Abstract
An examination of how courts have narrowed the public policy ground for setting aside awards, and the residual uncertainty for foreign-seated arbitrations.
The public policy exception was intended as a narrow escape valve. In practice it has served as a general appeal in disguise.
We survey the reported set-aside applications of the last five years and find that the narrowing of the exception is real but uneven across benches.
The article concludes with drafting suggestions for parties seeking to insulate awards from collateral review.
ArbitrationPublic policyEnforcement