Enforcing annulled arbitral awards

This contribution examines the procedural aspects of the enforcement of arbitral awards that were set aside in the jurisdiction where they were rendered. It focuses on recent cases in the United States and the Netherlands, which adopted a different line of reasoning than the approach taken by French judiciary many years ago. According to the latter, an arbitral award set aside in the ‘country of origin’ may be enforced in France in reliance on national law. Namely, French law on enforcement is more favourable than the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral. The courts in the United States and in the Netherlands in recent cases have taken a different approach. They examine the judgment setting aside the award and ignore the effects of the annulment in certain circumstances. Even though there are some common denominators, there are substantial differences between the line of reasoning of the courts in the US and the Netherlands. They remain distinct although a more recent decision of the Dutch Supreme Court emphasises an exceptional nature of such enforcement so that the difference between the two approaches may seem somewhat mitigated. However, a closer look reveals that substantial discrepancies between the courts in these two jurisdictions have remained. The article provides for a critical view on the enforcement of annulled arbitral awards in general. In particular, it points to drawbacks of variety of unilateral approaches amongst various jurisdictions. Additionally, it suggests the development of internationally accepted standards for the sake of legal certainty and predictability of arbitration, should the acceptance of the enforcement of annulled arbitral appear a majority view amongst academics and arbitration practitioners. 

Debiasing the Outcome Effect: The Role of Instructions in an Audit Litigation Setting

The outcome effect occurs where an evaluator, who has knowledge of the outcome of a judge's decision, assesses the quality of the judgment of that decision maker. If the evaluator has knowledge of a negative outcome, then that knowledge negatively influences his or her assessment of the ex ante judgment. For instance, jurors in a lawsuit brought against an auditor for alleged negligence are informed of an undetected fraud, even though an unqualified opinion was issued. This paper reports the results of an experiment in an applied audit judgment setting that examined methods of mitigating the outcome effect by means of instructions. The results showed that simply instructing or warning the evaluator about the potential biasing effects of outcome information was only weakly effective. However, instructions that stressed either (1) the cognitive nonnormativeness of the outcome effect or (2) the seriousness and gravity of the evaluation ameliorated the effect significantly. From a theoretical perspective, the results suggest that there may both motivational and cognitive components to the outcome effect. In all, the findings suggest awareness of the outcome effect and use of relatively nonintrusive instructions to evaluators may effectively counteract the potential for the outcome bias.