The Definition of Domestic and Foreign Arbitral Awards in Brazil: A Critical Analysis of the Decision in Nuovo Pignone v. Petromec


The Brazilian Arbitration Act (the “BAA” or the “Act”)[1] does not distinguish between domestic and international arbitration. It does, however, set different mechanisms for parties to seek and resist enforcement of an arbitral award, depending on whether it is deemed domestic or foreign.

On May 24, 2011, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça, hereinafter the “STJ” or the “Court”), the country’s highest court for non-constitutional matters, rendered a decision concerning the distinction between domestic and foreign arbitral awards (hereinafter the “Decision”).[2]

Under the BAA, domestic arbitral awards amount to judicial decisions rendered by the Brazilian courts (BAA, Article 31). While potentially subject to motions for annulment before said courts, domestic arbitral awards constitute res judicata. Additionally, if not complied with voluntarily by the losing party, domestic arbitral awards are enforceable before the Brazilian courts as such. In other words, the courts need not confirm domestic arbitral awards in order for their enforcement to be sought, and there is no judicial review of the merits of an award.

In turn, foreign arbitral awards — that is, “arbitral awards made outside the Brazilian territory” (BAA, Article 34, sole paragraph) — can only be recognized and enforced in Brazil upon the authorization of the STJ (Articles 105, I, i of the Brazilian Constitution, 35 of the BAA and 483-484 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure).[3] This process is commonly referred to in Brazil as the “homologation” of foreign arbitral awards, and is consistent with the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention,” or the “Convention”), ratified by Brazil in 2002.[4]

If the proper requirements are met, the STJ will grant an order recognizing the foreign arbitral award (thus giving it res judicata effect within the Brazilian territory) and authorizing its enforcement at the Brazilian courts, like domestic arbitral awards or local court decisions.[5] As with domestic arbitral awards, the merits of foreign arbitral awards are not subject to judicial review, neither during the homologation process at the STJ nor at the enforcement stage at the lower courts.

Thus, while subject to annulment, domestic arbitral awards constitute res judicata and can be directly enforced in Brazil, as of their issuance. Foreign arbitral awards, on the other hand, cannot be annulled in Brazil, but will only be recognized and thus become enforceable in the country upon their homologation by the STJ.

The BAA establishes that the homologation process shall be carried out in accordance with international treaties in force in Brazil or, in their absence, strictly according to the provisions of the Act itself (BAA, Article 34, caput). Articles 37–39 of the BAA deal with this process and mirror Articles IV and V of the New York Convention.

Importantly, the BAA (which was enacted prior to the ratification of the Convention) stroke down the double exequatur requirement that long prevailed in the jurisprudence of Brazilian courts (BAA, Article 35).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that, although Brazil is a party to the Convention since 2002, STJ’s decisions have traditionally referred exclusively to the BAA and/or Resolution 9.[6]

I.            The Arbitral Award and the Brazilian Courts

A.        The Arbitral Award

The Decision herein analyzed derives from an arbitral award in favor of Nuovo Pignone SPA rendered by a sole arbitrator in a dispute against Maritima Petroleo e Engenharia Ltda. and Petromec Inc. The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the “ICC”) administered the proceedings in accordance with its Rules. The award was made in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The arbitration was carried out in Portuguese, with Brazilian law governing the merits.

B.        The District Court’s Decision

Nuovo Pignone sought to enforce the award in the courts of Rio de Janeiro. The competent District Court upheld jurisdiction and authorized the seizure of the defendant’s assets. Petromec Inc. then appealed to the Court of Appeals of the State of Rio de Janeiro (hereinafter referred to as the “Rio Court of Appeals”).

C.        The Rio de Janeiro Court of Appeals’ Decision

Surprisingly, the Rio Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision.[7] By a majority, it held that the award emanated from a “foreign arbitration organ” — the ICC.

Misinterpreting the parties’ choice for ICC arbitration and apparently conflating the notions of an administering institution and an arbitral tribunal, the Rio Court of Appeals concluded that, since the parties chose “the International Arbitration Tribunal of the International Chamber of Commerce, which is headquartered in Paris, to resolve their controversy, they sought a foreign decision.” It went on to state that, “despite being Brazilian, the sole arbitrator represented and was administratively bound to a foreign arbitral institution, whose foreign rules were followed.”

