Views
From Deference to Objectivity: How Courts Are Rewriting the Commercial Reservation
By Taimoor Raza Sultan, Stockholm University
Introduction
The 1958 New York Convention (‘NYC’) is widely regarded as international arbitration’s most significant achievement. Having been ratified by over 160 states, , establishing a credible system of enforcement for arbitral awards. Yet the commercial reservation under Article 1(3), which allows the reserving state to limit the application of the ‘Convention only to differences …. considered as commercial’ under its own national law, risks jeopardizing the uniformity of the convention. By domesticating the definition of commerciality, the reservation invites forum shopping and inconsistent enforcement. Read more
Online Symposium on Recent Developments in African PIL (II) – The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments within the CEMAC Zone
As part of the second online symposium on recent developments in African private international law, we are pleased to present the second contribution, kindly prepared by Boris Awa (Kigali Independent University, Rwanda), on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments within the CEMAC Zone.
Article V(1)(e) of the 1958 New York Convention in Light of a Decision of the Turkish Court of Cassation
Posted on behalf of Erdem Küçüker, an attorney-at-law registered at the Istanbul Bar Association and a private law LL.M student at Koç University. Mr. Küçüker specializes in commercial arbitration, arbitration-related litigation and commercial litigation, and acts as secretary to arbitral tribunals.
Article V of the 1958 New York Convention (“NYC”) lists the grounds of non-enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Accordingly, Article V(1)(e) provides that when “[t]he award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made” the award’s enforcement may be refused.
In 2024, the Turkish Court of Cassation quashed the lower courts’ decision that declared an International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association (“ICDR”) award as enforceable, stating that the courts should have further investigated whether the award is final, enforceable and binding (Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, Docket No: E. 2022/5986, Decision No: K. 2024/2257, Date: 20.03.2024). This article explains the decision of the Turkish Court of Cassation and comments on the final, enforceable and binding character of an arbitral award in relation to Article V(1)(e) of the NYC. Read more
News
Perspectives contentieuses internationales (PCI), Volume 5
The following announcement was kindly shared with us by Fabienne Jault-Seseke
It is a special issue devoted to a dossier entitled “The Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Face of the Energy Transition,” prepared under the direction of RebeccaLegendre and Denys-Sacha Robin. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the transformations that the extractive sector as a whole is facing as a result of sustainable development policies, as well as on the multiple disputes likely to arise from the difficult reconciliation of competing considerations. Read more
Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2026/1
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)
The first issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2026 has just come off the press and is available online. It contains three articles, nine case notes, and eight book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).
Read more
Foreign Judgment Enforcement: Zimbabwean High Court holds that a Confirmed Mareva Injunction is a Final Judgment
In the Zimbabwe High Court decision of Ser and Another v Yong and Another (92 of 2026; HC/SUM 1957/2025) [2026] ZWHHC 137 (8 April 2026), the applicant obtained a freezing (Mareva) injunction from a foreign court in Singapore against assets linked to the respondents and then sought to have that order registered and enforced in Zimbabwe. The respondents resisted enforcement, arguing that the order should not be recognised because it was interlocutory in nature and because a relevant foreign defendant had not been joined to the original proceedings. The dispute therefore arose in the context of an attempt to extend the effect of a foreign asset-preservation order into Zimbabwe against parties and assets within its jurisdiction.