Article V (2)(b) of the New York Arbitration Convention specifically provides that signatories may refuse to enforce an arbitral award where it is contrary to Public Policy in the enforcing state. In general, courts will not refuse enforcement under this provision unless the infringement of public policy under the enforcing country’s law is:
- “would violate the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice;”
- raises “fundamental, core questions of morality and justice;”
- and the award “if it disregards essential and widely recognized values” and infringes “concepts of justice” in an “intolerable manner;” or
- the enforcement of the award would be clearly injurious to the public good or, “possibly, enforcement would be wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public on whose behalf the powers of the state are exercised.”
But, arbitral tribunals faced with arguments that, notwithstanding a choice of law and forum clause, the judgment sought would violate public policy provisions in a likely enforcing state should be wary of the implications under the Convention.