Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1048_8ok0.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

of  the  Convention’s  adoption.”  Brief  for  Respondents  33.
Outokumpu asserts that this Court has repeatedly rejected 
executive interpretations that contradict the treaty’s text or
the political branches’ previous understanding of a treaty. 
Id.,  at  34–35  (citing,  e.g.,  Chan  v.  Korean  Air  Lines,  Ltd., 
490 U. S. 122, 136 (1989) (Brennan, J., concurring in judg-
ment); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325, 328, 337–349 (1939)). 
We have never provided a full explanation of the basis for 
our practice of giving weight to the Executive’s interpreta-
tion of a treaty.  Nor have we delineated the limitations of 
this practice, if any.  But we need not resolve these issues 
today.  Our textual analysis aligns with the Executive’s in-
terpretation so there is no need to determine whether the 
Executive’s understanding is entitled to “weight” or “defer-
ence.”  Cf.  Edelman  v.  Lynchburg  College,  535  U. S.  106, 
114–115, n. 8 (2002) (“[T]here is no need to resolve defer-
ence issues when there is no need for deference”).   

IV 
The  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  analyze  whether  Article
II(3) of the New York  Convention conflicts with equitable 
estoppel.  Instead, the court held that Article II(1) and (2)
include  a  “requirement  that  the  parties  actually  sign  an 
agreement to arbitrate their disputes in order to compel ar-
bitration.”  902 F. 3d, at 1326.  But those provisions address
the recognition of arbitration agreements, not who is bound 
by  a  recognized  agreement.    Article  II(1)  simply  requires 
contracting states to “recognize an agreement in writing,” 
and Article II(2) defines the term “agreement in writing.” 
Here, the three agreements at issue were both written and 
signed.3  Only Article II(3) speaks to who may request re-
ferral under those agreements, and it does not prohibit the 
application of domestic law.  See supra, at 6–7. 

—————— 

3 We do not address whether Article II(2) requires a signed agreement.