Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1048_8ok0.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

manner that would diminish the mutually binding nature
of the agreements.”  Scherk, 417 U. S., at 520, n. 15 (citing 
G. Haight, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Summary Analysis of Record of 
United  Nations  Conference,  May/June  1958,  pp.  24–28
(1958)).  Nothing in the drafting history suggests that the
Convention  sought  to  prevent  contracting  states  from  ap-
plying domestic law that permits nonsignatories to enforce 
arbitration agreements in additional circumstances.   

2 
“[T]he postratification understanding” of other contract-
ing states may also serve as an aid to our interpretation of
a  treaty’s  meaning.  Medellín,  552  U.  S.,  at  507  (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  To discern this understanding,
we have looked to the “[d]ecisions of the courts of other Con-
vention signatories,” El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan 
Tseng, 525 U. S. 155, 175 (1999), as well as the “postratifi-
cation conduct” of the governments of contracting states, Zi-
cherman, 516 U. S., at 227.  

Here, the weight of authority from contracting states in-
dicates that the New York Convention does not prohibit the
application of domestic law addressing the enforcement of 
arbitration agreements.  The courts of numerous contract-
ing states permit enforcement of arbitration agreements by 
entities who did not sign an agreement.  See 1 G. Born, In-
ternational Commercial Arbitration §10.02, pp. 1418–1484 
(2d ed. 2014) (compiling cases).  The United States identi-
fies at least one contracting state with domestic legislation 
illustrating a similar understanding.  See Brief for United 
States as Amicus Curiae 28 (discussing Peru’s national leg-
islation).  And GE Energy points to a recommendation is-
sued by the United  Nations Commission on International 
Trade  Law  that,  although  not  directly  addressing  Article 
II(3),  adopts  a  nonexclusive  interpretation  of  Article  II(1)