Judicial Sovereignty and Public Policy under Chinese Arbitration Law

Public Policy is a very important, albeit highly controversial, issue for the enforcement of international arbitration awards.1 According to Article V.2(b) of the United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), a national court may refuse to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitration award if the court finds that doing so would be contrary to the public policy of the courtís country.2 The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) contains a very similar provision.3 There is, however, no clear definition on what public policy means under the New York Convention, nor does there exist a universally accepted definition of public policy among the worldís jurisdictions.4 This is largely because public policy essentially relates to the fundamental legal and moral policies of the country where recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award is sought, and, not surprisingly, each country is in a unique situation from that perspective.