Source: http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=10&menu=633&opac_view=-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:15:27+00:00

Document:
1. Article XII governs the date of entry into force of the New York Convention.
1375. For issues relating to the date of entry into force of the convention, see Report on the survey relating to the legislative implementation of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/656, paras. 14-17.
1376. For a more detailed discussion on the reciprocity reservation, see the chapter of the Guide on article I.
4. A question often arises whether the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements entered into, and arbitral awards rendered, before the adoption of the Convention by the State concerned.
1377. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Records of the Twentieth Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.20, p. 12, where the Delegation from Yugoslavia questioned whether the Convention would “apply to [foreign arbitral awards] which had become operative after entry force [of the Convention] or also to those which had become operative before”. The drafting proposal to limit application of the convention to arbitral awards rendered after the coming into force of the Convention read: “This convention shall apply only to arbitral awards which acquired the force of res judicata and became final after the entry into force of the Convention” (see Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Records of the Twentieth Meeting, E/CONF.26/L.55).
1378. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Records of the Twenty-first Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.21, p. 2.
1379. Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Records of the Twenty-first Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.21, pp. 2-3.
1380. See information on reservations under the New York convention on the internet at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html.
1381. Albert Jan van den Berg, Does the New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 apply retroactively?: decision of the House of Lords in Government of Kuwait v. Sir Frederic Snow, 1 Arb. Int’l 103 (1985).
1382. Republic of Ecuador, Petroecuador (Ecuador) v. Chevron Texaco Corporation, District Court, Southern District of New York, United States of America, 27 June 2005, 376 F. Supp. 2d 334, XXXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 1162 (2006); Travel Automation Ltd. v. Abacus International Pvt. Ltd. and others, High Court of Karachi, Pakistan, Suit No. 1318 of 2004, 14 February 2006, XXXII Y.B. Com. Arb. (2007).
1383. Spie Enertrans S.A. v. Inepar S.A. Industria e Construcoes, Superior Court of Justice, Brazil, 3 October 2007, SEC 831.
1384. See Société Nationale pour la Recherche, le transport et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures (Sonatrach) v. Ford, Bacon and Davis Inc., Court of First Instance of Brussels, Belgium, 6 December 1988, XV Y.B. Com. Arb. 370 (1990). See also Murmansk State Steamship Line v. Kano Oil Millers Ltd., Supreme Court, Nigeria, 11 December 1974, VII Y.B. Com. Arb. 349 (1982); Commoditex S.A. v. Alexandria Commercial Co., Court of Justice of Geneva, Switzerland, 12 May 1967, I Y.B. Com. Arb. 199 (1976).
1385. Sir Frederic Snow & Partners and Others (United Kingdom) v. Minister Public Works of the Government of Kuwait, House of Lords, England and Wales, 1 March 1984, X Y.B. Com. Arb. 508 (1985).
1386. German (F.R.) buyer v. English seller, Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Hamburg, Germany, 27 July 1978, IV Y.B. Com. Arb. 266 (1979). See also German party v. Austrian party, Oberster Gerichtshof Austria, 17 November 1965, I Y.B. Com. Arb. 182 (1976).
1387. Copal Co. Ltd. v. Fotochrome Inc., District Court, Eastern District of New York, United States of America, 4 June 1974 and Copal Co. Ltd. v. Fotochrome Inc., Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States of America, 29 May 1975, I Y.B. Com. Arb. 202 (1976).
1388. Compania Maritima Villa Nova S.A. v. Northern Sales Co., Federal Court of Appeal, Canada, 20 November 1991.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.