scholarly journals Comentarios sobre el Orden Público Internacional en sede arbitral internacional, su funcionalidad y su interrelación con el Derecho internacional público = Some reflections regarding International Public policy in international arbitration, its functionality and its interdependence with Public International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 516
Author(s):  
Luis A. López Zamora
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Policy Enforcement ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
The Will ◽  
Ordre Public

 Resumen: El derecho del arbitraje internacional no es estrictamente internacional ni doméstico. A decir verdad, aquel cuerpo legal constituye un producto de la voluntad de las partes que han elegido resol­ver sus litigios mediante aquel tipo de mecanismo de solución de controversias. Ahora bien, aunque ello es así, dichas atribuciones presentan ciertos límites. Y es que, los laudos arbitrales internacionales formulados bajo aquellas libertades, son en estricto una forma de justicia privada y, como resultado de ello, los Estados en donde los mismos busquen ser ejecutados podrán rechazar su implementación en ciertas circunstancias. Una de aquellas circunstancias se produce cuando un laudo arbitral infringe el orden público (ordre public) del Estado donde éste busca ser ejecutado. Esta es una regla ampliamente reconocido, sin embargo, genera un problema. Y es que, la noción del orden público es contingente por naturaleza y, dado ello, ha sido nece­sario que su aplicación proceda solo en circunstancias excepcionales. Como resultado de esto, algunos aca­démicos y tribunales estatales han tratado de formular una noción del orden público de tipo internacional con el fin de establecer un contenido más restrictivo a aquella excepción. Sin embargo, esta terminología ha sido construida solo como una forma de identificar una sub-sección del orden público estatal. Esto lleva a ciertas preguntas: ¿Está el arbitraje internacional y, sus instituciones, circunscritas a elementos puramente domésticos? ¿Dónde queda la faceta internacional de los contratos de comercio internacional y de inver­siones si la excepción del orden público fuese a ser analizada desde un enfoque puramente estatal? Estas dudas han sido –tomadas en cuenta de alguna forma, en algunos sistemas legales, en donde el uso del orden público internacional ha sido estructurado en términos verdaderamente internacionales. Sin embargo, esto último también crea interrogantes a plantearse: ¿Qué implica hablar del orden público en el plano interna­cional? ¿Cuál es su contenido y, puede ser utilizado de forma práctica para excluir la ejecución de un laudo arbitral internacional? ¿Cuál es el rol del Derecho Internacional Público en todo esto? ¿Si el verdadero orden público internacional es utilizado, será aquel un punto de contacto entre el Derecho Internacional Público y el Derecho Internacional Privado? Estas y otras interrogantes serán tratadas en este espacio.Palabras clave: arbitraje internacional, orden público, orden público internacional, ejecución de laudos arbitrales, relación entre el derecho internacional público y el derecho internacional privado.Abstract: International arbitration is not domestic nor international in nature. In fact, the law appli­cable to that kind of proceedings can be considered a byproduct of the will of private parties. However, this wide attribution recognized to individuals have some limits. In this regard, it must be born in mind that arbitral awards represent a sort of private justice and, therefore, States requested to execute those kind of decisions can refuse their enforcement within their jurisdictions. One scenario that entails the non-enforcement of and arbitral award happens when the decision collides with the public policy (ordre public) of the State where is supposed to be implemented. This is widely recognized as a fundamental rule in international arbitration, nevertheless, a problem arises. The notion of public policy is contingent in nature and, because of that, it requires to be applied in very specific circumstances. That is why some academics and state tribunals have formulated the notion of international public policy as a term directed to narrow the content of that institution, but using to that end purely domestic legal content. In this sense, the term international public policy emerged as a merely sub-section of domestic public policy divested of any international meaning. In that context: ¿should international arbitration institutions (as the excep­tion of ordre public), be understood by purely domestic elements? ¿Where would be the international aspect of international commercial contract or investment if the exception of public policy is analyzed by purely domestic constructions? Those doubts have pushed in some systems, the formulation of in­ternational public policy in truly international terms. This is somehow welcomed, however, this usage creates additional doubts: ¿What does a public policy of the international realm entail? ¿What is its content and, can that be used in practical ways to exclude the enforcement of and international arbitral award? ¿What is the role of Public International Law in all of this? ¿If truly international public policy is used by domestic tribunals, would that be a point of connection between Public International Law and Private International Law? These and other questions will be entertained in this paper.Keywords: international arbitration, public policy, international public policy, enforcement of ar­bitral awards, public international law – private international law relationship.

7 Comity

1986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mann F A
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Opposite Extreme

Comity is one of the most ambiguous and multifaceted conceptions in the law in general and in the realm of international affairs in particular. It may denote no more than that courtoisie international, that courtesy which ships observe when they salute each other or which is usual among diplomats or even judges. At the opposite extreme it may be a synonym for public international law. Or it may mean, not a rule of law at all, but a standard to be respected in the course of exercising judicial or administrative discretion. Or it may be the equivalent of private international law (or the conflict of laws) or at least indicate the policy underlying particular rules or what is more generally known as public policy. Or it may be used to justify the existence of the conflict of laws or the origin of its sources or the public policy pursued by it. In most cases the meaning of comity is coextensive with public international law.

