Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined?: the example of Indian arbitration law
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Abschlussarbeit Buch |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Berlin ; Lausanne ; Bruxelles ; Chennai ; New York ; Oxford
Peter Lang
[2023]
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht
Band/Volume 6761 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltstext Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | 329 Seiten 21 cm x 14.8 cm, 429 g |
| ISBN: | 9783631908778 3631908776 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a22000008cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV049401798 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20240222 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 231108s2023 gw m||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 015 | |a 23,N38 |2 dnb | ||
| 016 | 7 | |a 1302593501 |2 DE-101 | |
| 020 | |a 9783631908778 |c : EUR 61.95 (DE), EUR 63.70 (AT), CHF 72.00 (freier Preis) |9 978-3-631-90877-8 | ||
| 020 | |a 3631908776 |9 3-631-90877-6 | ||
| 024 | 3 | |a 9783631908778 | |
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)1422805135 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DNB1302593501 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 044 | |a gw |c XA-DE-BE | ||
| 049 | |a DE-29 |a DE-355 |a DE-20 |a DE-384 | ||
| 084 | |a PT 350 |0 (DE-625)139874: |2 rvk | ||
| 084 | |8 1\p |a 340 |2 23sdnb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Dsouza, Nihal Bernard |d 1990- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)130583867X |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? |b the example of Indian arbitration law |c Nihal Bernard Dsouza |
| 264 | 1 | |a Berlin ; Lausanne ; Bruxelles ; Chennai ; New York ; Oxford |b Peter Lang |c [2023] | |
| 264 | 4 | |c © 2023 | |
| 300 | |a 329 Seiten |c 21 cm x 14.8 cm, 429 g | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht |v Band/Volume 6761 | |
| 502 | |b Dissertation |c Universität Bonn |d 2023 | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit |0 (DE-588)4052348-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Ordre public |0 (DE-588)4130689-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Indien |0 (DE-588)4026722-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 653 | |a Arbitral awards | ||
| 653 | |a Enforcement | ||
| 653 | |a party autonomy | ||
| 653 | |a judicial intervention | ||
| 653 | |a Ordre public | ||
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4113937-9 |a Hochschulschrift |2 gnd-content | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Indien |0 (DE-588)4026722-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Ordre public |0 (DE-588)4130689-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit |0 (DE-588)4052348-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 710 | 2 | |a Peter Lang GmbH |0 (DE-588)1065711506 |4 pbl | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i Erscheint auch als |n Online-Ausgabe |z 978-3-631-90882-2 |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i Erscheint auch als |n Online-Ausgabe |z 978-3-631-90883-9 |
| 830 | 0 | |a Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht |v Band/Volume 6761 |w (DE-604)BV000000068 |9 6761 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m X:MVB |q text/html |u http://deposit.dnb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?id=a6a4d49839374399abc782630d617923&prov=M&dok_var=1&dok_ext=htm |3 Inhaltstext |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m DNB Datenaustausch |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=034729025&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034729025 | ||
| 883 | 1 | |8 1\p |a vlb |d 20230915 |q DE-101 |u https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#vlb | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804186121372958720 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
.........................................................................................
7
LIST
OF
ABBREVIATIONS
................................................................................
17
ABSTRACT
.......................................................................................................
19
DELIMITING
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
-
AN
INTRODUCTORY
NOTE
..21
I.
RESEARCH
QUESTION
...................................................................................
25
II.
BACKGROUND
TO
RESEARCH
.........................................................................
27
CHAPTER
1:
PUBLIC
POLICY
AND
ITS
MANY
CONTOURS
.............................
31
I
.
THE
ORIGINS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
IN
CIVIL
AND
COMMON
LAW SYSTEMS
.
31
IL
THE
DIFFERENT
SHADES
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
.....................................................
34
1.
AS
AN
INSTRUMENT
OF
MAKING
AND
INTERPRETING
LAWS
.......................
35
2.
TO
REGULATE
PRIVATE
CONTRACTUAL
BEHAVIOR
.........................................
36
3.
IN
APPLYING
FOREIGN
LAWS
AND
RECOGNISING
FOREIGN
JUDGMENTS
........
37
4.
IN
THE
FIELD
OF
ARBITRATION
..................................................................
39
5.
IN
TRADE
LAW
........................................................................................
40
6.
COMMON
VALUES
UNDERLYING
PUBLIC
POLICY
......................................
41
III.
THE
ROLE
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
IN
INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION
41
IV.
THE
IMPORTANCE
AND
LIMITATIONS
OF
JUDICIAL
REVIEW
OF
ARBITRAL
AWARDS
44
CHAPTER
2:
USE
AND
ABUSE
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
UNDER
THE
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
LAW
...........................................................
47
I.
INTRODUCTION
............................................................................................
47
II.
CONTEXTUALIZING
THE
RESEARCH
WITH
A
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
................
49
10
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
HISTORICAL
REASONS
WHY
INDIA
SHOULD
BE
A
PRO-ENFORCEMENT
REGIME
............................................................................................
49
2.
BACKGROUND
TO
THE
CURRENT
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
INDIAN
LAW
.....................................................................................
51
III.
THE
INTERPRETATION
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
BY
THE
INDIAN
JUDICIARY
...........................................................................................
55
1.
INTERPRETATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
BEFORE
THE
ENACTMENT
OF
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
ACT
1996
.......................................................
56
2.
SUBSEQUENT
SCEPTICISM
OF
THE
COURTS
TOWARDS
ARBITRATION
..............
59
3.
RECENT
SHIFT
TOWARDS
A
MORE
PRO-ARBITRATION
APPROACH
..................
62
IV.
UNDERSTANDING
THE
OUTLOOK
OF
INDIAN
COURTS
.......................................
64
1.
THE
TRADITIONAL
ROLE
OF
THE
COURTS
IN
THE
INDIAN
LEGAL
SYSTEM
.........
65
2.
LEGISLATIVE
CONTRIBUTION
TO
INITIAL
JUDICIAL
HOSTILITY
TOWARDS
ARBITRATION
....................................................................................
66
3.
CONFLICTING
APPROACH
TO
JUDICIAL
POWERS
UNDER
INDIAN
CIVIL
LAW
....
68
4.
FOREIGN
INFLUENCES
ON
THE
JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
69
(A)
INFLUENCE
OF
FOREIGN
COURTS
........................................................
70
(B)
INFLUENCE
OF
FOREIGN
LITERATURE
...................................................
72
(C)
ANALYSIS
......................................................................................
74
CHAPTER
3:
AN
OVERVIEW
OF
HOW
THE
INDIAN
APPROACH
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
COMPARES
WITH
OTHER
JURISDICTIONS
.............................
77
I.
THE
RATIONALE
FOR
A
COMPARATIVE
APPROACH
............................................
77
II.
COMPARISON
WITH
SPECIFIC
COMMON
LAW
JURISDICTIONS
.........................
78
1.
THE
ENGLISH
APPROACH
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
...........................................
78
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
..................................................................
78
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
.................................................................
79
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.........................................................................
81
2.
THE
AMERICAN
APPROACH
TO
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
..............
85
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
..................................................................
85
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
.................................................................
86
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.........................................................................
90
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
11
III.
COMPARISON
WITH
SPECIFIC
CIVIL
LAW
JURISDICTIONS
.................................
94
1.
THE
GERMAN
APPROACH
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
..........................................
94
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
.................................................................
94
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
................................................................
95
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.........................................................................
97
2.
ORDRE
PUBLIC
UNDER
FRENCH
LAW
.....................................................
100
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
..............................................................
100
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
.............................................................
101
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.....................................................................
102
IV.
COMPARING
APPROACHES
TO
PROCEDURAL
AND
SUBSTANTIVE
ELEMENTS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
..............................................................................
105
1.
WHERE
THERE
IS
A
VIOLATION
OF
PROCEDURAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
................
106
(A)
THE
COMMON
LAW
APPROACH
TO
PROTECTING
PROCEDURAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
......................................................................
107
(B)
THE
CIVIL
LAW
APPROACH
TO
PROTECTING
PROCEDURAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
.................................................................................
109
2.
IN
CASE
OF
VIOLATION
OF
SUBSTANTIVE
PUBLIC
POLICY
..........................
ILL
V.
ANALYSIS
................................................................................................
112
CHAPTER
4:
THE
INNOVATIVE
APPROACH
OF
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
LAW
IN
DEALING
WITH
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
............................
115
I.
WHY
THE
2015
AMENDMENTS
TO
THE
IAA
DEFINED
PUBLIC
POLICY
........
116
1.
TO
REDUCE
THE
SCOPE
FOR
JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION
AND
ENSURE
ARBITRAL
AWARDS
ARE
FINAL
AND
BINDING
.......................................
117
2.
TO
PROVIDE
CERTAINTY
TO
PARTIES
......................................................
118
IL
THE
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
THE
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
LAW
.....
119
1.
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
WITH
RESPECT
TO
FOREIGN
AWARDS
.........................................................................................
121
2.
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
WITH
RESPECT
TO
DOMESTIC
AWARDS
........................................................................
122
III.
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
AMENDMENT
TO
SECTION
48(2)B
..................................
123
12
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
THE
MAKING
OF
THE
AWARD
WAS
INDUCED
OR
AFFECTED
BY
FRAUD
OR
CORRUPTION
OR
WAS
IN
VIOLATION
OFSECTION
75
OR
SECTION
81
.....
123
(A)
REFUSING
ENFORCEMENTS
OF
AWARDS
VITIATED
BY
FRAUD
................
124
(B)
REFUSING
ENFORCEMENTS
OF
FOREIGN
AWARDS
ON
THE
GROUNDS
OF
CORRUPTION
128
(I)
WHERE
THE
AWARD
IS
OBTAINED
BY
CORRUPT
MEANS
..........
129
(II)
WHERE
THE
AWARD
GIVES
EFFECT
TO
A
CORRUPT
CONTRACT
132
(III)
WHERE
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
ITSELF
IS
OBTAINED
BY
CORRUPT
MEANS
133
2.
THE
AWARD
IS
IN
CONTRAVENTION
WITH
THE
FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
...................................................................................
135
(A)
USE
OF
JUDICIAL
APPROACH
..........................................................
138
(B)
PRINCIPLES
OF
NATURAL
JUSTICE
.....................................................
138
(C)
PERVERSE
OR
IRRATIONAL
AWARD
....................................................
139
(D)
PROTECTING
THE
ECONOMIC
INTEREST
OF
INDIA
..............................
140
(E)
PROTECTING
FREE
AND
FAIR
COMPETITION
AS
A
FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
141
(F
)
ESSENTIAL
INSOLVENCY
LAW
PROVISIONS
AS
A
FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
...........................................................
145
(G)
THE
NON-EXHAUSTIVE
NATURE
OF
THE FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
..........................................................................
147
3.
THE
AWARD
CONFLICTS
WITH
THE
MOST
BASIC
NOTIONS
OF
MORALITY
OR
JUSTICE
.....................................................................................
148
(A)
MOST
BASIC
NOTIONS
OF
MORALITY
AS
A
BREACH
OF
INDIAN
PUBLIC
POLICY
148
(I)
MORALITY,
ACCORDING
TO
INDIAN
COURTS
............................
149
(II)
COMPARATIVE
APPROACHES
TO
MORALITY
............................
150
(III)
CORRUPTION
OR
FRAUD
AS
AN
IMMORAL
ACT
........................
151
(IV)
RESPECT
FOR
HUMAN
RIGHTS
...............................................
151
(B)
MOST
BASIC
PRINCIPLES
OF
JUSTICE
FORMING
PART
OF
INDIAN
PUBLIC
POLICY
......................................................................
154
(I)
WHERE
ARBITRATORS
DO
NOT
FOLLOW
DUE
PROCESS/
PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED
BY
LAW
...................................
157
(II)
MANIFEST
DISREGARD
OF
THE
LAW
OR
OF
THE
CONTRACT
BY
AN
ARBITRATOR
.............................................................
158
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
13
(III)
IMPARTIALITY
AND
INDEPENDENCE
OF
AN
ARBITRATOR
.........
159
(IV)
RES
JUDICATA
.....................................................................
162
(V)
THE
OVERARCHING
NEED
FOR
FAIRNESS
.................................
164
IV.
THE
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
IN
INVOKING
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
..........
165
1.
POSITION
IN
STATUTE
............................................................................
165
2.
THE
BURDEN
LIES
ON
PARTY
RESISTING
ENFORCEMENT
...........................
166
3.
FINDING
A
BALANCE
IN
ALLOCATING
THE
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
...................
168
V.
EVALUATING
THE
NEW
DEFINITION
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
UNDER
INDIAN
LAW
.............................................................................
169
1.
WHAT
THE
DEFINITION
SEEKS
TO
ACHIEVE
.............................................
169
2.
EVALUATING
THE
SUCCESS
OF
THE
DEFINITION
IN
NARROWLY
CONSTRUING
PUBLIC
POLICY
............................................................
170
3.
HOW
THE
COURTS
CAN
PLAY
AN
ESSENTIAL
ROLE
IN
MAKING
THE
DEFINITION
WORK
..........................................................................
172
VI.
THE
REACTION
OF
COURTS
TO
THE
STATUTORY
DEFINITION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
THE
NEW
REGIME
..................................................................
173
CHAPTER
5:
THE
DEFINING
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
-
A
USEFUL
INNOVATION?
177
I.
ROADMAP
OF
CHAPTER
............................................................................
177
II.
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY:
PROS
AND
CONS
...............................................
178
1.
A
CASE
AGAINST
DEFINING
THE
SCOPE
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
179
(A)
THE
DRAFTERS
OF
THE
NEW
YORK
CONVENTION
DID
NOT
ENVISION
A
DEFINITION
................................................................................
179
(B)
PUBLIC
POLICY
IS
EVER-CHANGING
.................................................
179
(C)
A
DEFINITION
WOULD
REDUCE
FLEXIBILITY
IN
INTERPRETATION
..........
180
(D)
PUBLIC
POLICY
IS
INHERENTLY
VAGUE
AND
CANNOT
BE
CONCRETIZED
181
(E)
THE
DRAWBACKS
OF
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
MAY
OUTWEIGH
THE
BENEFITS
182
2.
WHY
A
DEFINITION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
MAY
NEVERTHELESS
BE
NECESSARY
....................................................................................
183
(A)
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
WILL
LEAD
TO
REDUCED
JUDICIAL
ARBITRARINESS
183
14
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(B)
A
DEFINITION
WILL
PROVIDE
LEGAL
CERTAINTY
.................................
185
(C)
IT
HELPS
ARBITRAL
TRIBUNALS
TO
DRAFT
ENFORCEABLE
AWARDS
............
186
3.
SOLVING
THE
DILEMMA
THROUGH
CORE
VALUES
....................................
187
4.
NEED
FOR
A
MIDDLE
GROUND
...............................................................
188
III.
DETERMINING
THE
COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
FOR
DEFINING
THE
SCOPE
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
...........................................................
190
1.
USING
THE
DOCTRINE
OF
SEPARATION
OF
POWERS
AS
A
BENCHMARK
......
191
2.
DETERMINING
THE
APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY
BASED
ON
DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES
....................................................................................
197
3.
A
FUNCTIONAL
APPROACH TO
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
-
IS
JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION
BETTER
THAN
A
STATUTORY
CLASSIFICATION?
..............
199
IV.
THE
IDEAL
STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK
FOR
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
........
203
1.
ELABORATING
EVERY
HEAD
OF
THE
EXCEPTION
.......................................
203
2.
PROVIDING
A
GENERAL
AND
VAGUE
CATEGORIZATION
..............................
204
3.
NOT
ELABORATING
WHAT
IS
MEANT
BY
PUBLIC
POLICY
...........................
205
4.
NOT
PROVIDING
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
GROUNDS
FOR
REFUSING
ENFORCEMENT
OF
ARBITRAL
AWARDS
...............
205
V.
SEEKING
THE
ELUSIVE
BOUNDARIES
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
.........
207
1.
HOW
SHOULD
PUBLIC
POLICY
BE
INTERPRETED?
....................................
207
2.
DERIVING
PUBLIC
POLICY
USING
BALANCING
TESTS
................................
210
(A)
RESOLVING
CONFLICTING
PUBLIC
POLICIES
......................................
211
(B)
HOW
CAN
THE
JUDGE
FIND
THE RIGHT
BALANCE?
.............................
212
(C)
THE
APPROACH
OF
COURTS
TOWARDS
PUBLIC
POLICY
........................
213
3.
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
A
UNIFORM
YET
DIVERGING
CONCEPT
........................
214
4.
DO
DIFFERING
LEGAL
CULTURES
LEAD
TO
DIFFERENT
CONCEPTIONS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY?
.............................................................................
215
5.
WHEN
SHOULD
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
BE
INVOKED
BY
INDIAN
COURTS?
............................................................................
217
(A)
ENFORCEMENT
OF
AWARDS
THAT
ARE
SET
ASIDE
AT
THE
SEAT
..............
217
(B)
INTERACTION
OF
THE
EXCEPTION
WITH
MANDATORY
RULES
OF
INDIAN
LAW
221
6.
SHOULD
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
INDIAN
LAW
BE
BASED
ON
A
HARMONIZED
TRANSNATIONAL
FRAMEWORK?
....................................
223
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
15
(A)
NEED FOR DELOCALISATION
IN
DELINEATING
PUBLIC
POLICY
.................
224
(B)
NEED
FOR
HARMONIZING
APPROACHES
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
..................
226
(C)
TRANSNATIONAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
A
HARMONIZED
FRAMEWORK
........
227
(D)
IS
HARMONIZED
TRANSNATIONAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
A
THREAT
TO
STATE
SOVEREIGNTY?
.........................................................................
232
7.
RECONCILING
THE
USE
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
WITH
THE
GOAL
OF
MAKING
INDIA
AN
ARBITRATION-FRIENDLY
JURISDICTION
..................................
234
(A)
THE
TRUE
MEANING
OF
ARBITRATION-FRIENDLY
................................
234
(B)
IS
RESTRICTING
PUBLIC
POLICY
TRULY
ARBITRATION-FRIENDLY
?
.............
235
(C)
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
TO
MEET
THE
NEEDS
OF
THE
ARBITRATION
COMMUNITY
AND
SOCIETY
.......................................................
236
CHAPTER
6:
DETERMINING
THE
COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
FOR
DECIDING
ON
CLAIMS
WHERE
THERE
IS
A
VIOLATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
..
239
I.
WHEN
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
VIOLATES
PUBLIC
POLICY
..........................
239
1.
WHERE
THERE
IS
ILLEGALITY
.....................................................................
240
(A)
ILLEGALITY
IN
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
...........................................
242
(I)
WHERE
THE
SOLE
PURPOSE
OF
THE
CONTRACT
WAS
THE
PERFORMANCE
OF
AN
OVERTLY
ILLEGAL
ACT
..........................
243
(II)
IN
CASE
CERTAIN
CONTRACTUAL
STIPULATIONS
ARE
ILLEGAL
AND
VIOLATE
PUBLIC
POLICY
....................................................
246
(B)
WHERE
ILLEGALITY
IS
ANCILLARY
TO
THE
CONTRACT
...............................
250
(I)
IN
CASE
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
WAS
ENTERED
INTO
AS
A
RESULT
OF
ILLEGALITY,
INCLUDING
CORRUPTION,
FRAUD OR
COERCION
........................................................................
251
(1)
WHERE
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
IS
TAINTED
BY
CORRUPTION
.............................................................
251
(2)
WHERE
FRAUD
IS
THE
RAISON
D
ETRE
FOR
ENTERING
INTO
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
......................................
254
(II)
WHERE
THERE
IS
ILLEGALITY
IN
THE
PERFORMANCE
OF
CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS
...............................................
256
2.
WHERE
THE
SUBJECT
MATTER
IS
NOT
ARBITRABLE
DUE
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
...............................................................................
258
(A)
COURTS
AS
THE
COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
TO
HEAR
NON-ARBITRABLE
DISPUTES
................................................................................
259
16
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(B)
SHOULD
ARBITRAL
TRIBUNALS
RETAIN
JURISDICTION
ANYWAY?
............
263
(I)
A
CASE
FOR
REASSESSING
WHAT
IS
CONSIDERED
NON
ARBITRABLE
...................................................................
263
(II)
RECKONING
WITH
REALITY
-
WHY
SOME
DISPUTES
ARE
BEST
LEFT
FOR
COURTS
............................................................
266
(III)
THE
WAY
FORWARD
-
FINDING
THE
RIGHT
BALANCE
FOR
ARBITRABILITY
......................................................................
270
II.
WHERE
THERE
ARE
VIOLATIONS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
DURING
THE
ARBITRAL
PROCEEDINGS
OR
IN
OBTAINING
THE
AWARD
........................................
271
1.
IN
CASE
OF
ALLEGATIONS
OF
ILLEGALITY
OR
IRREGULARITY
AT
THE
ONSET
OF
THE
ARBITRAL
PROCEEDINGS
272
2.
WHERE
THERE
ARE
ALLEGATIONS
OF
VIOLATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
DURING
THE
ARBITRATION
PROCEEDINGS
..........................................
274
III.
WHERE
THE
ENFORCEMENT
OF
THE
FINAL
AWARD
VIOLATES
PUBLIC
POLICY
276
IV.
WHICH
JURISDICTIONS
PUBLIC
POLICY
SHOULD
APPLY?
...............................
277
1.
WHICH
PUBLIC
POLICY
SHOULD
THE
ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL
APPLY?
.............
278
2.
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
APPLIED
BY
THE
COURTS
AT
THE
SEAT
.......................
280
3.
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
APPLIED
BY
COURTS
AT
PLACE
OF
ENFORCEMENT
.........
280
4.
THE
SUBJECTIVIST
VS
OBJECTIVIST
APPROACH
........................................
281
CHAPTER
7:
CONCLUDING
OBSERVATIONS
..................................................
283
I.
OBSERVATIONS
FROM
A
COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE
...................................
283
II.
CONCLUSION
.............................................................................................
285
1.
LOOKING
AT
PUBLIC
POLICY
FROM
A
WIDER
CONTEXT
............................
285
2.
SHOULD
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
BE
DEFINED?
NARROWLY?
.........
287
BIBLIOGRAPHY
289
|
| adam_txt |
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
.
7
LIST
OF
ABBREVIATIONS
.
17
ABSTRACT
.
19
DELIMITING
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
-
AN
INTRODUCTORY
NOTE
.21
I.
RESEARCH
QUESTION
.
25
II.
BACKGROUND
TO
RESEARCH
.
27
CHAPTER
1:
PUBLIC
POLICY
AND
ITS
MANY
CONTOURS
.
31
I
.
THE
ORIGINS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
IN
CIVIL
AND
COMMON
LAW SYSTEMS
.
31
IL
THE
DIFFERENT
SHADES
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
34
1.
AS
AN
INSTRUMENT
OF
MAKING
AND
INTERPRETING
LAWS
.
35
2.
TO
REGULATE
PRIVATE
CONTRACTUAL
BEHAVIOR
.
36
3.
IN
APPLYING
FOREIGN
LAWS
AND
RECOGNISING
FOREIGN
JUDGMENTS
.
37
4.
IN
THE
FIELD
OF
ARBITRATION
.
39
5.
IN
TRADE
LAW
.
40
6.
COMMON
VALUES
UNDERLYING
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
41
III.
THE
ROLE
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
IN
INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION
41
IV.
THE
IMPORTANCE
AND
LIMITATIONS
OF
JUDICIAL
REVIEW
OF
ARBITRAL
AWARDS
44
CHAPTER
2:
USE
AND
ABUSE
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
UNDER
THE
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
LAW
.
47
I.
INTRODUCTION
.
47
II.
CONTEXTUALIZING
THE
RESEARCH
WITH
A
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND
.
49
10
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
HISTORICAL
REASONS
WHY
INDIA
SHOULD
BE
A
PRO-ENFORCEMENT
REGIME
.
49
2.
BACKGROUND
TO
THE
CURRENT
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
INDIAN
LAW
.
51
III.
THE
INTERPRETATION
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
BY
THE
INDIAN
JUDICIARY
.
55
1.
INTERPRETATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
BEFORE
THE
ENACTMENT
OF
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
ACT
1996
.
56
2.
SUBSEQUENT
SCEPTICISM
OF
THE
COURTS
TOWARDS
ARBITRATION
.
59
3.
RECENT
SHIFT
TOWARDS
A
MORE
PRO-ARBITRATION
APPROACH
.
62
IV.
UNDERSTANDING
THE
OUTLOOK
OF
INDIAN
COURTS
.
64
1.
THE
TRADITIONAL
ROLE
OF
THE
COURTS
IN
THE
INDIAN
LEGAL
SYSTEM
.
65
2.
LEGISLATIVE
CONTRIBUTION
TO
INITIAL
JUDICIAL
HOSTILITY
TOWARDS
ARBITRATION
.
66
3.
CONFLICTING
APPROACH
TO
JUDICIAL
POWERS
UNDER
INDIAN
CIVIL
LAW
.
68
4.
FOREIGN
INFLUENCES
ON
THE
JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
69
(A)
INFLUENCE
OF
FOREIGN
COURTS
.
70
(B)
INFLUENCE
OF
FOREIGN
LITERATURE
.
72
(C)
ANALYSIS
.
74
CHAPTER
3:
AN
OVERVIEW
OF
HOW
THE
INDIAN
APPROACH
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
COMPARES
WITH
OTHER
JURISDICTIONS
.
77
I.
THE
RATIONALE
FOR
A
COMPARATIVE
APPROACH
.
77
II.
COMPARISON
WITH
SPECIFIC
COMMON
LAW
JURISDICTIONS
.
78
1.
THE
ENGLISH
APPROACH
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
78
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
.
78
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
.
79
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.
81
2.
THE
AMERICAN
APPROACH
TO
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
.
85
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
.
85
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
.
86
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.
90
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
11
III.
COMPARISON
WITH
SPECIFIC
CIVIL
LAW
JURISDICTIONS
.
94
1.
THE
GERMAN
APPROACH
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
94
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
.
94
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
.
95
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.
97
2.
ORDRE
PUBLIC
UNDER
FRENCH
LAW
.
100
(A)
EVOLUTION
OF
DOCTRINE
.
100
(B)
LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK
.
101
(C)
JUDICIAL
ATTITUDES
.
102
IV.
COMPARING
APPROACHES
TO
PROCEDURAL
AND
SUBSTANTIVE
ELEMENTS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
105
1.
WHERE
THERE
IS
A
VIOLATION
OF
PROCEDURAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
106
(A)
THE
COMMON
LAW
APPROACH
TO
PROTECTING
PROCEDURAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
107
(B)
THE
CIVIL
LAW
APPROACH
TO
PROTECTING
PROCEDURAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
109
2.
IN
CASE
OF
VIOLATION
OF
SUBSTANTIVE
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
ILL
V.
ANALYSIS
.
112
CHAPTER
4:
THE
INNOVATIVE
APPROACH
OF
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
LAW
IN
DEALING
WITH
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
.
115
I.
WHY
THE
2015
AMENDMENTS
TO
THE
IAA
DEFINED
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
116
1.
TO
REDUCE
THE
SCOPE
FOR
JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION
AND
ENSURE
ARBITRAL
AWARDS
ARE
FINAL
AND
BINDING
.
117
2.
TO
PROVIDE
CERTAINTY
TO
PARTIES
.
118
IL
THE
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
THE
INDIAN
ARBITRATION
LAW
.
119
1.
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
WITH
RESPECT
TO
FOREIGN
AWARDS
.
121
2.
TREATMENT
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
WITH
RESPECT
TO
DOMESTIC
AWARDS
.
122
III.
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
AMENDMENT
TO
SECTION
48(2)B
.
123
12
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
THE
MAKING
OF
THE
AWARD
WAS
INDUCED
OR
AFFECTED
BY
FRAUD
OR
CORRUPTION
OR
WAS
IN
VIOLATION
OFSECTION
75
OR
SECTION
81
.
123
(A)
REFUSING
ENFORCEMENTS
OF
AWARDS
VITIATED
BY
FRAUD
.
124
(B)
REFUSING
ENFORCEMENTS
OF
FOREIGN
AWARDS
ON
THE
GROUNDS
OF
CORRUPTION
128
(I)
WHERE
THE
AWARD
IS
OBTAINED
BY
CORRUPT
MEANS
.
129
(II)
WHERE
THE
AWARD
GIVES
EFFECT
TO
A
CORRUPT
CONTRACT
132
(III)
WHERE
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
ITSELF
IS
OBTAINED
BY
CORRUPT
MEANS
133
2.
THE
AWARD
IS
IN
CONTRAVENTION
WITH
THE
FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
.
135
(A)
USE
OF
JUDICIAL
APPROACH
.
138
(B)
PRINCIPLES
OF
NATURAL
JUSTICE
.
138
(C)
PERVERSE
OR
IRRATIONAL
AWARD
.
139
(D)
PROTECTING
THE
ECONOMIC
INTEREST
OF
INDIA
.
140
(E)
PROTECTING
FREE
AND
FAIR
COMPETITION
AS
A
FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
141
(F
)
ESSENTIAL
INSOLVENCY
LAW
PROVISIONS
AS
A
FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
.
