1 Note that the situation arising from differences between Article V of the Convention and domestic rules cannot arise in Switzerland or Italy because the provisions of Article V are either incorporated by reference (Art. 194 of the Swiss Law on Private International Law of 1989, 29 I.L.M. 1244 (1990)) or are substantially reproduced (Art. 840 of the Italian Arbitration Law of January 5, 1994) in domestic statutes and are thus part and parcel of the lex fori.

1 Having established jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)(B), the Court does not consider CAS’ other claims to jurisdiction.

2 The French language version of the Convention, (which the Court notes is not the version codified by Congress), emphasizes the extraordinary nature of a refusal to recognize an award: “Recognition and enforcement of the award will not be refused … unless…. “ (Response to Petitioner's Post-Hearing Brief, at 3)(emphasis in the original).

3 The Court has reviewed the voluminous submissions of the parties and finds no evidence that corruption, fraud, or undue means was used in procuring the award, or that the arbitrators exceeded their powers in any way.

4 The fact that this case concerns the enforcement of an arbitral award, rather than the enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate, makes no difference, because without the knowledge that judgment will be entered upon an award, the term “binding arbitration” becomes meaningless.

5 See Kirkpatrick. 493 U.S. at 400. “The act of state doctrine … requires that … the acts of foreign sovereigns taken within their own jurisdiction shall be deemed valid.” Id. at 410. The act of state doctrine is based upon notions of “international comity, respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations on their own territory, and the avoidance of embarrassment to the Executive Branch in its conduct of foreign relations.” Id. at 409.

6 Indeed, the Court assumes that the decision of the Court of Appeal at Cairo is proper under applicable Egyptian law.

* [Reproduced from the document provided by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Introductory Note was prepared for International Legal Materials by Andrew Jenks, Legal Operations Division, Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. [The Canada-Denmark-Finland-Iceland-Norway-Sweden-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-United States Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, June 14, 1991, in part discussing the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, appears at 30 I.L.M. 1624 (1991); the Canadian Statement Concerning Arctic Sovereignty, September 10, 1985, appears at 24 I.L.M. 1723 (1985); and the Canada-Denmark-Norway-U.S.-USSR Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, done at Oslo, November 15, 1973, appears at 13 I.L.M. 13 (1974). [For additional information, please contact the Arctic Council Secretariat, 18th Floor, Tower A, Place Vanier (ASX), 333 River Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G2, Canada (tel.: 613/941-4011; fax: 613/941-6490).]

[The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, as amended in 1988, appears at 28 I.L.M. 396 (1989); the French Court of Cassation decision in Societe Pabalk Ticaret Ltd. Sirketi v. Societe Norsolor(holding the recognition of foreign awards is governed by French law because it is more favorable to recognition than the New York Convention) appears at 24 I.L.M. 360 (1985); the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Argentina V. Weltover, Inc. (standard for establishing jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts under the FSIA) appears at 31 I.L.M. 1220 (1992); the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vimar Seguros YReaseguros, S.A. V. M/VSky Reefer et al.(foreign arbitration clauses in maritime bills of lading) appears at 34 I.L.M. 1592 (1995); the U.S. Supreme Court decision in. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler Plymouth, Inc.(international arbitration) appears at 24 I.L.M. 1064 (1985); the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Scherck v. Alberto-Culver Co.(arbitration clauses) appears at 13 I.L.M. 974 (1974); the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines(jurisdiction in antitrust action) appears at 23 I.L.M. 519 (1984); and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in W. S. Kirkpatrick &Co., Inc. v. Environmental Techtonics Corp., Int'l(act of state doctrine) appears at 29 I.L.M. 182 (1990).]