1 Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards, Report and Preliminary Draft Convention, Brochure 174 (1953) ; U.N. Doe. E/C.2/373.

2 27 League of Nations Treaty Series 158, and 92 ibid. 301; also reprinted in International Trade Arbitration: A Road to World-Wide Cooperation 283, 285 (ed. Martin Domke, 1958).

3 U.N. Economic and Social Council, 17th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 1.

4 U.N. Doc. E/AC. 42/1.

5 U.N. Doc. E/AC. 42/4/Rev. 1 and Corr. 1. The Draft Convention is also published in International Trade Arbitration, op. eit. 288.

6 U N. Doc. E/2704 and Corr. 1, of March 28, 1955.

7 U.N. Economic and Social Council, 19th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 1A.

8 U.N. Doc. E/2822, of Jan. 31, 1956, and Addenda 1 to 6. See also Memorandum by the Secretary General, Doc. E/2840 of March 22, 1956.

9 U.N. Economic and Social Council, 21st Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 1.

10 U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/4 (30 pp.).

11 U.N. Doe. E/CONF. 26/2 (14 pp.).

12 The United States was represented by a delegation consisting of W. T. M. Beale, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Chairman; Edmund F. Becker, Deputy Director, Office of Trade Promotion, Department of Commerce; John J. Czyzak, Office of Assistant Legal Adviser for Economic Affairs, Department of State; Seymour M. Finger, United States Mission to the United Nations; and Charles H. Sullivan, Trade Agreements and Treaties Division, Department of State.

13 For a list of representatives and observers, see U.N. Doc. E/CONF.26/INF. 1/Kev. 2, of June 2, 1958, and Add. 1, of June 4, 1958.

14 U . N . Docs. E/CONF. 26/SB. 1 to 25; E/CONF. 26/L. 1 to 63.

15 U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/9/Eev. 1, of June 10, 1958.

16 Belgium, Costa Bica, El Salvador, Federal Bepublic of Germany, India, Israel, Jordan, Netherlands, Philippines and Poland.

17 Argentina, Bulgaria, Byelorussian S.S.B., Ceylon, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Finland, Luxembourg, Pakistan, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukrainian S.S.B., and U.S.S.B. Subsequently Israel ratified the convention, and Morocco and the United Arab Bepublic acceded to it. It will therefore come into force on June 7, 1959 (Art. XII (1)).

18 U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/6 (12 pp.).

19 Adopted by 35 votes in favor, to none against, with one abstention (Belgium).

20 The entire plenary session of May 28, 1958, was devoted to the debate on that provision. It was rightly stated by the Italian representative that the crucial point was not “whether the body was permanent or specially appointed, but whether there was an element of compulsion in the submission.” TT.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/8E. 8, p. 3.

21 It appears that Art. 1(1) of the Convention, speaking of “persons, whether physical or legal,” would also apply to corporate bodies under public law, and particularly to states in their capacity as entities having rights and duties under private law, as expressly stated by Austria (U.N. Doc. E/2822, Annex I B ) . In extensive deliberations on Art. I, this matter was, however, not further discussed at the Conference.

22 Corresponding to the American concept (e.g., sec. 1449, New York Civil Practice Act) that arbitration agreements “ i n writing” need not be signed by the parties, but may be evidenced by “an exchange of letters or telegrams.“

23 During the debate of May 29, 1958, the United States representative said that the principle of national treatment “deserved serious consideration in any situation in the arbitral process in which discrimination based on nationality was possible.'’ U.N. Doe. E/CONF. 26/SR. 10, p. 3.

24 See Andrew J. Bateson, ‘’ The 1958 Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards,'’ The Journal of Business Law (London) 1958, p. 393. On the other hand, the court may still find the award incompatible with the public policy of the forum (Art. V(2)). For a recent discussion of that issue (under Dutch law), see Nolzen, “Openbare Orde en Arbitrage,” Arbitrale Bechtspraak, No. 454 (October, 1958), p. 289.

