The Application Of Public Policy In The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Involving Unilateral Economic Sanctions

As a means for a country to achieve the purpose of foreign policy,unilateral economicsanctions usually appear in the form of trade restrictions and financial restrictions.Its restrictive content directly affects commercial exchanges,and at the same time,its influence on international commercial arbitration is becoming more and more obvious,especially in the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign awards involving economic sanctions,it is easy to face the obstacles of "public policy defense" under the new york Convention.By combing and analyzing the international practice of recognition and enforcement of foreign awards involving economic sanctions in the past,and combining with our previous judicial attitude towards "public policy",this paper puts forward typological suggestions for our future judicial position in the face of recognition and enforcement of such awards.In general,for the purpose of promoting recognition and enforcement as much as possible in the New York Convention and the consensus of Contracting States,the arbitral awards involving economic sanctions should not always be denied recognition and enforcement on the grounds of public policy,but should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.Among them,the court of our country can refuse to recognize and enforce the award made by the arbitration tribunal that ignores China’s trade counter-measures and contains the content of requiring Chinese parties to continue to perform or compensate for losses in violation of the relevant trade ban,or the award made by the arbitration tribunal that is unfavorable to Chinese parties due to the application of other countries’ secondary sanctions against China,and at this time,it has not broken through the judicial attitude of limited interpretationof "public policy" in China’s past practice.But for the disputed commercial transactionitself does not involve China’s trade counter-measures,and only the execution of the reward result will violate China’s financial counter-measures,we should not refuse to recognize it easily on the grounds of public policy,but the recognition can be accompanied by suspension of execution to resolve the contradiction between the financial counter-measures and the execution of the arbitration result.In addition,the fact that the arbitrators involved in the arbitration are sanctioned cannot of course constitute a cause of "violation of public policy".However,when there is a close relationship between the sanctions imposed on arbitrators and the possible lack of neutrality in the adjudication of disputes,there is room for applying the public policy clause.