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
PAX Moot 2026 Vladimir Koutikov Round has come to an end – announcement of winners
This post has previously been published by PAX Moot (with minor changes). Photo: University of Ljubljana Team.
The PAX Moot 2026 — Vladimir Koutikov Round has come to an end, and what an incredible edition it has been. We hope it was an unforgettable experience for all participants — a unique opportunity to engage in high-level argumentation on Private International Law, grow advocacy skills, and forge lasting friendships along the way.
Without further ado, we are proud to announce the results of this year’s competition:
- Winner — University of Ljubljana
- Runner-up — Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski
Call for Contributions (International Conference and Edited Volume): Imagining Decolonial Legal Methods in Europe (Pushing Boundaries)
The following Call for Contributions has been kindly shared with us by Sandrine Brachotte (UAntwerpen):
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 3/2026: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles: