No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Second Circuit Refuses to Confirm International Arbitration Award Against Peru, Citing Forum Non Conveniens
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012
References
1 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Jan. 30, 1975, 14 ILM 336 (1975), available at http://www.oas.org/jundico/english/treaues/b-35.html.
2 Figueiredo Ferraz E Engenharia De Projeto Ltda. v. Peru, 665 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011).
3 The operation of the Peruvian statute was not clear from the record, and the court did not purport to state it precisely.
4 9 U.S.C. §§1-16(2006).
5 Consultoria E Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru, 655 F.Supp.2d 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
6 Figueiredo Ferraz, 665 F.3d at 390. The dissent (and some outside observers) found this position unpersuasive, believing that forum non conveniens should not be available to contest an action intended to gain enforcement of an arbitral award against the losing party’s assets in the jurisdiction.
7 Id. at 391 (citations and footnotes omitted).
8 Id. at 392 (citations omitted).
9 Id. at 394 n. 11.
10 ld. at 394, 402-03 (Lynch, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).