Legal and institutional framework: New York Convention, Model Law, institutional rules
Legal and institutional framework: New York Convention, Model Law, institutional rules
This domain tests the layers of arbitration law. The New York Convention governs recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The UNCITRAL Model Law is a template for national arbitration statutes. Institutional rules govern the conduct of an administered case but are not themselves a national law.
Core rules
- New York Convention 1958: Article II requires recognition of written arbitration agreements and referral to arbitration; Article III requires enforcement of foreign awards; Article V lists limited grounds for refusal, including incapacity, invalid agreement, lack of notice, excess of jurisdiction, irregular composition, non-final award, non-arbitrability and public policy.
- Model Law: 1985, revised 2006; covers agreement, stay of court proceedings, interim measures, tribunal constitution, jurisdiction, procedure, setting aside and enforcement. It is not a treaty and applies only where enacted.
- Institutional rules: ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC and UNCITRAL Rules provide administration, appointment, challenges, expedited procedures and costs. They are incorporated by the agreement.
- Seat determines the supervising courts and the law of the arbitration; the governing law of the contract may differ.
Worked example
An award is made in Paris against a company with assets in Singapore. Enforcement is sought in Singapore. The Singapore court applies the New York Convention, not the French setting-aside rules. The defendant argues the tribunal ignored its evidence. That is not a merits appeal; it may amount to a due-process objection only if the party was unable to present its case. The court does not re-hear the dispute. If the award had already been set aside in Paris on a Convention ground, the Singapore court would consider that fact, but the Convention does not make setting aside automatically decisive in every jurisdiction.
Traps
- Saying the Model Law is binding worldwide; it is a model statute.
- Confusing institutional rules with the law of the seat.
- Using Article V as a merits appeal.
- Forgetting that the Convention addresses foreign awards and enforcement, not the internal setting-aside procedure.
- Missing the distinction between the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat.