Public Policy as a Ground for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

Abstract

          One of the essential factors that attract parties in dispute to opt for arbitration is the decisive characteristics of the Finality of the arbitral award, which prevent any subsequent appeals. Resulting in the overall timeframe of the arbitration process offers a more accelerated period compared to the judicial process. Nonetheless, the swiftness of the arbitration procedure remains a topic of discussion, especially when the arbitral awards are not recognized or enforceable. The violation of policy is often cited as a ground for refusing the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

          This article aims to highlight the nuanced understanding of public policy within both national and international contexts. It will analyze issues related to public policy as a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, drawing insights from precedent cases from Thai courts and international courts. Subsequently, it will propose an interpretative framework for public policy that has recognized the progressive nature of arbitration. The aim is to enhance the efficiency of arbitration, ensure legal compliance, and promote international trade and investment arbitration.