Accordingly, the Rio Court of Appeals concluded that the award was a foreign one, dismissing the case and requiring the STJ’s homologation order for its enforcement to be sought in Brazil.

D.        The STJ’s Decision

Claiming violation of the BAA and of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, Nuovo Pignone appealed to the STJ, the country’s court of last resort for federal matters. The issue at stake before the STJ was whether an arbitral award rendered in Rio de Janeiro by a sole arbitrator of Brazilian nationality, in Portuguese, with Brazilian law governing the merits, but administered by an institution headquartered abroad, in Paris (the ICC), is a domestic or a foreign arbitral award.

The Court unanimously reversed the Rio Court of Appeals’ decision and affirmed the original District Court’s ruling. Pointing out that under the system established by the New York Convention (Article 1), each contracting State is entitled to set forth its own rules governing the nationality of arbitral awards, the STJ concluded that the place where the award is made is the sole criterion enshrined by the BAA, irrespective of whether the award deals with transnational commerce, involves multiple legal systems, or is administered by a foreign institution in accordance with its rules.

The Court further noted that, while the parties’ choice for a Brazilian arbitrator, Brazilian law to govern the merits, and Portuguese as the language of the proceeding, does not affect the nationality of arbitral awards under the BAA, it serves as an indication that they intended the award to be deemed domestic.

In light of those findings, the Court reversed the Rio Court of Appeals’ decision and confirmed that arbitral awards rendered in Brazil are deemed domestic, and thus directly enforceable at the competent local courts, regardless of other factors surrounding the arbitration.

II.        Commentary

A.        Positive Aspects

Given that Article 34 of the BAA clearly endorses the notion that awards made outside the Brazilian territory shall be deemed foreign, the STJ’s final conclusion is hardly innovative.

However, its relevance cannot be understated to the extent that a different outcome would have provoked deeply negative consequences to Brazil’s reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction: Had the STJ concluded that any elements other than the place where the award is made can affect the nationality of the award, a wave of annulment requests would likely have been filed at the Brazilian courts in order to prevent awards made in Brazil but administered by foreign institutions (or containing foreign elements) from being enforced in the country without prior homologation by the STJ.

In this sense, although the Paris-based ICC’s administration of the dispute was the only “foreign element” allegedly affecting the nationality of the award (as per the defense raised by the party resisting enforcement and upheld by the Rio Court of Appeals), in dicta the STJ expanded the coverage of its decision to clarify that no factor other than the place where the award is made (be it the law governing the merits, the language in which the proceedings are conducted, or the nationality of the arbitrators) matters.

It is also noteworthy that the STJ expressly referred to the Convention in its Decision, thus breaking up with its tradition of applying it indirectly through the BAA and Resolution 9. Nonetheless, as explained below, this progress might have come late.

B.        Negative Aspects and Potential Controversy

(i)         The Controversial Reasoning

Undeniably, the STJ reached the right conclusion. However, it seems to have done so by (perhaps, inadvertently) advancing an interpretation of a New York Convention-based concept — contained in the BAA[8] and in the Decree that enacted the Convention in Brazil[9] — that contradicts international practice and possibly leaves room for undesired controversy in similar cases.

The Court pointed out that in most jurisdictions the nationality of arbitral awards is determined by reference to the country freely chosen by the parties or the arbitrators as the legal seat of the arbitration (which, it emphasized, bears no relation to and is not affected by the place where the award is made or where the proceedings occur).[10] On the other hand, the STJ further advanced in its reasoning that, contrary to the comparative experience, the BAA upholds a territorial/geographic (ius solis) approach whereby the sole element determining the nationality of an arbitral award in Brazil is the place where the award is made.[11]

The inevitable question is: Does the STJ perceive the place where an award is made as being something other than the seat of the arbitration? Regrettably, the Court seems to consider that, under Brazilian law, the place where an award is made and the legal seat of the arbitration are at least not necessarily one and the same. The Decision thus seems to suggest that the former — which, as a result of Article 34, sole paragraph, of the BAA, determines the nationality of the award and thus the appropriate avenues to seek and resist the enforcement of arbitral awards in Brazil — corresponds to the place where the award is physically signed, as a result of what it claims to be the geographic, ius solis criteria underlying the Brazilian approach.