145
(G)
THE
NON-EXHAUSTIVE
NATURE
OF
THE FUNDAMENTAL
POLICY
OF
INDIAN
LAW
.
147
3.
THE
AWARD
CONFLICTS
WITH
THE
MOST
BASIC
NOTIONS
OF
MORALITY
OR
JUSTICE
.
148
(A)
MOST
BASIC
NOTIONS
OF
MORALITY
AS
A
BREACH
OF
INDIAN
PUBLIC
POLICY
148
(I)
MORALITY,
ACCORDING
TO
INDIAN
COURTS
.
149
(II)
COMPARATIVE
APPROACHES
TO
MORALITY
.
150
(III)
CORRUPTION
OR
FRAUD
AS
AN
IMMORAL
ACT
.
151
(IV)
RESPECT
FOR
HUMAN
RIGHTS
.
151
(B)
MOST
BASIC
PRINCIPLES
OF
JUSTICE
FORMING
PART
OF
INDIAN
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
154
(I)
WHERE
ARBITRATORS
DO
NOT
FOLLOW
DUE
PROCESS/
PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED
BY
LAW
.
157
(II)
MANIFEST
DISREGARD
OF
THE
LAW
OR
OF
THE
CONTRACT
BY
AN
ARBITRATOR
.
158
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
13
(III)
IMPARTIALITY
AND
INDEPENDENCE
OF
AN
ARBITRATOR
.
159
(IV)
RES
JUDICATA
.
162
(V)
THE
OVERARCHING
NEED
FOR
FAIRNESS
.
164
IV.
THE
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
IN
INVOKING
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
.
165
1.
POSITION
IN
STATUTE
.
165
2.
THE
BURDEN
LIES
ON
PARTY
RESISTING
ENFORCEMENT
.
166
3.
FINDING
A
BALANCE
IN
ALLOCATING
THE
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
.
168
V.
EVALUATING
THE
NEW
DEFINITION
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
UNDER
INDIAN
LAW
.
169
1.
WHAT
THE
DEFINITION
SEEKS
TO
ACHIEVE
.
169
2.
EVALUATING
THE
SUCCESS
OF
THE
DEFINITION
IN
NARROWLY
CONSTRUING
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
170
3.
HOW
THE
COURTS
CAN
PLAY
AN
ESSENTIAL
ROLE
IN
MAKING
THE
DEFINITION
WORK
.
172
VI.
THE
REACTION
OF
COURTS
TO
THE
STATUTORY
DEFINITION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
THE
NEW
REGIME
.
173
CHAPTER
5:
THE
DEFINING
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
-
A
USEFUL
INNOVATION?
177
I.
ROADMAP
OF
CHAPTER
.
177
II.
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY:
PROS
AND
CONS
.
178
1.
A
CASE
AGAINST
DEFINING
THE
SCOPE
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
179
(A)
THE
DRAFTERS
OF
THE
NEW
YORK
CONVENTION
DID
NOT
ENVISION
A
DEFINITION
.
179
(B)
PUBLIC
POLICY
IS
EVER-CHANGING
.
179
(C)
A
DEFINITION
WOULD
REDUCE
FLEXIBILITY
IN
INTERPRETATION
.
180
(D)
PUBLIC
POLICY
IS
INHERENTLY
VAGUE
AND
CANNOT
BE
CONCRETIZED
181
(E)
THE
DRAWBACKS
OF
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
MAY
OUTWEIGH
THE
BENEFITS
182
2.
WHY
A
DEFINITION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
MAY
NEVERTHELESS
BE
NECESSARY
.
183
(A)
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
WILL
LEAD
TO
REDUCED
JUDICIAL
ARBITRARINESS
183
14
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(B)
A
DEFINITION
WILL
PROVIDE
LEGAL
CERTAINTY
.
185
(C)
IT
HELPS
ARBITRAL
TRIBUNALS
TO
DRAFT
ENFORCEABLE
AWARDS
.
186
3.
SOLVING
THE
DILEMMA
THROUGH
CORE
VALUES
.
187
4.
NEED
FOR
A
MIDDLE
GROUND
.
188
III.
DETERMINING
THE
COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
FOR
DEFINING
THE
SCOPE
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
.
190
1.
USING
THE
DOCTRINE
OF
SEPARATION
OF
POWERS
AS
A
BENCHMARK
.
191
2.
DETERMINING
THE
APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY
BASED
ON
DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES
.
197
3.
A
FUNCTIONAL
APPROACH TO
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
-
IS
JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION
BETTER
THAN
A
STATUTORY
CLASSIFICATION?
.
199
IV.
THE
IDEAL
STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK
FOR
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
.
203
1.
ELABORATING
EVERY
HEAD
OF
THE
EXCEPTION
.
203
2.
PROVIDING
A
GENERAL
AND
VAGUE
CATEGORIZATION
.
204
3.
NOT
ELABORATING
WHAT
IS
MEANT
BY
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
205
4.
NOT
PROVIDING
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
GROUNDS
FOR
REFUSING
ENFORCEMENT
OF
ARBITRAL
AWARDS
.
205
V.
SEEKING
THE
ELUSIVE
BOUNDARIES
OF
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
.
207
1.
HOW
SHOULD
PUBLIC
POLICY
BE
INTERPRETED?
.
207
2.
DERIVING
PUBLIC
POLICY
USING
BALANCING
TESTS
.
210
(A)
RESOLVING
CONFLICTING
PUBLIC
POLICIES
.
211
(B)
HOW
CAN
THE
JUDGE
FIND
THE RIGHT
BALANCE?
.
212
(C)
THE
APPROACH
OF
COURTS
TOWARDS
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
213
3.
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
A
UNIFORM
YET
DIVERGING
CONCEPT
.
214
4.
DO
DIFFERING
LEGAL
CULTURES
LEAD
TO
DIFFERENT
CONCEPTIONS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY?
.
215
5.
WHEN
SHOULD
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
BE
INVOKED
BY
INDIAN
COURTS?
.
217
(A)
ENFORCEMENT
OF
AWARDS
THAT
ARE
SET
ASIDE
AT
THE
SEAT
.
217
(B)
INTERACTION
OF
THE
EXCEPTION
WITH
MANDATORY
RULES
OF
INDIAN
LAW
221
6.
SHOULD
PUBLIC
POLICY
UNDER
INDIAN
LAW
BE
BASED
ON
A
HARMONIZED
TRANSNATIONAL
FRAMEWORK?
.
223
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
15
(A)
NEED FOR DELOCALISATION
IN
DELINEATING
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
224
(B)
NEED
FOR
HARMONIZING
APPROACHES
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
226
(C)
TRANSNATIONAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
A
HARMONIZED
FRAMEWORK
.
227
(D)
IS
HARMONIZED
TRANSNATIONAL
PUBLIC
POLICY
A
THREAT
TO
STATE
SOVEREIGNTY?
.
232
7.
RECONCILING
THE
USE
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
WITH
THE
GOAL
OF
MAKING
INDIA
AN
ARBITRATION-FRIENDLY
JURISDICTION
.
234
(A)
THE
TRUE
MEANING
OF
'
ARBITRATION-FRIENDLY
'
.
234
(B)
IS
RESTRICTING
PUBLIC
POLICY
TRULY
'
ARBITRATION-FRIENDLY
'
?
.
235
(C)
DEFINING
PUBLIC
POLICY
TO
MEET
THE
NEEDS
OF
THE
ARBITRATION
COMMUNITY
AND
SOCIETY
.
236
CHAPTER
6:
DETERMINING
THE
COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
FOR
DECIDING
ON
CLAIMS
WHERE
THERE
IS
A
VIOLATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
239
I.
WHEN
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
VIOLATES
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
239
1.
WHERE
THERE
IS
ILLEGALITY
.
240
(A)
ILLEGALITY
IN
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
.
242
(I)
WHERE
THE
SOLE
PURPOSE
OF
THE
CONTRACT
WAS
THE
PERFORMANCE
OF
AN
OVERTLY
ILLEGAL
ACT
.
243
(II)
IN
CASE
CERTAIN
CONTRACTUAL
STIPULATIONS
ARE
ILLEGAL
AND
VIOLATE
PUBLIC
POLICY
.
246
(B)
WHERE
ILLEGALITY
IS
ANCILLARY
TO
THE
CONTRACT
.
250
(I)
IN
CASE
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
WAS
ENTERED
INTO
AS
A
RESULT
OF
ILLEGALITY,
INCLUDING
CORRUPTION,
FRAUD OR
COERCION
.
251
(1)
WHERE
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
IS
TAINTED
BY
CORRUPTION
.
251
(2)
WHERE
FRAUD
IS
THE
RAISON
D
'
ETRE
FOR
ENTERING
INTO
THE
UNDERLYING
CONTRACT
.
254
(II)
WHERE
THERE
IS
ILLEGALITY
IN
THE
PERFORMANCE
OF
CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS
.
256
2.
WHERE
THE
SUBJECT
MATTER
IS
NOT
ARBITRABLE
DUE
TO
PUBLIC
POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
.
258
(A)
COURTS
AS
THE
COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
TO
HEAR
NON-ARBITRABLE
DISPUTES
.
259
16
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(B)
SHOULD
ARBITRAL
TRIBUNALS
RETAIN
JURISDICTION
ANYWAY?
.
263
(I)
A
CASE
FOR
REASSESSING
WHAT
IS
CONSIDERED
NON
ARBITRABLE
.
263
(II)
RECKONING
WITH
REALITY
-
WHY
SOME
DISPUTES
ARE
BEST
LEFT
FOR
COURTS
.
266
(III)
THE
WAY
FORWARD
-
FINDING
THE
RIGHT
BALANCE
FOR
ARBITRABILITY
.
270
II.
WHERE
THERE
ARE
VIOLATIONS
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
DURING
THE
ARBITRAL
PROCEEDINGS
OR
IN
OBTAINING
THE
AWARD
.
271
1.
IN
CASE
OF
ALLEGATIONS
OF
ILLEGALITY
OR
IRREGULARITY
AT
THE
ONSET
OF
THE
ARBITRAL
PROCEEDINGS
272
2.
WHERE
THERE
ARE
ALLEGATIONS
OF
VIOLATION
OF
PUBLIC
POLICY
DURING
THE
ARBITRATION
PROCEEDINGS
.
274
III.
WHERE
THE
ENFORCEMENT
OF
THE
FINAL
AWARD
VIOLATES
PUBLIC
POLICY
276
IV.
WHICH
JURISDICTIONS
PUBLIC
POLICY
SHOULD
APPLY?
.
277
1.
WHICH
PUBLIC
POLICY
SHOULD
THE
ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL
APPLY?
.
278
2.
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
APPLIED
BY
THE
COURTS
AT
THE
SEAT
.
280
3.
PUBLIC
POLICY
AS
APPLIED
BY
COURTS
AT
PLACE
OF
ENFORCEMENT
.
280
4.
THE
SUBJECTIVIST
VS
OBJECTIVIST
APPROACH
.
281
CHAPTER
7:
CONCLUDING
OBSERVATIONS
.
283
I.
OBSERVATIONS
FROM
A
COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE
.
283
II.
CONCLUSION
.
285
1.
LOOKING
AT
PUBLIC
POLICY
FROM
A
WIDER
CONTEXT
.
285
2.
SHOULD
THE
PUBLIC
POLICY
EXCEPTION
BE
DEFINED?
NARROWLY?
.
