Public Policy Barricading the Foreign Arbitral Award: A Comparative Analysis between UK, USA & France


  • Ammara Sharif School of Law, Bahria University Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Shan Ali School of Law, Bahria University Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Amina Iqbal Lecturer in Law Department of Law and Shariah, Women University Swabi, Swabi, Pakistan
  • Mahrukh Khalid International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan



Public Policy, Foreign Award, International Public Policy, Foreign Arbitral Award, Arbitration, Domestic Public Policy


The concept of public policy in International Arbitration is still extremely contentious, controversial, and complicated in modern times. Although legislation related to arbitration and practise have attempted to harmonise public policy so that parties may benefit from a globally recognised idea, judicial courts have made this effort almost difficult by giving a very loose & broad definition in the name of public policy. Moreover, the New York Convention gives little direction to national courts on how to interpret the public policy claim. In the name of local contract laws and fundamental principles of a nation, judge keeps hampering the enforcement of foreign award. Internal Law Association attempted to resolve this contention but couldn't come up with a definite definition which limits the policy in a closed structure. Despite the ambiguity of the issue, national courts in most developed arbitral countries interpret public policy narrowly. Because industrialised countries' courts typically see arbitral awards as a separate aspect of public policy; they are pro-enforcement. In this article we will comprehensively elaborate this attitude, legislation and case law study of developed nations like USA, UK and France.


W.L.R. 811, 825 (1999).

Ali I. 2014. Challenges in The Way To Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award In Pakistan, 294<>

American Construction Machinery & Equipment Corporation Ltd. v Mechanized Construction of Pakistan Ltd, 659 F. Supp 426 (1987).

B, Hanotiau and O, Caprasse. 2008. Arbitrability, Due Process and Public Policy under Article V of the New York Convention, 25(6) 712, Journal of International Arbitration, 735.

Bockstiegel, KH. Public Policy and Arbitrability in Pieter Sanders (ed), Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration (ICCA Congress Series 3) 178.

Brown, E., Illegality and Public Policy-Enforcement of Arbitrage Awards in England: Hilmarton Limited v Ornniun De Traitement Et De Valorisation S.A. 3(1), International Arbitration Law Review, 31 31-35.

Buchanan, A. M. 1988. Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration, 26 AM. BUS. L.J, 511, 513, 514.

CA Paris, European Gas Turbines SA v. Westman International Ltd., REV ARB. 35 (1994).

CA Paris, Gallay v Fabricated Metals, Cass. Fr., January 5, 1999, Rev. Arb. 805 (2001).

CA Paris, Lebanese Traders Distributors v. Reynolds [27 October 1994] REY.ARB.709.

CA Paris, Thalès v Euromissile, J.D.I. 357 (2005).

Code De Procédure Civile (C.P.C France).

Code of Civil Procedure 1986.

COSID v. Steel Authority of India Ltd, YCA 502 XI (1986).

Cour d' Appeal de Paris, Ganz and Others v. Soc. Nationale des Chemins defer Tunisiens REY.ARB. 478, 480. (1991).

Cour d' Appeal de Paris, Republique de Cote D 'voire et autre v. Beyrard, REY.ARB. 685 (1994).

Cour d' Appel de Paris, Soc.Courrges Design v. Andre Courreges, REVCRIT.DIP., 580 (1991).

Cour de cassation, Sociite Thinet v. Labre/y Rev. Arb., REV.ARB. 473 (1989).

Davidson, F. 2000. English Arbitration Law 1999, Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law’ Quarterly 230, 230-253.

Deutsche Schachtbau Tiefbohrgesellschaft MB.H (D.s. T.) v. Ras Al Khaimah Nat 'I Oil Co. (Rakoil), 2 Lloyd's Rep. 246, 254 (KB) (1987).

Deutsche Schachtbau v National Oil, 3 WLR 1023 (1987).

Enonchong, N. 2000. The Enforcement of Foreign Arbitrage Awards Based on Illegal Contracts.

Fouchard P. Gaillard E. Goldman B, and Savage J. 1999. International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International. 876, 953-960.

Fry, D. J. (2009). Desordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy, Chinese Journal of International Law, 81.

Gherulal Parakh v. Mahdeodas Maiya SC 781 AIR. (1959).

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 US 20 (1991).

Greer, E. B. 2002. When the Federal Arbitration Act and the Bankruptcy Code Collide’ Business Restructuring Review, 20.

