The Supreme People’s Court instructed the first instance and the appellate courts to grant the application for recognition and enforcement of two awards rendered in Australia (unless they found that other grounds for refusal existed under the 1958 New York Convention), since it disagreed with their conclusion that recognition and enforcement would violate Chinese public policy within the meaning of Art. V(2)(b) of the Convention. While the awards conflicted with a Chinese court decision on the validity of the same arbitration agreement on which the awards were based, the awards had been rendered before the court decision was issued, and the respondent had not objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal during the arbitration. Hence, there would be no violation of Chinese judicial sovereignty. The Court further explained that public policy within the meaning of Art. V(2)(b) of the Convention meant the basic principles of Chinese law, national sovereignty, public social safety, good morals, and other fundamental social and public interests. The conflict between the awards and the Chinese court decision did not per se constitute such a violation.