Enforcement of an Arbitration Agreement
Arbitration is among the best type of resolving disagreement because of the ease with which the arbitral awards can be enforced in other nations other than where the arbitration was carried out. In numerous cases, arbitral awards are willingly complied with, and hardly ever do they necessitate judicial enforcement (Bishop and Martin, 2). However, where an arbitral award has not been complied with, the courts will rely upon a consistent, well-articulated policy of recognizing and enforcing awards in both domestic and foreign arbitrations (McLaughlin, 275-77). This case invites an in-depth interrogation of enforceability of an arbitral award awarded to Miga at the Chamber of Commerce of Stockholm, Sweden against the federal republic of Russia which Russia refused to pay.
The agreements between Miga and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and subsequently the Federative Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia, proffered all the disputes be solved by way of arbitration and subject to enforcement in court in New York. In this regard, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“The Convention”) will be invoked. It provides that an act of authenticating an arbitral award can be conveyed under Sections 304, 207, or 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Convention also deals with the acknowledgment and enforcement of alien arbitration awards made in a country other than that where the recognition and implementation are sought (McLaughlin, 278).
By signing up the convention the state parties affirm that they undertake to recognize arbitration awards as binding and that it will put them in force in accordance with the procedural rules of the country where the grant is to be imposed. Therefore the Federative Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia is under an obligation to not only recognize arbitration awards as binding but also enforce them.
However, this stand can diverge in the circumstances where the parties to the arbitral agreement are suffering from some incapacity, or the agreement is invalid under applicable law; the complaining party was not duly notified of the engagement of the intermediary or of the applicable arbitration procedure or was unable to present his defense; the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, or the procedure followed, was not in agreement with the parties’ agreement or applicable law(New York Convention Art V). It should be worth noting that this case does not bring the above-mentioned discrepancies. Therefore, Miga must be compensated by the Federative Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia an amount of $ 275 million shillings.
McLaughlin, Joseph T., and Laurie Genevro. “Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Under the New York Convention-Practice in US Courts.” Int’l Tax & Bus. Law. 3 (1985): 249.
Domke, Martin. “The United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration.” (1959): 414-426.
Law, Applicable. “International Commercial Arbitration.”