In September 2021, the French Cour de Cassation reversed the annulment that the Paris Cour d'appel earlier had granted in regard to an arbitral award in Alexander Brothers v Alstom on grounds of corruption. This brought French courts in line with their English counterparts, at least in that one case, the latter having accepted the Alexander Brothers award as enforceable. Noteworthy beyond the welcome consistency that the recent French judgment imparts in one case, that and other recent judgments cast light on several issues in international arbitration, including the arbitrability of allegations of fraud or corruption, the relevance of evidence of corruption ‘downstream’ from a contract, and the legal effects (if any) on third parties of internal compliance regimes that enterprises adopt in response to national regulatory and enforcement actions in respect of corruption.

Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters is generally perceived to be of a rather ‘specialist and technical nature’. However, for the many UK and EU citizens, families and businesses who work, live, travel and do business abroad, the current European framework for choice of law, jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement is of paramount importance. The article, therefore, explores how that framework might look like after Brexit and explores the merits and demerits of the various ways forward. It argues that the best option for both the UK and the EU would be to agree on the continued application of the existing EU instruments or to strive for conclusion of a new agreement that closely replicates these instruments. If no such agreement can be reached the UK should decide to apply the Rome I and Rome II Regulations unilaterally and sign the Lugano Convention of 2007 as well as the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2005.

This article examines the challenges surrounding the enforcement of decisions of international courts, using the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the fulcrum of the analysis. When sitting in its original jurisdiction, the CCJ adjudicates claims arising from the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and the operation of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. However, there is no clear route for the enforcement of original jurisdiction decisions. The Agreement Establishing the CCJ leaves the issue of enforcement to the states themselves, who in turn have either failed to enact enforcement legislation or have provided for enforcement to be carried out ‘in like manner’ as the decisions of domestic courts. This phraseology raises the spectre of the Crown Proceedings Act and its legislative progeny which bar the pursuit of enforcement proceedings against the state. Several solutions to this enforcement conundrum are discussed, ranging from a regional enforcement treaty, akin to the New York Convention, to enforcement at common law using the Fick case, with the merits and demerits of each examined in turn.

This article examines the recent development of mainland Chinese law and judicial practice regarding the law applicable to arbitration agreements. It identifies potential changes to mainland Chinese law and practice that may help to further develop the People's Republic of China (PRC) into a truly international-arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. It argues that in the absence of explicit statutory provisions and a consistent approach in the People's Courts to the determination of the place of arbitration and the law applicable to arbitration agreements, it is important for parties negotiating arbitration clauses with a seat in China and/or for contracts involving mainland Chinese elements to explicitly designate the place of arbitration as well as the law governing their arbitration agreements.

Procedure — Competence of arbitration tribunal — icsid arbitration — Whether excludes jurisdiction of municipal courts to enforce a prior arbitral award — Attachment proceedings — icsid Convention, Article 26 — “Other remedy” — Definition — Whether attachment proceedings constitute “other remedy”

State immunity — Jurisdiction — Commercial activity — Contract to establish joint venture shipping company — Arbitral award — Whether State entitled to immunity from attachment proceedings to enforce arbitral award — Requirement of close connection between dispute and forum State — Duty to pay arbitral award in forum State — Whether establishing sufficiently close connection

State immunity — Attachment and execution — Bank account — Immunity of funds allocated for diplomatic or consular functions — Requirement of recognizable and specific allocation

Recognition and enforcement — Arbitral award rendered abroad — Action for enforcement in municipal courts — New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, Article V Conditions for refusal of enforcement — Subsequent referral to icsid arbitration — Whether award to be regarded as non-binding

Treaties — Interpretation — Powers of municipal courts — Whether submission to icsid arbitration excludes recourse to municipal courts for enforcement of prior arbitral award — The law of Switzerland

Procedure — Competence — icsid arbitration — Whether competence of tribunal excludes jurisdiction of municipal courts to enforce a prior arbitration award

Recognition and enforcement — Attachment proceedings — icsid Convention, Article 26 — “Other remedy” — Definition — Whether attachment proceedings constitute “other remedy” — Whether submission to icsid arbitration excludes recourse to municipal courts for enforcement of prior arbitral award

Treaties — Interpretation — Powers of municipal courts — The law of Belgium

Jurisdiction — Of arbitration tribunal — Consent to arbitrate — International Chamber of Commerce arbitration — Contract between State–owned entity and foreign company containing icc arbitration clause — Whether State a party to contract — Signature by State of terms of reference pursuant to icc Arbitration Rules — Express reservation as to jurisdiction of Tribunal — icc award affirming jurisdiction of tribunal — Whether terms of reference constituting agreement to arbitrate

