Abstract:A trend toward delocalization of arbitral law has been underway for the last 50 years, starting with the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Many courts recognizing the merits of arbitration have exercised significant deference toward arbitral awards, reflecting a modern and light-handed attitude and narrow view of the public policy defense to enforcement of international arbitral awards. At the same time, however, the expanding scope of claims that may be submitted to arbitration accentuates emerging concerns about issues of mandatory public law arising in arbitration. There is increased discussion over the authority and obligation of arbitral tribunals to consider issues of public law within the arbitration procedure itself. Further, there is a call for recognition that the liberalization of arbitrable subject matter comes necessarily at the price of some increase in judicial ex post control of the compatibility of the arbitrators' product with public policy, as the second-look doctrine raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Mitsubishi case suggests. From time to time it is appropriate to revisit the question of public policy as a bar to enforcement of international arbitration awards. Public policy, by nature, is a dynamic concept that evolves continually to meet the changing needs of society, including political, social, cultural, moral and economic dimensions. My article focuses on how considerations of mandatory public law play into the concept of public policy as a defense to enforcement of international arbitral awards. My claim is that mandatory public law poses a challenge to international arbitration and, in response, in order to sustain the balance and legitimacy of the international arbitral system, a reformed concept of substantive public policy is needed. I do not argue in favor of lowering the standard to be applied – that is, in balancing between finality and justice, a reviewing court should continue to reflect a pro-enforcement bias and refuse enforcement only in "exceptional circumstances." In this respect, I agree with the detailed recommendations that are intended to guide an enforcement court's discretion, which are contained in the International Law Association Committee on International Commercial Arbitration's 2002 Final Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards. However, in my view, the scope of public policy as defined in the Final Report is too narrow because it recommends that an enforcement court exclude consideration of the public policies that may be relevant at the place of the underlying performance of the contract. I contend that the public policy standard should permit a supervising court to consider fundamental public policy not only of the enforcement forum, but also at the place with the closest connection to an underlying contract, where the transaction in question has its greatest societal impact. This approach provides proper incentives for the parties and arbitrators to consider relevant issues of mandatory public law during arbitral proceedings and determine whether they are sufficiently fundamental. It also enables courts at a remove from the place of performance to give due regard to the important public policies of another State, reflecting that State’s sovereignty and societal values. In this way, public policy mediates between the interests of transnational business and those of the State with closest connection to the contract. While building legitimacy and trust can be complicated and may require balancing paramount interests of arbitral finality against fundamental State principles, the public policy defense is the appropriate mechanism to achieve this counterpoise.

The ECHR in Action: Its Applicability and Relevance for Arbitration

Enforcement of Awards v. Enforcement of Judgments in the EU: Arbitration Must Catch Up

Revisiting Disqualification of Arbitrators During Arbitral Proceedings: A Critique of Toyoshima & Co., Ltd. V. Gaomi Luyuan Textile Co., Ltd.

ECHR Preamble vs. the European Arrest Warrant: balancing Human Rights protection and the principle of mutual trust in EU Criminal Law?

Judicial Intervention in International Commercial Arbitration: Implications and Recent Developments from the Indian Perspective

Between facts and norms: Testing compliance with Article 8 ECHR in immigration cases

The Extension of the Arbitration Clause to Non-Signatories: Lessons from Comparative Law

Arbitration, Civilization and Public Policy: Seeking Counterpoise between Arbitral Autonomy and the Public Policy Defense in View of Foreign Mandatory Public Law

An Empirical Study on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan Arbitral Awards in Mainland China

On the Non-Enforcement of Arbitral Award with Background ofRevising Civil Procedural Law: An Empirical Analysis inPractice Related to Beijing Arbitration Commission

Challenges of Legal Guarantees for the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in International Commercial Cases

Exporting the European Convention on Human Rights

The principles of justice and reasonable period in commercial procedure: the impact of the provisions of the European convention on human rights and the decisions of the European court of human rights on their implementation

On the Nationality of Arbitration Awards:The "dual Standard" in Chinese Law

Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Principled Response to the Opportunity for Codification in England and Wales

The power of human rights tribunals: Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights and domestic policy change

Validity of the Arbitration Clause in the International Employment Contract: the Viewpoint of the GCC Countries

Guarding the Great Wall?—jurisprudential Review of Treaty Interpretative Tools in Chinese BIT-based Arbitration Cases

The Chinese approach to arbitration judicial review

On the individual properties of the accessory nature of the arbitration clause

Arbitration or Litigation?——Problems of Parallel Proceedings and the Solution in International Arbitration