Part II Preliminary Topics, 8 Exclusion of Foreign Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torremans Paul
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Public Welfare ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Ordre Public

This chapter examines issues surrounding the exclusion, or non-enforcement, of foreign law. There are circumstances when the law of the forum must be preferred to the foreign law that would normally be applicable to the case. An outstanding example of this is the civil law doctrine of ordre public under which any domestic rule designed to protect the public welfare must prevail over an inconsistent foreign rule. This chapter discusses four cases in which foreign law will not be enforced, either directly or indirectly, by English courts: foreign revenue, penal and other public laws; foreign expropriatory legislation; foreign laws repugnant to English public policy; and the mandatory rules of the forum. It also describes the effect of European private international law on the rule against the enforcement of foreign revenue, penal and other public laws in England.

scholarly journals Mechanism of Application of the Public Policy Clause as a Ground for Limitation of the Application of Foreign Law in Private International Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 74-88
Author(s):  
Mykhailo LATYNSKYI
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Interconnected System ◽  
The Public ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ordre Public

The article analyzes the essence and peculiarities of the implementation in practice of the mechanism of application of the public policy clause (ordre public) as a basis for limiting the effect of foreign law in private international law. The author argues that the introduction of a unified mechanism for the application of the public policy clause as a basis for restricting the effect of foreign law is in the interests of both the international community and individual states. The sources for determining the constituent elements of the mechanism are regulations (international and national) and judicial (arbitration) practice. Based on their study, it is summarized that the mechanism of application of the public policy clause is a complex legal remedy, the proper functioning of which is impossible without the jurisdiction to take preliminary action to invoke the conflict of laws the first sends to. It is established that the basis for the application of the public policy clause in order to limit the effect of foreign law in the country of the court is a violation of public policy. Discussions arise about the normative consolidation and the peculiarities of establishing conditions in law enforcement activities, the existence of which allows the jurisdictional body to apply such reservations. These conditions, although they may be considered in isolation, function as a whole, forming an interconnected system of restrictions and principles designed to ensure that the court complies with the minimum substantive and formal requirements for the application of the public policy clause. The conditions for applying the reservation in cases of exclusion or restriction of foreign law traditionally include: 1) contradiction of public policycannot be stated by the court on the basis of inconsistency or difference of foreign law from the provisions of public policy; 2) the incompatibility of the mentioned consequences must be, on the one hand, obvious and, on the other hand, sufficiently and consistently substantiated by a court or arbitration tribunal; 3) the difference between the legal, political or economic systems of the relevant foreign state from the systems of the court state cannot serve as a justification for refusing to apply the law of a foreign state.

United in Diversity – Regional Unification of the Conflict-of-law Rules in Matters of Matrimonial Property Regimes

2019 ◽  
pp. 160-178
Author(s):  
Lucie Zavadilová
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Part ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
Conflict Of Law

The unification of the conflict-of-law rules in matters of matrimonial property regimes at EU level seeks to mitigate differences in substantive law in particular legal systems. The aim of this contribution is to analyse the doctrine of overriding mandatory provisions and consider the applicability of the public policy exception, which limit the application of the law otherwise applicable determined in compliance with the unified conflict-of-law rules. The question author addresses in this paper is whether these institutes of the general part of private international law provide for sufficient safeguards to protect the fundamental values and public interests of the forum law in matters of matrimonial property regimes.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at a Crossroads: An Intersection Between Public and Private International Law

1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Nation States ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
International Systems

Historically, public international law and private international law have been treated as two different legal systems that function more or less independently. Public international law regulates activity among human beings operating in groups called, nation-states, while private international law regulates the activities of smaller subgroups or of individuals as they interact with each other. Since the public international legal system coordinates the interaction of collective human interests through decentralized mechanisms and private international law coordinates the interaction of individual or subgroup interests primarily through centralized mechanisms, these coordinating functions are usually carried out in different forums, each appropriate to the task. The differences between the processes by which sanctions for violation of community norms are applied in the two systems and the differences in the nature of the units making up the communities that establish those norms tend to obscure the fact that both the public and the private international systems coordinate human behavior, and that thus the values that inform both systems must necessarily be the same.

scholarly journals Poligamia en Marruecos y pensión de viudedad en España. El Tribunal Supremo y el orden público internacional atenuado = Poligamy in Morocco and pension in Spain. The Spanish Supreme Court and the public policy exception

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 718
Author(s):  
María José Valverde Martínez ◽  
Javier Carrascosa González
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Spanish Society ◽  
International Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Effect ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Foundations

  Resumen: El presente trabajo expone y analiza los criterios de solución empleados por el Tribunal Supremo para dar respuesta a la cuestión de saber si dos mujeres, viudas de un sujeto legalmente casado con ambas en Marruecos, pueden ser beneficiarias de la pensión de viudedad generada por dicho sujeto. El Tribunal Supremo acoge e implementa la tesis del orden público internacional atenuado. Lo hace al mar­gen de todo convenio internacional y de todo precepto legal porque entiende que el orden público atenuado protege los fundamentos jurídicos de la sociedad española y permite, al mismo tiempo, que un matrimonio legalmente celebrado en Marruecos, surta ciertos efectos legales en España. En particular, admite que ambas esposas puedan ser consideradas beneficiarias, a partes iguales, de la pensión de viudedad española.Palabras clave: orden público internacional, pensión de viudedad, poligamia, Derecho internacio­nal privadoAbstract: This paper deals with the criteria used by the Supreme Court of Spain in order to answer the question of whether two women, widows of the same husband, both legally married in Morocco, can be regarded as beneficiaries of the widow’s pension generated by their husband. The Supreme Court of Spain implements a mitigated public policy effect even though no international convention applies to the case. Once guaranteed that the legal foundations of Spanish society are safe, the Spanish Supreme Court activates an attenuated public policy to allow some legal effects of a marriage legally celebrated in Morocco. Among them, the court admits that both wives can be considered beneficiaries, in equal parts, of the Spanish widow’s pension.Keywords: public policy, widow’s pension, polygamy, private international law. 

scholarly journals OVERRIDING MANDATORY PROVISIONS IN CROATIAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 81-100
Author(s):  
Dora Zgrabljić Rotar
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Complex Task ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Public ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Mandatory Provision

Overriding mandatory provisions are mandatory provisions that are applicable in situations with an international element. The author analyses overriding mandatory norms in the European private international law and in the Croatian national private international law. The definition of such norms provided in the 2017 Croatian Private International Law Act is almost a verbatim copy of the definition provided in the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations. The 1982 Croatian Private International Law Act did not provide for a definition of overriding mandatory norms but it was uniformly accepted in the scholarly interpretations that those types of mandatory norms were accepted by the Croatian private international law system. Moreover, the 1982 PIL Act included a substantive family law provision, which was, in essence, an overriding mandatory provision. However, Croatian courts and practitioners have been reluctant to refer explicitly to an applied norm as an overriding mandatory one. The reasons behind that might be that that the courts were better acquainted with the public policy exception, since public policy was explicitly mentioned in the 1982 PIL Act, as well as in some other legal acts. In addition, the legislator does not explicitly note that a provision is an overriding mandatory one in the provision itself, which leads to the outcome that the courts and other practitioners are burdened with a complex task of interpretation of a provision they think might be an overriding mandatory one. The author aims at providing guidelines to facilitate that task.

scholarly journals Foreign Act of State

Amicus Curiae ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-49
Author(s):  
Mary V. Newbury
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Government ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Made In

Foreign act of state, the principle that a domestic court will not ‘sit in judgment’ over the acts of foreign countries, is coming under increasing scrutiny, as illustrated by the recent case of Belhaj v Straw (2017). This article traces the emergence of the principle out of traditional rules of private international law that, according to Belhaj, continue to constrain the doctrine. The essay provides a practical guide to the doctrine for use by other judges, who will usually come across act of state in the context of a motion to dismiss or to strike out pleadings. The author reviews five key cases which have considered whether a ‘unifying’ doctrine exists apart from choice of law rules of private international law; whether the principle is one of jurisdiction, non-justiciability, or something different; and the nature of the ‘public policy’ exception. She suggests that the ‘disaggregation’ of act of state into four ‘rules’ posited in Belhaj will remain the organizing framework of the doctrine in the medium term—despite Lord Sumption’s attempts to condense it into one or two rules. She suggests the Supreme Court is departing from the notion of act of state as a broad and inflexible principle of jurisdiction and from the notion that courts should use it in cases where requested by the government to avoid embarrassment to its foreign policy. The author disagrees with the observation, made in Yukos Capital SAR v Rosneft Oil Co (2012), that non-justiciability—the notion that certain issues are inappropriate for domestic courts to adjudicate—has ‘subsumed’ act of state. Rather, it is doubtful that non-justiciability should continue to be regarded as part of the law of act of state. Whether act of state is restricted to acts taking place within the territory of the foreign state, whether it applies to all types of whether it applies to lawful as well as unlawful executive actions, or to judicial acts, still remain uncertain. The greater significance of Belhaj is seen to lie in the Court’s adoption of the public policy exception to act of state in certain circumstances. Five of the seven judges agreed that UK courts should adapt to modern conditions in the form of rules of public policy that are ‘sufficiently fundamental’ to distinguish the conduct in question (in Belhaj, alleged complicity in acts of torture) from other violations of international conventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document