UN and EU Sanctions Versus US Sanctions: Two Different Yardsticks Commentary on the Decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (International Commercial Chamber) (5th Pole, Chamber 16) of 3 June 2020, No. 21/2020

Joséphine Hage Chahine
{"title":"UN and EU Sanctions Versus US Sanctions: Two Different Yardsticks Commentary on the Decision of the Paris Court of Appeal (International Commercial Chamber) (5th Pole, Chamber 16) of 3 June 2020, No. 21/2020","authors":"Joséphine Hage Chahine","doi":"10.54648/joia2021004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Paris Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to an ICC award rendered in favour of an Iranian government-owned company. That challenge was based on allegations of breaches by the tribunal of due process, of the arbitrators’ mandate, and of public policy. Of note, the public policy challenge was based on the tribunal’s alleged failure to take into consideration UN, EU and US sanctions against Iran. This decision of the Paris Court of Appeal is in line with the established French case law regarding its answer to the above mentioned three grounds of challenge, but it drew a peculiar conclusion that US sanctions, contrary to UN and EU sanctions, are not part of French international public policy, even though having the same object.\nChallenge of the award, French case law, breach of due process-waiver of the right to object, breach of the arbitrators’ mandate and the duty to reason the award-breach of public policy, UN, EU and US sanctions against Iran-international consensus","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","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/joia2021004","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

The Paris Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to an ICC award rendered in favour of an Iranian government-owned company. That challenge was based on allegations of breaches by the tribunal of due process, of the arbitrators’ mandate, and of public policy. Of note, the public policy challenge was based on the tribunal’s alleged failure to take into consideration UN, EU and US sanctions against Iran. This decision of the Paris Court of Appeal is in line with the established French case law regarding its answer to the above mentioned three grounds of challenge, but it drew a peculiar conclusion that US sanctions, contrary to UN and EU sanctions, are not part of French international public policy, even though having the same object. Challenge of the award, French case law, breach of due process-waiver of the right to object, breach of the arbitrators’ mandate and the duty to reason the award-breach of public policy, UN, EU and US sanctions against Iran-international consensus
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
联合国和欧盟制裁与美国制裁:两种不同的衡量标准——评巴黎上诉法院(国际商事法庭)(第16分庭第五极)2020年6月3日第21/2020号判决
巴黎上诉法院驳回了对国际刑事法院作出的有利于伊朗政府所有公司的裁决的质疑。这一质疑是基于法庭违反正当程序、仲裁员授权和公共政策的指控。值得注意的是,公共政策挑战是基于法庭据称没有考虑联合国、欧盟和美国对伊朗的制裁。巴黎上诉法院的这一裁决符合法国既定判例法对上述三个质疑理由的回答,但它得出了一个独特的结论,即美国的制裁与联合国和欧盟的制裁相反,不属于法国国际公共政策的一部分,尽管目的相同。对裁决的质疑、法国判例法、违反正当程序、放弃反对权、违反仲裁员的授权和解释裁决违反公共政策的义务、联合国、欧盟和美国对伊朗的制裁国际共识
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