Originally from Defeating and Defending Awards: Arbitrability, Public Policy, and Global Court Practice

PREVIEW

9.1    The Overview

The following sections provide concluding reflections on public policy, arbitrability, and their interconnection while addressing Research Questions A and B. This chapter is structured to separately consider the two concepts, focusing on their legal principles and how they fit within the legal structures of the New York Convention 1958 and the Model Law. Consequently, the concluding reflections bring together Research Questions A and B but treat them as distinct inquiries based on the respective doctrines and frameworks of the New York Convention 1958 and the Model Law. Following this, are the final thoughts on the empirical study, involving the court decisions in answering Research Question C, testing the pro-enforcement approach consensus hypothesis.

In effect, this chapter is divided into three sections: (1) Public Policy; (2) Arbitrability and the interplay between Public Policy and Arbitrability; and (3) the Empirical Legal Analysis of the Pro-Enforcement Approach Consensus. To locate and navigate specific discussions and answers to the research questions and sub-research enquiries in the thesis, please consult Table 1.11 Summary of Answers Structure in Chapter 1 Introduction: The Thesis Narrative.

Finally, this chapter offers some thoughts on the way forward, and suggestions for further research.

9.2    The Public Policy Concept

Public policy is notoriously difficult to pin down; it eludes simple definition. It is inherently uncertain and abstract, ever changing with societal norms and values that differ from one place to another, and it evolves over time. Its scope is broad, touching on everything from societal norms to legal frameworks, and its significance varies between countries, cultures and over time. Driven by a multitude of factors including societal values, legal considerations, and moral values, public policy is dynamic and is shaped by the very people it serves. Therefore, this concept is not static; it is always in motion, responsive to new economic conditions, societal values, and ethical considerations and changes. It naturally fluctuates and adapts to current events, like how the Covid–19 pandemic shifted views on the freedom of movement.

Worldwide shifts and advancements in technology are steering public policy into uncharted areas, changing the way information circulates and influencing cultural viewpoints on many matters, from same–sex marriage, gender identity, to corruption. This requires public policy to maintain adaptability while staying grounded in core principles.