Originally from The Law and Practice of International Arbitration: Essays in Honor of John Fellas – Preview Page

INTRODUCTION 

Article VI2 of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention,” or “Convention”) governs the enforcement of international arbitral awards while an application to set aside the award3 is pending in another jurisdiction (the primary jurisdiction.) In this scenario, the court where enforcement is sought “may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the other party to give suitable security.” Hence, courts may stay enforcement proceedings while awaiting set-aside proceedings at the primary jurisdiction. 

This rule’s broad language does not point to any criteria to evaluate whether to grant a stay of enforcement in these circumstances. The application of this rule is left to the courts’ discretion. This leaves as an open question what test should guide the decision of the courts. 

In the absence of any express criteria, courts should interpret and apply Article VI of the New York Convention autonomously—that is, on its own terms, and under principles of international law.4 Conversely, courts ought not interpret the New York Convention in conformity with domestic rules, given its nature as an instrument of uniform law. This necessitates that the enforcing court seek guidance in international principles and case law, rather than domestic. While the language of Article VI does not offer express criteria nor “bright line” rules, the principles that guide on whether to stay or enforce an award arise from the constellation of decisions from various jurisdictions that have evaluated this issue under particular circumstances.