287
BIBLIOGRAPHY
289 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Dsouza, Nihal Bernard 1990- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)130583867X |
| author_facet | Dsouza, Nihal Bernard 1990- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Dsouza, Nihal Bernard 1990- |
| author_variant | n b d nb nbd |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV049401798 |
| classification_rvk | PT 350 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)1422805135 (DE-599)DNB1302593501 |
| discipline | Rechtswissenschaft |
| discipline_str_mv | Rechtswissenschaft |
| format | Thesis Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02708nam a22006138cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV049401798</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240222 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">231108s2023 gw m||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="015" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">23,N38</subfield><subfield code="2">dnb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="016" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1302593501</subfield><subfield code="2">DE-101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9783631908778</subfield><subfield code="c">: EUR 61.95 (DE), EUR 63.70 (AT), CHF 72.00 (freier Preis)</subfield><subfield code="9">978-3-631-90877-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">3631908776</subfield><subfield code="9">3-631-90877-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="024" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9783631908778</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1422805135</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DNB1302593501</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">gw</subfield><subfield code="c">XA-DE-BE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-29</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-355</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-20</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-384</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PT 350</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)139874:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="8">1\p</subfield><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="2">23sdnb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dsouza, Nihal Bernard</subfield><subfield code="d">1990-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)130583867X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined?</subfield><subfield code="b">the example of Indian arbitration law</subfield><subfield code="c">Nihal Bernard Dsouza</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Berlin ; Lausanne ; Bruxelles ; Chennai ; New York ; Oxford</subfield><subfield code="b">Peter Lang</subfield><subfield code="c">[2023]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="c">© 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">329 Seiten</subfield><subfield code="c">21 cm x 14.8 cm, 429 g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht</subfield><subfield code="v">Band/Volume 6761</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="502" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">Dissertation</subfield><subfield code="c">Universität Bonn</subfield><subfield code="d">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4052348-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ordre public</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4130689-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Indien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4026722-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arbitral awards</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Enforcement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">party autonomy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">judicial intervention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ordre public</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="655" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4113937-9</subfield><subfield code="a">Hochschulschrift</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd-content</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Indien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4026722-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Ordre public</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4130689-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4052348-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="710" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Peter Lang GmbH</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1065711506</subfield><subfield code="4">pbl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="776" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Erscheint auch als</subfield><subfield code="n">Online-Ausgabe</subfield><subfield code="z">978-3-631-90882-2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="776" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Erscheint auch als</subfield><subfield code="n">Online-Ausgabe</subfield><subfield code="z">978-3-631-90883-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht</subfield><subfield code="v">Band/Volume 6761</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV000000068</subfield><subfield code="9">6761</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">X:MVB</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="u">http://deposit.dnb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?id=a6a4d49839374399abc782630d617923&prov=M&dok_var=1&dok_ext=htm</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltstext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">DNB Datenaustausch</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=034729025&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034729025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="883" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="8">1\p</subfield><subfield code="a">vlb</subfield><subfield code="d">20230915</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-101</subfield><subfield code="u">https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#vlb</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| genre | (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content |
| genre_facet | Hochschulschrift |
| geographic | Indien (DE-588)4026722-2 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Indien |
| id | DE-604.BV049401798 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-03T23:04:04Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T10:06:05Z |
| institution | BVB |
| institution_GND | (DE-588)1065711506 |
| isbn | 9783631908778 3631908776 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-034729025 |
| oclc_num | 1422805135 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-29 DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-20 DE-384 |
| owner_facet | DE-29 DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-20 DE-384 |
| physical | 329 Seiten 21 cm x 14.8 cm, 429 g |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| publishDateSearch | 2023 |
| publishDateSort | 2023 |
| publisher | Peter Lang |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht |
| series2 | Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht |
| spelling | Dsouza, Nihal Bernard 1990- Verfasser (DE-588)130583867X aut Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law Nihal Bernard Dsouza Berlin ; Lausanne ; Bruxelles ; Chennai ; New York ; Oxford Peter Lang [2023] © 2023 329 Seiten 21 cm x 14.8 cm, 429 g txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht Band/Volume 6761 Dissertation Universität Bonn 2023 Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DE-588)4052348-2 gnd rswk-swf Ordre public (DE-588)4130689-2 gnd rswk-swf Indien (DE-588)4026722-2 gnd rswk-swf Arbitral awards Enforcement party autonomy judicial intervention Ordre public (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content Indien (DE-588)4026722-2 g Ordre public (DE-588)4130689-2 s Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DE-588)4052348-2 s DE-604 Peter Lang GmbH (DE-588)1065711506 pbl Erscheint auch als Online-Ausgabe 978-3-631-90882-2 Erscheint auch als Online-Ausgabe 978-3-631-90883-9 Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht Band/Volume 6761 (DE-604)BV000000068 6761 X:MVB text/html http://deposit.dnb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?id=a6a4d49839374399abc782630d617923&prov=M&dok_var=1&dok_ext=htm Inhaltstext DNB Datenaustausch application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=034729025&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis 1\p vlb 20230915 DE-101 https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#vlb |
| spellingShingle | Dsouza, Nihal Bernard 1990- Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law Europäische Hochschulschriften Recht Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DE-588)4052348-2 gnd Ordre public (DE-588)4130689-2 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4052348-2 (DE-588)4130689-2 (DE-588)4026722-2 (DE-588)4113937-9 |
| title | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law |
| title_auth | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law |
| title_exact_search | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law |
| title_full | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law Nihal Bernard Dsouza |
| title_fullStr | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law Nihal Bernard Dsouza |
| title_full_unstemmed | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? the example of Indian arbitration law Nihal Bernard Dsouza |
| title_short | Should the public policy exception be statutorily defined? |
| title_sort | should the public policy exception be statutorily defined the example of indian arbitration law |
| title_sub | the example of Indian arbitration law |
| topic | Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DE-588)4052348-2 gnd Ordre public (DE-588)4130689-2 gnd |
| topic_facet | Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit Ordre public Indien Hochschulschrift |
| url | http://deposit.dnb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?id=a6a4d49839374399abc782630d617923&prov=M&dok_var=1&dok_ext=htm http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=034729025&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV000000068 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dsouzanihalbernard shouldthepublicpolicyexceptionbestatutorilydefinedtheexampleofindianarbitrationlaw AT peterlanggmbh shouldthepublicpolicyexceptionbestatutorilydefinedtheexampleofindianarbitrationlaw |