- 13-Jun-2025
- Cyber and Technology Law
The Geneva Convention on Arbitration refers to the Geneva Protocol of 1923 and the Geneva Convention of 1927, which were both aimed at establishing a uniform system for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards across national borders. While the New York Convention (1958) is the more widely known and adopted treaty in the field of international arbitration today, the Geneva Convention laid the groundwork for the later developments in international arbitration law. It is considered the precursor to the more comprehensive frameworks we see today, and its provisions influenced the formulation of arbitration rules in several jurisdictions.
The Geneva Convention arose out of the desire to establish an international framework for resolving cross-border disputes through arbitration. It sought to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in countries that were parties to the convention. The two instruments—the Geneva Protocol (1923) and the Geneva Convention (1927)—were designed to promote arbitration as an effective method of dispute resolution in an increasingly globalized world.
The Geneva Protocol was primarily concerned with arbitration agreements. It provided a legal basis for the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate international disputes, making it easier for parties to resolve disputes without resorting to national courts.
The Geneva Convention, adopted later, dealt with the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It aimed to create a standard for judicial recognition of awards rendered in other jurisdictions, but its application was not as universal as the New York Convention. The Geneva Convention had limited success in terms of adoption, with only a relatively small number of countries ratifying it.
Similar to the New York Convention, the Geneva Convention also allowed countries to refuse enforcement of foreign arbitral awards if the award was contrary to the public policy of the country where enforcement was sought. However, the Geneva Convention's application of this exception was often seen as more rigid than the more modern interpretations seen under the New York Convention.
The Geneva Convention was not as widely adopted as the New York Convention. This limited its effectiveness in promoting global consistency in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The New York Convention superseded it, offering a more comprehensive and universally accepted framework for the international enforcement of arbitral awards.
The New York Convention has been adopted by over 160 countries, while the Geneva Convention’s reach is limited. This broad adoption has made the New York Convention the cornerstone of international arbitration law, while the Geneva Convention has become less relevant over time.
The Geneva Convention's provisions on the recognition and enforcement of awards were more restrictive and less precise than those of the New York Convention. The New York Convention has clearer guidelines and more favorable conditions for enforcing awards internationally, and its scope of application is wider in terms of both the types of disputes it covers and the number of signatory countries.
The public policy exception in the Geneva Convention was relatively broad. By contrast, the New York Convention narrowed the scope of the public policy exception, making it more difficult to refuse enforcement on public policy grounds. This has made the New York Convention a more effective tool in the global enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
The Geneva Convention was an important precursor to the New York Convention and laid the groundwork for later treaties and legal developments in international arbitration. However, the New York Convention has become the definitive global instrument for ensuring the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, largely replacing the Geneva framework.
Let’s say a Chinese company and a German company enter into a contract to supply machinery. Disputes arise, and the companies agree to arbitrate in Geneva under the Geneva Convention framework. If the arbitral tribunal in Geneva renders an award in favor of the German company, and the Chinese company refuses to honor it, the German company can seek enforcement of the award in a third country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.
Steps the German company should take:
Although this scenario demonstrates the Geneva Convention's role, the New York Convention would likely offer a more efficient and widely applicable solution today.
While the Geneva Convention on Arbitration played a significant role in the early development of international arbitration, its limited adoption and broader exceptions have made it less influential today. The New York Convention has since become the dominant framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards globally, providing a more streamlined and widely accepted system for cross-border dispute resolution. However, the Geneva Convention remains a historically important treaty that contributed to the growth of arbitration as a central mechanism for resolving international commercial disputes.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