Hanotiau, B. & Caprasse, O. 2008. Arbitrability, Due Process, and Public Policy under Article V of the New York Convention: Belgian and French Perspectives, J.INT'L.ARB. 25(6), 730.

Hard v. Hodges, 334 U.S. 24, 34-35 (1948).

Harris, B., Planterose, R., and Tecks, J. 2nd ed. 1999. The Arbitration Act of 1996: A Commentary, 20.

Heitzmann, P. & Grierson, J. (2007). SNF v CYTEC Industrie: National Courts within the EC Apply Different Standards to Review, International Awards Allegedly Contrary to Article 81 EC, 2 Stockholm Int’l Arb. Rev. 39.

International Navigation Ltd. v Waterside Ocean Navigation Co Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Waterside Ocean Nav. Co. v. Int’l Nav. Ltd., 83-9016, 84-7184 (1984).

Kedar Nath Motani and Ors. v Prahlad Rai and Ors, SC 213 AIR. (1960).

Koch, C. 2009.The Enforcement of Awards Annulled in their Place of Origin: the French and US Experience, 1. INT'L.ARB. 26(2), 267-292.

Kurkela, Matti, and Turunen S. 2005. Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration. 2005. Oceana Publications Inc. Dobbs Ferry, New York 11.

Lemenda Trading Co. Ltd v African Middle East Petroleum Co Ltd, QB 448 (1988).

MIS Breman v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1. (1972).

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985)

Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation SA. (OTV) v. Himarton Ltd, 2 Lloyd's Rep. 222, 225 (K.B.) (1999).

Parsons and Whittemore Overseas Inc. v. RAKTA, 508 F.2d 969 (1974).

R. v. V, 1 Lloyd's Rep 97, EWHC 1531 (Comm), 119 Con LR 73 (K.B.) (2008).

RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd v Sinocore International Co Ltd, EWCA CIV 838 (2018).

Reed, L. and Freda, J. 2008. Narrow Exceptions: A Review of Recent US Precedent Regarding the Due Process and Public Policy Defenses of the New York Convention, 25(6) Journal of International Arbitration, 649, 656.

Reforming The Law Governing Arbitration. 2011. Book IV of the Code of Civil Procedure France, Decree No. 2011-48.

Resolution 2/2002 of the ILA on public Policy as bar to enforcement of International Arbitral Award (New Dehli , 2 April 2002) ILA 70th.

Resolution of International Law Association (ILA) on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards. (2003). 19(2) ARB INT’L 213, 213-14.

Richard v Mellish, All E.R. 258 (1824-34).

Scherkv. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (1974).

Sever, R. J., 1991. The Relaxation of lnarbitrability and Public Policy Checks on Us and Foreign Arbitration: Arbitration out of Control? 65 Tnl. L. Rev. 1688.

Sharma, R. 2009. Party Autonomy v Public Policy: Appellate Arbitration in India. 75(4) 491.

Soleimany v. Soleimany, QB 785, 804 (KB) (1999).

The Code of Civil Procedure (France)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1986 (Portugal)

The English Arbitration Act 1950

The English Arbitration Act 1996

Thomas, R. D. 1981. International Commercial Arbitration Agreements and the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards -A Commentary on the Arbitration Act 1975, 1 L.M.C.L.Q. 17,775

Timothy Walker J, 2 Lloyd's Rep 222, 225 (1999).

Ullah, I. 2016. Public Policy in Arbitration: Still a Long Way to Go. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 9(1), 53-86.

United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Masco Inc. 484 U.S. 29, 42 (1987).

Wade, S. 1999. Westacre v. Soleimarry: What Policy? Which Public?’ (1999) Int'l.ARB.L.Rev.2(3), 100.

Westacre Invs. Inc. v. Jugoimport-SPDR Holding Co. Ltd., Q.B. 740,757 (K.B.), aff'd, (2000) 1 Q.B. 288 (K.B.) (1999).

Wiko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953).

Winnie (Jo-MEI) MA, (Sweet and Maxwell 2009). Recommendations on Public Policy in the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Arbitration, 75 (4).




How to Cite

Sharif, A., Ali, S., Iqbal, A., & Khalid, M. (2021). Public Policy Barricading the Foreign Arbitral Award: A Comparative Analysis between UK, USA & France. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 10, 1765–1776.