Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:51:50.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Refusal to Confirm an Arbitral Award Against Nonsignatory Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

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.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 98 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 197 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004 

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 See Bridas v. Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2003).

2 9 U.S.C. §§1-307(2000).

3 See 345 F.3d at 352–53.

4 Id. at 356 (citation omitted).

5 Id. at 357.

6 Id. at 357-58.

7 210 F.3d 524, 526-28 (5th Cir. 2000).

8 345 F.3d at 360-61 (citations omitted) (footnote omitted). The court also rejected the “direct benefits” version of estoppel. In cases applying that doctrine, “the nonsignatory had brought suit against a signatory premised in part upon the agreement,” whereas here the government had not sued Bridas and had thus “not exploited the JVA to the degree that the cases that consider applying this version of estoppel require.” Id. at 362.

9 Id. at 363.

10 Id. at 360 n.11.