10 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 189 (2013-2014)
International Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Potential Check for Domestic Courts Refusing Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards

handle is hein.journals/nyujolbu10 and id is 195 raw text is: 






         INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT TREATY
     ARBITRATION AS A POTENTIAL CHECK FOR
               DOMESTIC COURTS REFUSING
               ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN
                     ARBITRATION AWARDS


                            CLAUDIA PRIEM*

     International commercial arbitration has proven a popular means for dis-
     pute resolution in commercial conflicts. Due to the New York Convention,
     many countries allow foreign arbitral awards to be recognized and enforced
     in their local courts, resulting in effective means for execution of the award.
     However, what happens when domestic courts are reluctant to enforce a for-
     eign arbitral award ?
         Under the principles of state responsibility, a state can be held liable for
     the conduct of the state's independent local courts. If domestic courts wrong-
     fully refuse to comply with their obligations under the New York Convention
     to recognize or enforce a foreign arbitral award, or if the courts cause undue
     delay in enforcing such an award, these actions can be attributed to the
     sovereign state itself As such, the state can be held liable for breach of its
     obligations under international treaties.
         The Article analyzes seven recent cases where domestic courts refused to
     enforce the foreign commercial arbitral awards, after which aggrieved parties
     have attempted to seek enforcement via international investment arbitration.
     Several investment arbitration tribunals have ruled that refusing such en-
     forcement, under certain exceptional circumstances could amount to a
     breach of international law or to a breach of a Bilateral Investment Treaty
     (BIT), more specifically through breaching the Expropriation-clause, the
     Effective Means-clause or the Denial of Justice-clause as found in these
     BITs.
         The Note examines the growing use of international investment arbi-
     tration as a supervisory mechanism when domestic courts wrongfully refuse
     to enforce a commercial arbitral award, and argues why it is vital to attri-
     bute investment arbitration with such supervisory jurisdiction.

     * Claudia Priem is an associate in the Amsterdam office of De Braun
Blackstone Westbroek. LL.M., New York University School of Law, 2013;
LL.M., VU University Amsterdam, 2012; LL.B., Erasmus University Rotter-
dam, 2011. The author would like to thank Professor Franco Ferrari and her
fellow students in the LL.M of International Business Regulation, Litigation,
and Arbitration at NYU for their helpful comments during the presentation
on an earlier draft of this article. Also, she would like to give special thanks
to the editorial staff of the NYU Journal of Law & Business, especially to
Bridget Harris, for their invaluable editing and advising throughout the writ-
ing process. All errors remain the author's own.

                                    189


Imaged with Persmission of N.Y.U. Journal of Law and Business

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?