Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal SINTA 1

Judicial Preclusion in International Arbitration: Comparative Analysis of UK, Australia, and Malaysia’s Practices

Jambe Law Journal · Vol. 7 No. 2 (2024) · hlm. 313–340

DOI
10.22437/home.v7i2.385
ISSN
2598-795X, 2598-7925
Terbit
2024-11-24
Penerbit
Faculty of Law, Jambi University
Bahasa
eng
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Abstrak

This paper examines the issue of judicial preclusion in international arbitration, focusing on whether an award-debtor’s failure to challenge a foreign award at the supervisory court precludes them from contesting the enforcement of an award in another jurisdiction. Through a comparative analysis of judicial practices in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Malaysia, the study evaluates the extent of harmonisation in the application of Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (NYC 1958). The findings reveal divergences: while UK and Australian courts adopt a flexible approach, allowing enforcement-stage challenges irrespective of prior actions at the supervisory court, Malaysian courts demonstrate a strong pro-enforcement bias, often deferring to the decisions of the supervisory court and restricting opportunities for re-litigation. This paper engages with the theories of res judicata and finality, exploring their interplay with judicial discretion and highlighting the tension between fairness and the finality of arbitration awards. It concludes with critical recommendations for enhancing harmonisation under the NYC 1958, including clearer guidelines on judicial preclusion, the integration of international best practices, and reforms to balance enforcement predictability and certainty in international arbitration

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

25 penulis · 63 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 31 lintas organisasi

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • Sultan Zainal Abidin University
  • Institut Agama Islam Negeri Manado
  • Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau
  • University of Sussex
  • Universiti Teknologi MARA
  • Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University Yogyakarta
  • Institut Agama Islam Imam Syafii Indonesia
  • Organisasi lain
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Farhanin Abdullah AsuhaimiSultan Zainal Abidin University3
Maheran MakhtarSultan Zainal Abidin University2
Noraida HarunAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Noor ‘Ashikin HamidSultan Zainal Abidin University2
Rusmilawati WindarUniversitas Trunodjoyo Madura2
Wan Noor Fatihah Wan KamarudinSultan Zainal Abidin University2
Noraida HarunSultan Zainal Abidin University2
Farihana Abdul RazakUniversiti Teknologi MARA1
Zuhairah Ariff Abd GhadasSultan Zainal Abidin University1
Muhammad Faqih IhsanHasanuddin University1
Azni AzniUniversitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau1
Muhammad HafisSunan Kalijaga State Islamic University Yogyakarta1
Adi HarmantoInstitut Agama Islam Imam Syafii Indonesia1
Miftahuddin MiftahuddinUniversitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau1
Rosdalina BukidoInstitut Agama Islam Negeri Manado1
Naskur BilaluInstitut Agama Islam Negeri Manado1
Syahrul Mubarak SubeitanInstitut Agama Islam Negeri Manado1
Maulidina SariUniversitas Jambi1
Khairun Nisaa AsariSultan Zainal Abidin University1
Satrio AbdillahIslamic University of Riau1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) http://jlj.unja.ac.id/index.php/home/oai, pertama di-harvest 9 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 9 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc) 
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">Judicial Preclusion in International Arbitration: Comparative Analysis of UK, Australia, and Malaysia’s Practices</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Che Rosli, Iyllyana</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Ghouri, Ahmad</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Ghapa, Norhasliza</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Zakariah, Asril Amirul</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Kamariah Musa, Murshamsul</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">judicial preclusion</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">enforcement of foreign awards</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">New York Convention 1958</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">finality of arbitral awards</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">international arbitration</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">This paper examines the issue of judicial preclusion in international arbitration, focusing on whether an award-debtor’s failure to challenge a foreign award at the supervisory court precludes them from contesting the enforcement of an award in another jurisdiction. Through a comparative analysis of judicial practices in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Malaysia, the study evaluates the extent of harmonisation in the application of Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (NYC 1958). The findings reveal divergences: while UK and Australian courts adopt a flexible approach, allowing enforcement-stage challenges irrespective of prior actions at the supervisory court, Malaysian courts demonstrate a strong pro-enforcement bias, often deferring to the decisions of the supervisory court and restricting opportunities for re-litigation. This paper engages with the theories of res judicata and finality, exploring their interplay with judicial discretion and highlighting the tension between fairness and the finality of arbitration awards. It concludes with critical recommendations for enhancing harmonisation under the NYC 1958, including clearer guidelines on judicial preclusion, the integration of international best practices, and reforms to balance enforcement predictability and certainty in international arbitration</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Faculty of Law, Jambi University</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2024-11-24</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://jlj.unja.ac.id/index.php/home/article/view/385</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.22437/home.v7i2.385</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Jambe Law Journal; Vol. 7 No. 2 (2024); 313-340</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2598-795X</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2598-7925</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://jlj.unja.ac.id/index.php/home/article/view/385/80</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2024 Jambe Law Journal</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>