‘Manifest disregard of the law” are the words often heard in international arbitration conferences as part of the clarion call trumpeted by those seeking to undermine New York as a venue for the conduct of international arbitration. The argument is made that courts in New York (and elsewhere in the United States) use the manifest disregard doctrine as a basis for second-guessing the decisions of arbitrators, thereby undermining the arbitral process. The allegation raises the question, “truth or myth?”
As a factual matter, how often have New York courts (and U.S. courts) actually used the manifest disregard doctrine to vacate an international arbitration award? And, do the courts of other countries have their own ways of undoing arbitral awards that they regard as going beyond what the arbitrators should have done, yet do so under principles that they call something other than manifest disregard? In a recent report, the International Commercial Disputes Committee (ICDC) of the New York City Bar Association looked closely at these issues and made findings that are arresting. Coauthor David Zaslowsky is a member of the committee.1
Evolution of the Standard
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
