Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T13:19:41.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 1958 United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Australian Constitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

John Goldring
John Goldring*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are indications that Australia may shortly accede to and ratify the United Nations 1958 (New York) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This Convention, which has recently been the subject of a study by UNCITRAL, provides for the contracting parties to recognize and enforce awards made in the course of arbitration in foreign countries. Should the Government decide to ratify the Convention the manner of putting it into effect in Australia may pose some constitutional problems, and this comment discusses some alternatives open to the Government, bearing in mind the requirements of the Australian Constitution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1973 , pp. 303 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 UNCITRAL is the United Nations Committee on International Trade Law. See U.N. Document A/CN 9/64; UNCITRAL, Fifth Session, New York, 1972. (International Commercial Arbitration, compiled by Ion Nestor, Special Rapporteur.)

2 (1958) United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, (hereinafter referred to as “1958 Convention”), Article II.

3 Id., Art. V.1.

4 Id., Art. V.2.

5 E.g. N.S.W. Arbitration Act, 1902-1957, s. 19.

6 See the remarks of Devlin J. (as he then was) in Peter Cassidy Seed Co. Ltd v. Osuustukkukauppa l.L. [1957] 1 W.L.R. 273, 279-280.

7 This is a fairly common tyPe of provision in international conventions. See e.g. Art. XIX.7. of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation.

8 N.S.W. Arbitration Act, 1902-1957; Victoria, Arbitration Act 1958; S.A. Arbitration Act 1891-1934; W.A. Arbitration Act 1895-1970; Tasmania, Arbitration Act 1892; Queensland, Interdict Act 1876.

9 The Queensland legislation is somewhat different from that in the other States and is based on an earlier English Act.

10 Arbitration Act, 1950, Part II.

11 See U.S. Public Law 91-368, amending Title 9, U.S. Code.

12 Geoffrey Sawer, “The Execution of Treaties by Legislation in the Commonwealth of Australia” (1956) 2 U.Q.L.J. 297, 298. See also J. P. Netti, “The Treaty Enforcement Power in Federal Constitutions” (1950) 28 Can. Bar. Rev. 1051, 1057.

13 [1892] A.C. 491, adopted by Latham C.J. in R. v. Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608, 644. See also Bluett v. Fadden (1956) 56 S.R. (N.S.W.) 254, 261.

14 (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608.

15 (1963-1964) 113 C.L.R. 1.

16 (1964-1965) 113 C.L.R. 54.

17 See Sawer, op. cit. 298 and cases referred to at note 13, supra.

18 R. v. Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608, 658, 669.

19 R. v. Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608; Airlines of N.S.W. Pty Ltd v. N.S.W. [No. 1] (1963-1964) 113 C.L.R. 1; Airlines of N.S.W. Pty Ltd v. N.S.W. [No. 2] (1964-1965) 113 C.L.R. 54.

20 Roche v. Kronheimer (1921) 29 C.L.R. 329.

21 See per Latham C.J. in R. v. Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608,640-641.

22 Airlines of N.S.W. Pty Ltd v. N.S.W. [No. 2] (1964-1965) 113 C.L.R. 54,153.

23 See e.g. per Evatt and McTiernan JJ. on R. v. Burgess; Ex parte Henry (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608, 687.

24 Id., per Dixon J., 669.

25 Id., 658.

26 Id., per Latham C.J., 642; per Evatt and McTiernan JJ., 687.

27 Id., 681-2.

28 See Airlines of N.S.W. Pty Ltd v. N.S.W. [No. 2] (1964-1965) 113 C.L.R.54, especially per Barwick C.J. 86, also 125, 153.

29 For the most recent statements, ibid. See also P. H. Lane, “External Affairs Power” (1966) 40 A.L.J. 257; C. Howard, “The External Affairs Power of the Commonwealth” (1971) 8 M.U.L.R. 193.

30 See per Latham C.J. (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608, 640; Dixon J. id., 669; Evatt and McTiernan JJ., id., 681. The view of Dixon J. was approved by Windeyer J. in Airlines of N.S.W. v. N.S.W. [No. 1] (1963-1964) 113 C.L.R. 1, 50, and see per the same judge in Airlines of N.S.W. Pty Ltd v. N.S.W.[No. 2] (1964-1965) 113 C.L.R. 54, 153.

31 (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608, 641.

32 (1956) 56 S.R. (N.S.W.) 254.

33 Zelman Cowen, Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (1959), 28.

34 C. Howard, Australian Federal Constitutional Law (2nd ed. 1972), 224-225.

35 (1965) 112 C.L.R. 177, 187-188.

36 Id., 190-191.

37 (1908) 8 C.L.R. 330.

38 (1914) 19 C.L.R. 298.

39 E.g. R. v. Foster; Ex parte Eastern and Australian Steamship Co, Ltd (1958-1959) 103 C.L.R.256.

40 (1935) 54 C.L.R. 69, 85-86.

41 (1963-1964) 110 C.L.R. 194.

42 Id., 209.

43 (1948) 76 C.L.R. 1, 381-382.

44 (1964) 110 C.L.R. 194,220.

45 Id., 221-229.

46 Id., 230; see also per Taylor J., 213.

47 (1954) 92 C.L.R. 565, 598.

48 Id., 596-597.

49 See Stemp v. The Australian Glass Manufacturers Co. Ltd (1917) 23 C.L.R. 226.