الجوانب القانونية و الفلسفية في تنفيذ حكم التحكيم الأجنبي الباطل

Abstract EN

The research is centered on the non-recognition of judiciary in some countries ( France, USA etc.) of the binding force of judicial verdicts on the invalidity of arbitral awards.

The research problem is based on the conflict of jurisdiction between the judiciary of the country where arbitration is held, and that of the country where arbitration judgement is executed.

International conventions such as New York Convention recognizes the legitimacy of the action for the invalidity of arbitral award and that the judiciary of the country where arbitral award was passed shall have jurisdiction to consider the claim, contrary to French judiciary's attitude towards this issue.

However, this does not prevent the judiciary in the country where arbitral award is to be enforced from reviewing the award.

French judiciary and jurisprudence endeavored to make an analogy with the independence of arbitration condition from the original contract and to be consistent with the independence of arbitration condition as specified in Lex Mercatoria Arbitration Rules.

French judiciary's non-consideration of the binding force of the judicial verdict on the invalidity of arbitral award makes France a safe refuge for the enforcement of invalid awards.

French judiciary is also paradoxical as it rejects the enforcement of verdicts dismissed as invalid by French judiciary and turns a blind eye to that aspect when it comes to foreign judicial verdicts on the invalidity of arbitral awards.

By so doing, French judiciary also disregards autonomy of will principle underpinning arbitration system.