Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:41:29.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Waterside Ocean Navigation Co. v. International Navigation Ltd.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

ArbitrationNew York Conventionenforcement of foreign awardspublic policy defensepost-award, prejudgment interest
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 132 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 June 10, 1958, 21 UST 2517, TIAS No. 6997, 330 UNTS 3. Article V, paragraph 2 of the Convention provides, inter alia: “Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may . . . be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that: . . .(b) the recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.”

2 737 F.2d 150, 152 (quoting Fotochrome, Inc. v. Copal Co., 517 F.2d 512, 516 (2d Cir. 1975)).

3 In this respect, the court observed: “We by no means suggest that confirmation should have been denied even if the arbitrators had been unaware of this testimony—although, of course, the argument against confirmation would have been stronger in that case.” 737 F.2d at 153.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 154.

6 Indeed, if this course were followed, the appellant would then lose the benefit of the Convention in the Second Circuit, which has held that the Convention applies only “to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award and not to the enforcement of foreign judgments confirming foreign arbitral awards.” Id. (quoting Island Territory of Curacao v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 489 F.2d 1313, 1319 (2d Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 416 U.S. 986 (1974)).