Penn State International Law Review


Hakan Berglin


The purpose of this article is to analyze the some of the cases decided to date about the interpretation of the public policy defense under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and, in particular, to emphasize the possible confinement of these cases to their facts. As will be seen, this will lead to the conclusion that while the courts have undoubtedly indicated a narrow construction of the public policy defense, the facts of the cases have hardly presented a real test of how far the courts are prepared to go in enforcing foreign arbitral awards in situations where such enforcement would be in substantial conflict with fundamental domestic legal or moral concepts or with statutes embodying such concepts.