Scholarlink

<p>International commercial arbitration is widely regarded as an effective mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes due to its efficiency, neutrality, and enforceability. However, the enforcement of arbitral awards is subject to public policy exceptions, as recognized in the New York Convention 1958 (Article V(2)(b)) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Articles 34, 36). The concept of “public policy” lacks a uniform definition, leading to varying interpretations across jurisdictions. Some adopt a restrictive approach, limiting public policy to fundamental principles of justice and morality, while others extend it to regulatory concerns. Vietnamese law codifies this principle under Article 68 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010, allowing courts to annul awards violating “nguyên tắc cơ bản của pháp luật Việt Nam” (“fundamental principles of Vietnamese law”). Unlike the broad “public policy” terminology in international instruments, Vietnam’s phrasing introduces interpretative challenges. The absence of a statutory definition has led to inconsistent judicial applications, sometimes annulling awards based on procedural or substantive legal grounds without clear criteria. This divergence from international standards raises concerns over legal predictability in arbitration enforcement. The linguistic and legal translation of “public policy” into domestic law thus plays a crucial role in shaping Vietnam’s arbitration landscape, affecting its international arbitration credibility.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Public Policy and Judicial Inconsistency in Vietnam: Challenges in the Annulment of International Commercial Arbitral Awards

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月12日

查看全文
  • Duy Thuyen Trinh,
  • Kim The Nguyen Duong,
  • Duong Hoang Phuc Pham

摘要

International commercial arbitration is widely regarded as an effective mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes due to its efficiency, neutrality, and enforceability. However, the enforcement of arbitral awards is subject to public policy exceptions, as recognized in the New York Convention 1958 (Article V(2)(b)) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Articles 34, 36). The concept of “public policy” lacks a uniform definition, leading to varying interpretations across jurisdictions. Some adopt a restrictive approach, limiting public policy to fundamental principles of justice and morality, while others extend it to regulatory concerns. Vietnamese law codifies this principle under Article 68 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010, allowing courts to annul awards violating “nguyên tắc cơ bản của pháp luật Việt Nam” (“fundamental principles of Vietnamese law”). Unlike the broad “public policy” terminology in international instruments, Vietnam’s phrasing introduces interpretative challenges. The absence of a statutory definition has led to inconsistent judicial applications, sometimes annulling awards based on procedural or substantive legal grounds without clear criteria. This divergence from international standards raises concerns over legal predictability in arbitration enforcement. The linguistic and legal translation of “public policy” into domestic law thus plays a crucial role in shaping Vietnam’s arbitration landscape, affecting its international arbitration credibility.