Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1048_8ok0.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Syllabus 

signatories  would  “not  be  permitted  to  decline  enforcement  of  such 
agreements on the basis of parochial views of their desirability or in a 
manner that would diminish the mutually binding nature of the agree-
ments.”  Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U. S. 506, 520, n. 15. 

The postratification understanding of other contracting states—as 
evidenced by the “[d]ecisions of the courts of other Convention signa-
tories,” El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U. S. 155, 
175,  and  the  “postratification  conduct”  of  contracting  state  govern-
ments, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U. S. 217, 227—may
also  serve  as  an  aid  to  this  Court’s  interpretation.    Here,  numerous 
sources indicate that the New York Convention does not prohibit the
application of domestic law addressing the enforcement of arbitration 
agreements.  These  sources,  however,  are  from  decades  after  the  fi-
nalization of the New York Convention’s text in 1958.  This diminishes 
their  value  as  evidence  of  the  original  understanding  of  the  treaty’s 
meaning.

Finally, because the Court’s textual analysis and the Executive’s in-
terpretation  of  the  Convention  align  here,  there  is  no  need  to  deter-
mine whether the Executive’s understanding is entitled to “weight” or
“deference.”  Cf. Edelman  v.  Lynchburg  College,  535  U. S.  106,  114– 
115, n. 8.  Pp. 7–11. 

(c) The Court of Appeals may address on remand whether GE En-
ergy can enforce the arbitration clauses under equitable estoppel prin-
ciples and which body of law governs that determination.  Pp. 11–12. 

902 F. 3d 1316, reversed and remanded. 

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.  SOTOMAYOR, 

J., filed a concurring opinion.