25 A Yugoslav amendment to limit the Convention to awards made between persons “subject to the jurisdiction of one of the Contracting States” (U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/L. 12) was not adopted. As a result of this negative vote, the Yugoslav representative felt compelled to abstain from the final vote on the Convention as a whole (U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/SE. 24, p. 11). See also Aleksandar Goldstajn, “Submission to Arbitration of Disputes with a Foreign Element,” 5 Jugoslovenska Eevija za Medunarodno Pravo 118 (1958).

26 See R. Bernhardt, Der Abschluss voelkerrechtlicher Vertraege im Bundesstaat. Eine Untersuchung zum deutschen und auslaendischen Bundesstaatsrecht (1957).

27 See Czyzak, John and Charles H. Sullivan, , ‘ ‘ American Arbitration Law and the U.N. Convention,” 13 Arbitration Journal 197 (1958).Google Scholar

28 Cf. Eaton, William, “Canadian Judicial Review and the Federal Distribution of Power,” 7 A. J. Comp. Law 47, 57 (1958).Google Scholar

29 See Looper, Robert V., “The Treaty Power in Switzerland,” 7 A. J. Comp. Law 178 (1958)Google Scholar. The Chairman of the Swiss Delegation, Professor Pierre Jean Pointet, stated in a pamphlet, “ La Convention de New-York sur 1'exécution des sentences arbitrates étrangères” (Zurich, 1958), p. 22: “Etant donné que la procédure d'arbitrage releve dans notre pays de la compétence des cantons, il était opportun, du point de Vue politique, que la Confédération prnne préalablement contact avec ces derniers.“

30 Statement of the Polish representative, U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/8R. 20, p. 5.

31 Statement of the Czechoslovakian representative, ibid., p. 6.

32 This proposal received 24 votes in favor with only 2 against, and 6 abstentions, TJ.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/SE. 23, p. 12. Argentina and Guatemala made the following reservations to Art. X, included in par. 15 of the Final Act (note 15 above): “ I f another Contracting Party extends the application of the Convention to territories which fall within the sovereignty of the Argentine Eepublic, the rights of the Argentine Eepublic shall in no way be affected by that extension.” “The Delegation of Guatemala will vote in favour of Article X of the Convention on the express understanding that it cannot affect or detract from the rights of Guatemala over Belize (improperly called British Honduras), if the Power occupying that part of Guatemala's national territory should at any time extend this Convention to that territory.“

33 However, the phrase in Art. 1(3) “legal relationships whether contractual or not” appears also to cover other disputes, such as damage claims which might come within the scope of the commercial code.

34 The Turkish representative stated that “ i t was not correct to regard the commercial clause as a reservation. In addition to France and Belgium, it would benefit Turkey, in which commercial law was distinct from civil law.” TJ.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/SE. 23, p. 9.

35 See Walker, Herman, Jr., ‘ ‘ Commercial Arbitration in United States Treaties,'’ 11 Arbitration Journal 68 (1956)Google Scholar; and “United States Treaty Policy on Commercial Arbitration 1946-1957,” in International Trade Arbitration, op. cit. note 2, at p. 49. Also cf. “Table of Bilateral Conventions relating to the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and the Organization of Commercial Arbitration Procedure,” prepared under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (U.N. Publication 1957. II. E/Mim. 18).

36 U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/SE. 20, p. 4.

37 U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/SE. 19, p . 3.

38 Ibid., p. 4.

39 Ibid., p. 9.

40 U S. Mission to the United Nations, Press Eelease No. 2930, May 21, 1958.

41 See note 27 above. Signature by the United States is also considered unlikely by the Chairman of the West German Delegation, Professor A. Buelow, “ i n view of the controversies relating to the treaty-making power of the Federal government.'’ Aussenwirtschaftsdienst, 1958, p . 146.

42 Cf. Commercial- Arbitration Facilities, Report of the Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Asia and the Ear East, Committee on Industry and Trade, Sub-Committee on Trade, Doc. E/CN. 11/1&T/Sub. 4/5, of Oct. 18, 1954 (40 p p . ) . Cf. also Docs. E/CN. 11/Trade/L. 19 of Dec. 31, 1958, and L. 21 of Jan. 22, 1959.

43 Final version (5 vols., 621 pp.), Trade W[orking] P[arty] 1/15, Bev. 1, Dec. 3, 1958.

1 U.N. Doc. E/CONF. 26/8/Rev. 1.