Betamax: Has The Privy Council Gone Too Far In Seeking To Ensure That The Second Look Test Does Not Become A Second Guess Test?

T. Granier, J. Grierson
{"title":"Betamax: Has The Privy Council Gone Too Far In Seeking To Ensure That The Second Look Test Does Not Become A Second Guess Test?","authors":"T. Granier, J. Grierson","doi":"10.54648/joia2021037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Questions of public policy often arise in international arbitrations, including, in particular, issues of competition law and corruption. Arbitrators’ power to adjudicate these issues is conditional upon national courts’ power to review such issues when faced with annulment applications and/or objections to enforcement applications (the ‘second look’ test). However, national courts are divided as to whether, when doing so, they should be allowed to second-guess an arbitral tribunal’s decision on whether there has been a breach of international public policy. In its recent decision in Betamax, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the highest court of appeal for Mauritius, constituted of members of the UK Supreme Court) came down very firmly against second-guessing. After having presented the different approaches that various jurisdictions have adopted on this issue, this article proposes that national courts should be allowed to further inquire into and potentially second-guess arbitrators’ decisions on issues of international public policy, provided that the party applying for the setting aside of the award establishes before the competent court a strong prima facie case that there has been illegality such that recognising or enforcing the award would give rise to a breach of international public policy.\nBetamax, Public policy, corruption, bribery, money laundering, competition law, illegality, setting aside of arbitral awards, enforcement proceedings","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questions of public policy often arise in international arbitrations, including, in particular, issues of competition law and corruption. Arbitrators’ power to adjudicate these issues is conditional upon national courts’ power to review such issues when faced with annulment applications and/or objections to enforcement applications (the ‘second look’ test). However, national courts are divided as to whether, when doing so, they should be allowed to second-guess an arbitral tribunal’s decision on whether there has been a breach of international public policy. In its recent decision in Betamax, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the highest court of appeal for Mauritius, constituted of members of the UK Supreme Court) came down very firmly against second-guessing. After having presented the different approaches that various jurisdictions have adopted on this issue, this article proposes that national courts should be allowed to further inquire into and potentially second-guess arbitrators’ decisions on issues of international public policy, provided that the party applying for the setting aside of the award establishes before the competent court a strong prima facie case that there has been illegality such that recognising or enforcing the award would give rise to a breach of international public policy. Betamax, Public policy, corruption, bribery, money laundering, competition law, illegality, setting aside of arbitral awards, enforcement proceedings
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Betamax:枢密院在寻求确保第二次观察测试不会成为第二次猜测测试方面是否走得太远了?
公共政策问题经常出现在国际仲裁中,特别包括竞争法和腐败问题。仲裁员裁决这些问题的权力取决于国家法院在面临撤销申请和/或对强制执行申请的反对时审查这些问题的权利(“重新审视”测试)。然而,各国法院在这样做时,是否应该允许它们对仲裁庭关于是否存在违反国际公共政策的决定进行事后猜测,这一问题存在分歧。枢密院司法委员会(毛里求斯最高上诉法院,由英国最高法院成员组成)最近在Betamax作出裁决,坚决反对事后猜测。在介绍了各法域在这一问题上采取的不同做法后,本条建议,应允许国家法院进一步调查并可能对仲裁员在国际公共政策问题上的裁决进行事后猜测,但条件是,申请撤销裁决的一方在主管法院确立了一个强有力的初步证据,证明存在违法行为,承认或执行裁决将导致违反国际公共政策。Betamax、公共政策、腐败、贿赂、洗钱、竞争法、非法性、撤销仲裁裁决、执行程序
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
期刊最新文献
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Providing for Arbitration in Mainland China Administered by Overseas Arbitration Institutions ZF Auto. v. Luxshare: Supreme Court’s Withdrawal of Judicial Assistance for Discovery from Private Arbitration Political Risk and Its Key Role in Mining Disputes Around the World A New Era of Maritime Arbitration: Ex Machina Determinations Arbitrating Investment Disputes in Time of Geopolitical Unrest: Focus on Investment Protection in Russia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1