The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.

The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.

The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.

The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.

The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.

The court discusses issues relating to the requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.

The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.

The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.

Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.

Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.

Public policy:The court discusses the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.

More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.