OBSTACLES IN ENFORCING ICA AWARDS IN UZBEKISTAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V5I8Y2025N35Keywords:
ICA awards, enforcement, Uzbekistan, arbitration, public policy, international treaties, judicial cooperation, legal uncertaintyAbstract
This article analyses the main obstacles to the enforcement of International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) awards in Uzbekistan. Although arbitration is a developing institution in the country, procedural gaps, inconsistent legislation, lack of electronic classification, and limited international cooperation hinder the effectiveness of enforcement. Special attention is given to the ambiguity surrounding the concept of public policy (PP), which poses risks of subjective interpretation by national courts. The study suggests reforms for unified procedures, clearer legal definitions, and more structured data collection to strengthen ICA enforcement mechanisms.
References
1. Born G B. International Commercial Arbitration (Second Edition) [M], Kluwer arbitration (10): 3394–3731. Netherlands, 2014.
2. Gallie W. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society[M]. Oxford University Press, 1956, Volume 56. London. [2021–01–10]. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544562?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
3. Maurer G A. Public Policy Exception Under The New York Convention [M], Juris, New York 2013. [2021–01–10].
4. Karabelnikov B, Pellew D. Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards in Russia[J], ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol 19, No. 1. Moscow, 2008. [2021–01–10].
5. Asouzu A A. International Commercial Arbitration and African States Practice, Participation and Institutional Development[J] Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Vol. 12 No. 2. London, 2009. [2021–01–10].
6. Guedj T G. The Theory of the Lois de Police, A Functional Trend in Continental Private International Law-A Comparative Analysis with Modern American Theories[J]. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 39(4): 661. DOI:10.2307/840737. Oxford, 1991.
7. Van Den Berg A. Annulment of Awards in International Arbitration in International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards “Judicialization” and Uniformity? Twelfth Sokol Colloquium (R. Lillich & C. Brower, Eds.) [M]. Brussel, 1994 [2021–02–07].
8. Sammartano M R. International Arbitration Law[M], 2nd Ed. Kluwer Law International. London, 2002.
9. Mayer P. Effect of International Public Policy in International Arbitration[J]. Kluwer Arbitration, 15: 61–69. London, 2006.
10. Kuchimov U. Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and the practice of Uzbekistan regarding arbitral awards[J]. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012[2020–12–05]. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1886633.
11. Kleiman E and Pauly C. The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards[J] Global Arbitration Review, 2019 [2020–12–04].
12. Papeil A S. Conflict of Overriding Mandatory Rules in Arbitration[M]. Conflict of Laws in International Arbitration. Sellier - De Gruyter, 2012. DOI:10.1515/9783866539297.341; Barraclough A, Waincymer J. Mandatory Rules of Law in International Commercial Arbitration[J]. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2005, 6: 205.
13. Lew J D M, Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration. A Study in Commercial Arbitration Awards[J]. Oceana Publications, 1978[2021–01–30].
14. Buchanan M A. Public Policy and International Commercial Arbitration[J]. American Business Law Journal, 1988, 26(3): 511–531[2021–01–30]. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-1714.1988.tb01153.x.
15. Landbrecht J, Wehowsky A. Transnational Coordination of Setting Aside and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards – A New Treaty and Approach to Reconciling the Choice of Remedies Concept, the Judgment Route, and the Approaches to Enforcing Awards Set Aside? [J]. Journal of International Arbitration Volume 37, Issue 6 (2020) pp. 679 – 719.
16. Moss G. International Commercial Arbitration - Party Autonomy and Mandatory Rules[J]. Arbitration International, Oslo Law Review, 2014, 16(3): 371–373[2020–12–06]. DOI:10.1093/arbitration/16.3.371.