State immunity — Waiver — Whether signature of terms of reference constitutes submission to jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal — Whether lodging of defence on merits constitutes waiver of immunity

Parties — To agreement — State–owned entity endowed with independent legal personality — Conclusion of contract with foreign private company — Contract containing icc arbitration clause — Whether State–owned company acts on behalf of State — Supervisory control by government minister Counter–signature of contract as “approved, agreed and ratified” — Whether rendering State a party to the contract

Procedure — Competence of arbitration tribunal to determine its own competence — Decision on competence subject to review by municipal courts — New French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 1502 and 1504

Recognition and enforcement — ICC arbitration award — Action for annulment before municipal courts — Grounds for annulment — Excess of jurisdiction — whether award made in absence of arbitration agreement New French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 1502 and 1504

State responsibility — Contractual obligations — State–owned entity Conclusion of concession with foreign private company — Whether State-owned entity acts on behalf of State — Circumstances in which State becomes a party to such a contract — The law of France

Recognition and enforcement — icc arbitral award — Enforcement of award — Award rendered abroad — Action for enforcement in municipal courts — New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, Articles IV and V — Conditions for refusal of enforcement — Burden of proof — Pending action for annulment of award before courts of country where award rendered — Whether award to be regarded as set aside or suspended — The law of the Netherlands

Jurisdiction — Of arbitration tribunal — Consent to arbitrate — International Chamber of Commerce arbitration — Contract between State–owned entity and foreign company containing icc arbitration clause — Whether State a party to contract — Signature by State of terms of reference pursuant to icc Arbitration Rules — Express reservation as to jurisdiction of tribunal — icc award affirming jurisdiction of tribunal — Whether terms of reference constitute agreement to arbitrate

State immunity — Waiver — Whether signature of terms of reference constitutes submission to jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal — Whether lodging of defence on merits constitutes waiver of immunity

Parties — To agreement — State–owned entity endowed with independent legal personality — Conclusion of contract with foreign private company — Contract containing icc arbitration clause — Whether State–owned company acts on behalf of State — Supervisory control by government minister Counter–signature of contract as “approved, agreed and ratified” — Whether rendering State a party to the contract

Procedure — Competence of arbitration tribunal to determine its own competence — Decision on competence subject to review by municipal courts — New French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 1502 and 1504

Recognition and enforcement — icc arbitration award — Action for annulment before municipal courts — Grounds for annulment — Excess of jurisdiction — Whether award made in absence of arbitration agreement — New French Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 1502 and 1504

State responsibility — Contractual obligations — State–owned entity — Conclusion of concession with foreign private company — Whether State–owned entity acts on behalf of State — Circumstances in which State becomes a party to such a contract — The law of France

Recognition and enforcement — icsid arbitral award — Award of compensation against State in favour of foreign company — Order granting company recognition and enforcement of award — Whether order constituting measure of execution — Whether icsid Convention constituting autonomous regime for recognition and enforcement excluding application of domestic law remedies — icsid Convention, Articles 53 and 54

State immunity — Appeal by State from order granting foreign company recognition and enforcement of icsid award — Award subject of enforcement proceedings in State — Whether State immune from enforcement proceedings in other State — Whether icsid Convention excluding application of domestic law of State immunity

Parties — To enforcement proceedings — Appeal by State from order granting foreign company recognition and enforcement of icsid arbitral award — Named respondents including liquidator and counsel of company — Counsel not having acted as liquidator or director of company — Whether counsel proper party to appeal — The law of France

Execution — State immunity — Waiver of immunity — Property of foreign States used for commercial purposes — Whether tonnage fees, registration fees and other taxes collected by agents of State from shipowners in foreign country where attachment sought immune

Recognition and enforcement — Enforcement through proceedings in national courts — The law of the United States

Recognition and enforcement — Attachment — Arbitral award made against State — Funds held in foreign bank on behalf of bank controlled by State — Whether State bank liable for award against State — The law of France

Recognition and enforcement — Award of compensation against State in favour of foreign company — Article 54 of icsid Convention — Simplified procedure for obtaining an exequatur — Article 55 of icsid Convention Preservation of immunity from execution of foreign States — Whether an order granting exequatur constitutes a measure of execution — The law of France