1 June 10, 1958, 21 UST 2517, TIAS No. 6997, 330 UNTS 3. Article V, paragraph 2 of the Convention provides, inter alia: “Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may . . . be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that: . . .(b) the recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.”

2 737 F.2d 150, 152 (quoting Fotochrome, Inc. v. Copal Co., 517 F.2d 512, 516 (2d Cir. 1975)).

3 In this respect, the court observed: “We by no means suggest that confirmation should have been denied even if the arbitrators had been unaware of this testimony—although, of course, the argument against confirmation would have been stronger in that case.” 737 F.2d at 153.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 154.

6 Indeed, if this course were followed, the appellant would then lose the benefit of the Convention in the Second Circuit, which has held that the Convention applies only “to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award and not to the enforcement of foreign judgments confirming foreign arbitral awards.” Id. (quoting Island Territory of Curacao v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 489 F.2d 1313, 1319 (2d Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 416 U.S. 986 (1974)).