Policy in Europe ........................................................ .45 3.1 England ............................................................................................... 46 A. Historical Background .................................................................................. 46 B. Relevant Arbitration Laws .............................................................................. 4 7 The English Arbitration Act of1996 ... .................................................................. 47 C. Cases Study ...............................................................................................49 Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiejbohrgesellscha.ft MB.H (D.S.T.) v. Ras AI Khaimah Nat'l Oil Co ............................................................................................................. 49 iv Soleimanyv. Soleimany ... ...... '" ................................................................ ,.................... 51 Westacre Investments, Inc. v. Jugoimport-SPDR Holding Co. Ltd... .... ,........................... , ..... 51 Rv. V ... .............................. '" ..................................................................................... 54 D. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 54 3.2 France ............. , .... '" ...........................................