indonesia arbitration - Bani

Article III
Apart from some reordering, Dr Van den Berg proposes a provision requiring
courts to act expeditiously in dealing with a request for enforcement of an
arbitral award.
Article IV
The changes clarify and specify requirements in respect of documentation and
language of awards for which enforcement is sought.
Article V
The changes proposed seek to limit grounds for refusing enforcement solely
to those set forth in the change draft which essentially replicate the grounds in
the New York Convention but add a limitation on refusal to enforce “in manifest
cases” only.
The change proposals also provide that a party against whom the award is
invoked cannot rely on specified grounds for refusal if not raised in the arbitration
expeditiously after the existence of such grounds became known.
Article VI
The change proposes relatively simple rewording and reclassification. Particularly,
the Van den Berg proposals include a series of general clauses adopting
many of the provisions excluded from his adoption of New York Convention
Articles.
The most significant being a requirement for designation of a [single] Competent
Enforcement Court, compatibility with other treaties, transitional clauses
and language of authentic texts.
The proposals of Dr Van den Berg, among other things, go to overcoming some
of the difficulties cited in this article, but a new or revised Convention of itself is
unlikely to have the desired effects when the courts of the difficult nation states
may still act in a manner to avoid a restated Convention as they do with the
present Convention and with impunity.
There are no sanctions and it is doubtful that there could be sanctions enshrined
in such a Convention.
INDONESIA ARBITRATION - Quarterly Newsletter No. 4/2008
The New York Convention – 50 Years On