English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

“Indeed, public policy in international commercial arbitration is a double-edged sword: helpful as a tool, dangerous as a weapon.”1 Public policy is the most frequently invoked grounds for refusal of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It should only be used in exceptional cases “as a shield to the enforcement of foreign awards which bear unwanted solutions.”2 However, being a non-defined term, left to a subjective assessment of a court, public policy might also be a weapon, invoked as an excuse not to enforce arbitral awards. The list of grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards pursuant to the New York Convention on the

polish review of international and european law

Separability of or Overlap between Public Policy and Procedural Grounds for Refusal of Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention