Domestic Subsequent Award Sample Clauses

Domestic Subsequent Award. It follows from the aim to harmonize the scope of Articles II and III et seq. 28 (paras 24 et seq.) that Article II does not apply to arbitration agreements on the basis of which a “domestic” award will be rendered.81 In terms of Article I, “domestic” awards are those which are made in the forum State (Article I(1)(1), see Art. I paras 94 et seq.) or which are considered as domestic awards (Article I(1)(2), see Art. I paras 114 et seq.). This position is prevailing but not undisputed. Some courts and commentators 29 advocate that a uniform recognition of arbitration agreements generally requires the application of Article II in all Signatory States worldwide, including the State where the arbitration is to take place. Otherwise it could happen that an international arbitration agreement is not enforced in a country although the ensuing award would have to be enforced in other Contracting States.82 This position is to be rejected from the outset insofar as it extends to all arbitration agreements. Other- wise a State would effectively give up its legislatory freedom as to stricter (form) requirements for purely domestic arbitration agreements. This is not a sensible effect for a convention on foreign arbitral awards that limits its ambit in Article I to non-domestic awards.83 78 Italy: Cass., sez. un., I Y.B. Com. Arb. 190 (1976); Cass., sez. un., IV Y.B. Com. Arb. 284 paras 2 et seq. (1979); xxx xxx Xxxx, pp. 58 et seq.; Xxxxxxxx, in: Xxxxxxxxx/Xxxxxxx (eds), para. 6576. 79 The provision reads: “An agreement or award arising out of such a relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States shall be deemed not to fall under the Convention unless that relationship involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states.” Cf. for detailed criteria US: Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184, 186 et seq. (1st Cir. 1982) = IX Y.B. Com. Arb. 471, 473 para. 3 (1984); Sedco, Inc. v. Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican National Oil Co., 767 F.2d 1140, 1144 et seq. (5th Cir. 1985) = XII Y.B. Com. Arb. 539, 541 para. 2 (1987); Xxxxxxxx v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75426, *11 et seq. (N.D. Tex. 2006) = XXXII Y.B. Com. Arb. 683, 685 et seq. paras 3 et seq. (2007). 80 Cf. xxx xxx Xxxx, p. 59, proposing to apply Article I by way of analogy which does, however, only cause rather than prevent the violation of Article II (it is for the very reason that Article ...