(ii)        The Potential Uncertainty Deriving from the STJ’s Reasoning

In the case at stake, the place where the sole arbitrator physically made the award coincided with the contractually-designed seat of the arbitration — the city of Rio de Janeiro. However, this will not always be the case.

While made in dicta, the STJ’s reasoning in reaching a correct decision arguably leaves room for controversy in a foreseeable scenario in which one or all arbitrators physically sign the award in a location other than the seat of the arbitration. Perhaps because this issue did not arise in this case, the STJ took its position for granted and did not explore this possibility or its implications.

If, in the future, the STJ follows the approach it seems to advance, inappropriate outcomes could easily be achieved: An award deriving from an arbitration seated in São Paulo would have to go through the homologation process if a Danish sole arbitrator signs the award in his hometown, while an award stemming from an arbitration seated in Copenhagen would need no homologation in order to be enforced in Brazil so long as the arbitrators sign it in Rio, by occasion of their fortuitous meeting for a conference in that city.

Despite the STJ’s largely satisfactory track record on arbitration matters and the positive features of the Nuovo Pignone Decision outlined above, it is impossible to resist respectfully criticizing the Court’s apparent indication that the decisive factor in determining the nationality of an arbitral award is the location in which it is physically made.

(iii)       Appropriate Reasoning

While the conclusion would have been the same in this case because the arbitrator signed the award in the legal seat of the arbitration, we contend that the above-mentioned reasoning is in dissonance with a broader teleological view advanced by the drafters of the New York Convention (which contains the similarly drafted expressions “arbitral awards made in the territory of a State,” “the country where the award was made,” and “the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made”) and overwhelmingly upheld by foreign courts.

The better view is that the place, country, territory, or venue (to cite frequently used expressions) where an award is made is the legal seat of the arbitration, as agreed upon by the parties (in their arbitration agreement or any further document) or, in the absence of any such agreement, by the arbitrators (or administering institution).

The legal seat of the arbitration determines the nationality of the award, irrespective of where the hearings take place or where the arbitrators physically sign the award. It essentially anchors the proceedings in one legal system, whose law and courts are attributed important roles.

Although the Convention does not expressly clarify what it means by the “place where an award was made,” eminent international scholars and practitioners, and a vast majority of local courts (including those in the United States, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan) share the view herein expressed.[12] Several local statutes governing arbitration (i.e., the 1996 English Arbitration Act and the Swiss Law on Private International Law), the 1976 and 2010 versions of the UNCITRAL Model Law (Articles 20(1) and 31(3), and 18, respectively),[13] and the rules of most leading international arbitration institutions (see, for example, Article 31(3) of the 2012 ICC Rules) do so as well.[14]

Ironically described as “territorial,” this approach is based upon legal fictions (“seat,” “venue,” “country,” or “place” of arbitration)[15], not geographic definitions. ICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the New York Convention is particularly clear: “The vast majority of Contracting States considers that an award is made at the seat of the arbitration. The seat of the arbitration is chosen by the parties or alternatively, by the arbitral institution or the arbitral tribunal. It is a legal, not a physical, geographical concept. Hearings, deliberations and signature of the award and other parts of the arbitral process may take place elsewhere.”[16]

Gary Born is equally supportive of this interpretation: “The correct view is that an award is “made” in the place that the parties have contractually-selected (or, absent agreement, that an arbitral institution or competent national court has selected pursuant to the parties’ delegation) as the seat of the arbitration.…Under this approach, the place where an award is “made” is not affected by the physical location where the award is signed or by the holding of hearings in particular places for convenience. Rather, the only relevant consideration is where the parties have agreed upon as the place or seat of the arbitration.”[17]

(iv)       Possible Explanation for the STJ’s Criticized Reasoning

A possible explanation for the STJ’s reasoning might lie in the translation into Portuguese of the instruments upon which the legal provisions at stake (i.e., the Decree No. 4,311 and Article 34, sole paragraph, of the BAA) are based: the New York Convention and the 1988 Spanish Arbitration Act (the “1988 SAA”).

