The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter the “New York Convention”) has established a global legal framework centered on the principle of “pro-enforcement”. Over nearly seven decades, one might expect this path to have widened with time. Yet Article V of the Convention, which enumerates the grounds for refusal, has been interpreted in widely divergent ways by judges across different jurisdictions. The truly vexing question is this: Where exactly should the line be drawn between respecting the finality of arbitral awards and safeguarding national judicial sovereignty? The Convention text offers no explicit answer, but in practice, the question is inescapable. This article proceeds along the central thread of Article V, examining the issue through four lenses: the public policy exception, the fate of annulled awards, the boundary review of arbitrability, and the new variables introduced by emerging technologies. Turning to China’s approach, this article ultimately advances three propositions – on the review boundary, replace domestic standards with “international public policy”. On annulled awards, substitute the territorial approach with an “international annulment standard”. On interpretive direction, narrow rather than expand the scope wherever possible. At bottom, the aim is to identify a workable coordination mechanism between Convention obligations and domestic judicial sovereignty.
References
[1] Kola Tafaj, F., Çinari, S. (2023) Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Albania. European Business Organization Law Review, 24(2), 677-691.
[2] Han, P. (2011) Challenging arbitral awards: a comparative study of Chinese law, British law and UNCITRAL Model Law. Frontiers of Law in China, 6(3), 418-446.
[3] Zhang, S., Guo, P. (2022) The (ab)use of the public policy ground in the New York Convention in the judicial review of foreign arbitral awards: recent developments in China. Houston Journal of International Law, 43(3), 553-594.
[4] Sarkar, S., SR, S. (2024) Enforcing emergency arbitral awards: global and Indian perspectives. Liverpool Law Review, 45, 445-469.
[5] El Maknouzi, M. E., Jadalhaq, I. M., Alqodsi, E. M. (2023) Islamic commercial arbitration and private international law: mapping controversies and exploring pathways towards greater coordination. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 523.
[6] Bahta, T. H. (2021) The ratification of the New York Convention in Ethiopia: towards efficacy and avoidance of divergent paths. Mizan Law Review, 15(2), 493-522.
[7] Łągiewska, M. (2024) New technologies in international arbitration: a game-changer in dispute resolution? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale De SÉMiotique Juridique, 37, 851-864.
[8] François, A., Low, S. A., Sypek, E. I., Christensen, A. J., Sotoudeh, C., Beier, K. T., Scherrer, G. (2017) A brainstem-spinal cord inhibitory circuit for mechanical pain modulation by GABA and enkephalins. Neuron, 93(4), 822-839.
[9] Klementyev, A. P. (2026) International commercial arbitration and over-the-counter derivatives. Kutafin Law Review, 13(2), 391-425.
[10] Marzi, G., Balzano, M., Caputo, A., Pellegrini, M. M. (2025) Guidelines for bibliometric‐systematic literature reviews: 10 steps to combine analysis, synthesis and theory development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 27(1), 81-103.
[11] Zaheeruddin, M. (2023) Recognition and enforcement of annulled arbitral awards under the New York Convention 1958. International Journal of Professional Business Review: International Journal of Professional Business Review, 8(7), 75.
Share and Cite
Gan, M. (2026) Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Under the International Law Framework: From the Perspective of Judicial Review Boundaries in the Implementation of the New York Convention. Journal of Social Development and History, 2(2), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.71052/jsdh/IOBL7001