Public policy in the enforcement of forein arbitral awards in the light of the judgments of the court of cassation

Abstract

In this study, first, the concepts of "recognition" and "enforcement" of foreign arbitral awards will be explained. Then, the legal basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards will be clarified. The principles proposed in the academic circles to prevent the use of public policy beyond its purpose in enforcement of foreign arbitral awards proceedings will be briefly explained. Following that, what is considered by the doctrine to be part of public policy will be addressed. Thereafter, the attempts made by the courts framing public policy as an impediment to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards will be addressed. In addition, the elements which, in Court of Cassation decisions, are considered to be public policy grounds that justify denial of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards will be evaluated under ten headings. In the last part of the study, the effect of public policy on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards containing peculiar features will be examined. Three topics will be discussed under this title: first, the effect of public policy on enforcement of interim measures granted by arbitrators; second, the effect of public policy on the enforcement of the RICO or punitive damages awards, and third, the effect of public policy on the recognition of the anti-suit injunctions ordered by arbitrators. Our general evaluation regarding public policy as a bar to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in terms of Turkish doctrine and practice will be presented in the conclusion.