The Decree No. 4,311 of 2002 (the “Decree”), which internalized the New York Convention in Brazil, consists of a translation of the Convention into Portuguese. Article 34, sole paragraph, of the BAA openly drew from Article I, 1 of the New York Convention[18] and Article 56(2) of the 1988 SAA.[19]

Having the English version of the Convention as a reference, the expression whose translation is controverted is “to make [an award]” (as in Article I, 1, first paragraph’s “arbitral awards made at…”). Both the BAA and the Decree used the Portuguese word “proferido” (from the verb “proferir”) as a translation of that expression. The French and Spanish official versions of the Convention adopted “rendues” and “dictadas,” respectively. Finally, the 1988 SAA used “proferidas.”

To an author, the specific choice in Brazil for the word “proferido” (clearly stemming from the 1988 SAA) in both the BAA and the Decree is semantically more restrictive than other words into which it could have been translated. This author argues that the word adopted by the Decree and the BAA is thus hardly compatible with the broader notion internationally associated with the seat of the arbitration.[20]

However, as another author adds, a strictly grammatical interpretation of the term found in the relevant Brazilian legal instruments would lead to inconsistencies and unacceptable outcomes. Thus, given the controlling role of the law of the seat of the arbitration, he advances that a logical interpretation of the BAA and of the Brazilian translation of the Convention suggests that “the place where the award is made” is a purely legal (non-physical) concept, to which the law governing the proceedings is closely related.[21]

(v)        Escape Valves from Arguably Misleading Translations

It might be argued that the Brazilian courts are bound to apply the legal instruments in force in the Brazilian territory as such, which would include the application of the arguably misleading translations contained in the BAA and the Decree. However, it must also be borne in mind that the Court enjoys some discretion in interpreting these far-from-clear provisions.

Accordingly, in issuing its decision the STJ was entitled and indeed should have resorted to other equally available and arguably more appropriate hermeneutic techniques (for instance, by pursuing teleological or historical interpretations, or resorting to comparative experience, to cite a few). Had it done so, the inevitable conclusion would have been that the “place” or “venue” where arbitral awards are made can only correspond to the contractually-designed legal seat of the arbitration.

There is no hierarchy amongst the five official versions of the Convention and it may be argued that, according to the reader, nuances may set the concept or scope of certain provisions apart. It is noteworthy that even within the same language — Spanish– the official Spanish version of the Convention and the 1988 SAA used different words to designate the same concept. Yet, all of this only operates to reinforce the case for an autonomous, a-national interpretation and application of the text of the Convention.

Thus, the Court’s interpretation might be justifiable as a result of a strictly grammatical analysis of the relevant legal provisions, but it does not find support in the uniform interpretation of the New York Convention and arguably paves the way for inconsistencies and uncertainty, in case the award is not signed in the legal seat of the arbitration.

A longer tradition of directly applying the Convention could have avoided the herein criticized interpretation and allowed the STJ to draw lessons from valuable international experience, while preserving its independent decision-making power.

Not coincidently, Article 34 of the BAA established the prevalence of treaties over domestic legislation and the drafters of the Convention aimed at its uniform application.[22] In light of that, it is worth invoking Born’s irresistible conclusion that “the applicability of Article V(1)(e) and Article VI cannot sensibly be made to depend on individual national law definitions of where an award is made” at the risk of undermining the Convention’s objective “to centralize actions to annul awards in a single forum” by allowing “individual Contracting States to entertain actions to annul an award in almost any matter they desired.”[23]

III.       Conclusion

The STJ held that whether an arbitral award shall be considered domestic or foreign depends exclusively on the place where it was made, irrespective of the presence of foreign elements.

This seems to provide important legal certainty to the extent that it clarifies that the administration of arbitral proceedings by foreign institutions in accordance with their rules will not affect the nationality of the award. It thus consolidates the perception that Brazilian courts are supportive of arbitration and prevents a backlash that could have been unleashed by a different outcome.

However, the right conclusion appears to have been partly reached through a reasoning that is unsupported by the predominant international experience. To the extent the arbitrators sign the award in the legal seat of the arbitration, the matter seems to be settled. The outcome would be less than certain and potentially highly unsatisfactory, however, when there is a discrepancy between the contractually-designed seat and the place where the signatures take place.

As this could lead to controversies in future cases, it would be of utmost importance for the Court to increasingly refer to the Convention in its decisions. While doing so, it should resort to an interpretation of its provisions that reflects the uniformity envisaged — and to a great extent, achieved, at this point — by its drafters.

Clarifying that the place where an award is made is the contractually-elected seat of the arbitration would be a positive start. For the time being, the safest approach is for the parties to expressly indicate the seat of the arbitration in their agreement to arbitrate and for the arbitrators to expressly refer to such venue (i.e., the legal seat) as the place where the award was made.

Daniel Aun

LL.M. candidate in International Business Regulation, Litigation & Arbitration at New York University School of Law and Vice President of the New York University School of Law International Arbitration Association. Formerly, practiced international arbitration with L.O. Baptista Advogados in São Paulo, acted as assistant professor of International Law at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, and interned at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. The author can be contacted at

[1] Law 9.307 of 1996.

[2] Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Recurso Especial No 1.231.554/RJ (2011/0006426-8), Reporting Justice Nancy Andrighi.

[3] The Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) broadly establishes that decisions rendered by foreign tribunals (which are deemed to include both judicial decisions and arbitral awards) will only be recognized (and later enforced, that being the case) in Brazil if homologated by the STJ. The BAA more specifically states that, in order to be recognized and enforced in the country, foreign arbitral awards will be subject exclusively to homologation by the Supreme Court (the internal competence to hear these requests was later transferred to the STJ, under Article 105, I, i of the Brazilian Constitution, by operation of the Constitutional Amendment 45/2004). (Carlos Alberto Carmona, Arbitragem e Processo, Atlas, 2009, pp. 445 and 449). It is noteworthy that the CCP is currently undergoing a revision at the Brazilian Congress as a result of which the homologation process might be amended.

[4] The New York Convention was internalized in Brazil through Decree No 4,311 of July 23, 2002, which contains its translation into Portuguese. While it does not represent one of the official versions of the Convention, this version and the similarly worded related provisions of the BAA (which incorporated its main features into the Brazilian legal system prior to Brazil’s ratification of the Convention) are the legal texts applied by the Brazilian courts to the cases within their scope and, as will be seen below, could arguably lead to future controversies.

[5] However, it its worth clarifying that, within the Brazilian judicial organization, requests for enforcement of domestic arbitral awards are heard by the competent District Courts, while requests for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards that have been homologated by the STJ’s are heard by the competent Federal Courts. The main difference between pursuing enforcement of an arbitral award in either of these courts is probably related to the variation in the length of each proceeding.

[6] Resolution 9 is part of STJ’s internal statute and generally incorporates relevant provisions of the BAA and the Convention. It also provides for matters beyond these instruments, such as the granting of provisional relief at the recognition and enforcement stage.

[7] Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Décima Segunda Câmara Cível, Agravo de Instrumento No 0062827-33.2009.8.19.0000, dated February 23, 2010.

[8] Brazilian Arbitration Act, Article 34, sole paragraph: “Considera-se sentença arbitral estrangeira a que tenha sido proferida fora do território nacional.

[9] Decree No. 4,311/2002, Article I, 1, first part: “A presente Convenção aplicar-se-á ao reconhecimento e à execução de sentenças arbitrais estrangeiras proferidas no território de um Estado que não o Estado em que se tencione o reconhecimento e a execução de tais sentenças, oriundas de divergências entre pessoas, sejam elas físicas ou jurídicas.

[10] Decision, p. 5: “No direito comparado a “formula” mais consagrada for a que identifica a nacionalidade da sentença arbitral segundo o país eleito como sede da arbitragem.

[11] Decision, pp. 6-7: “No ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, por sua vez, a adoção como elemento de conexão do ‘lugar onde foi proferida a sentença arbitral’ não suscita maiores dúvidas (…). (…) optou-se por uma definição mais simples e objetiva, ‘baseando-se apenas e tão somente no local onde o laudo sera proferido’ (…) Por conseguinte, apesar das criticas sofridas, (…) não ha dúvidas que o ordenamento jurídico pátrio adotou o sistema territorialista (…). O legislador pátrio, portanto, ao eleger o critério geográfico, do local onde for proferida a sentença (ius solis), desconsiderou qualquer outro element.

[12] Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2009, pp. 2368-2369.

[13] Born, op. cit., p. 2369

[14].“…Beyond these provisions of national law and institutional rules, the better reading of the New York Convention is that it contains an international definition of where an award is “made,” which would prohibit Contracting States from adopting alternative definitions (and thereby affecting the scope of the arbitral awards subject to the Convention). That is, the Convention should be interpreted as contemplating uniform international standards defining where an award is “made” (to wit, in the contractual arbitral seat), which Contracting States are required to implement. The foregoing conclusion is consistent with the text of Article V(1)(e), which adopts an internationally-applicable formula (referring to the place where an award is “made”).” (Born, op. cit., pp. 2373-2374)

[15] “Thus, somewhat ironically, given what is described as the “territorial” applicability of national arbitration legislation only to arbitrations seated on local territory, the arbitral seat is itself defined entirely by reference to the parties’ agreement, and not as a purely geographic or territorial location (i.e., the place of the arbitral hearings). …Thus, the parties and the tribunal can proceed through an entire arbitration without ever setting foot in or otherwise engaging with the arbitral seat in any way – while being subject to the “territorial” arbitration legislation of the arbitral seat.” (Born, op. cit., p. 1249)

[16] ICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention, p. 21.

[17] Born, op. cit., p. 2372.

[18] New York Convention, Article I, 1, first paragraph: “This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought, and arising out of differences between persons, whether physical or legal”.

[19] Law 36/1988 (Spanish Arbitration Act), Article 56 (2): “Se entiende por laudo arbitral extranjero el que no haya sido pronunciado en España”.

[20] It is claimed that the ordinary meaning of the verb “proferir” is commonly associated the sole act whereby the adjudicator orally declares or communicates in writing its decision, while “fazer” or “realizar” encompass a broader sequence of acts carried out by an adjudicator (i.e. hearings, meetings) culminating in the rendering of a decision (José Augusto Fontoura Costa, Sobre Corvos e Ornitorrincos: Arbitragem Estrangeira e Internacional no Direito Brasileiro, RBA, n. 28, 2011, pp. 68-69).

[21] See Carlos A. da S. Lobo, A Definição de Sentença Arbitral Estrangeira, RAM, v. 9, 2009, pp. 62-69. The STJ cited another section of this article, but seems to interpret its central message differently.

[22] “The terms must be understood taking into account the context and the purpose of the Convention. Therefore, courts should not interpret the terms of the New York Convention by reference to domestic law. The terms of the Convention should have the same meaning wherever in the world they are applied. This helps to ensure the uniform application of the Convention in all the Contracting States.” (ICCA’s Guide, pp. 13-14). Brazilian authors also recognize the downside of the indirect approach traditionally employed by local courts: “…the survey of domestic precedents also shows that, in many ways, Brazil has not profited from adopting a mainly insular standpoint when enforcing foreign arbitral awards. Specifically, the interpretation given so far to standards and rules that are highly linked to the international practices…lack connection to the global knowledge accumulated around the New York Convention. …The problems faced abroad are analogous to those presented in the domestic setting. In that sense, the Brazilian practice would benefit significantly from broadening its legal interpretation to encompass the entire body of principles, policies, case law, debates, research and commentaries that encircle the New York Convention. …they would bridge the gap between the domestic reasoning and the argumentative repertory, methods of legal inquiry and set of legal materials employed in that Convention’s interpretation worldwide. In so doing, Brazilian case law would share the learning and achievements accumulated in fifty years of the New York Convention’s history, as well as join the international community in the ongoing development of this treaty.” André A. C. Abbud, Fifty Years in Five? The Brazilian Approach to the New York Convention, 2008, pp. 35-36.

[23] Born, op. cit., p. 2374.