Source: http://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=10&menu=635&opac_view=-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:49:55+00:00

Document:
1389. Albert Jan van den Berg, Consolidated Commentary Cases Reported in Volumes XXII (1997) - XXVII (2002), XXVIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 699 (2003), para. 914. See also Patricia Nacimiento, Article XIV, in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 541, 544 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds., 2010).
2. As reflected in the travaux préparatoires, article XIV was originally drafted in almost identical wording as a second paragraph of the then article X addressing the rights and duties of federal or non-unitary contracting states (now article XI).1390 As drafted at the time, this proposed reciprocity provision did not meet unanimous approval, as some delegations wished to clarify that it would only apply to federal states.1391 It was not until the United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration convened for the preparation and adoption of the Convention that the representative for Norway proposed an amendment for a general reciprocity clause that would stand as a separate article.1392 A majority of the delegates accepted this amendment on the very last day of the Conference.
1390. Travaux préparatoires, Report of the Committee on the Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards, E/2704, E/AC.42/4/Rev.1, pp. 15-16, and E/2704, E/AC.42/4/Rev.1, Annex, p. 5.
1391. See, e.g., the comments by Yugoslavia on article X, Travaux préparatoires, Comments by Governments on the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, E/2822/Add.6, Annex, pp. 2-3.
1392. Travaux préparatoires, Consideration of the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Item 4 of the Agenda), Norway: proposed amendment to the draft Convention, E.CONF.26/L.28; Travaux préparatoires, United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, Summary Records of the Twenty-Fourth Summary Meeting, E/CONF.26/SR.24, pp. 6-7.
1393. See, e.g., Union of India, and others v. Lief Hoegh & Co. and others, High Court of Gujarat, India, 4 May 1982, AIR 1983 Guj 34; Audi NSU Auto Union A.G. v. Overseas Motors, Inc., District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, United States of America, 9 August 1976, II Y.B. Com. Arb. 252 (1977); M.A. Industries Inc. v. Maritime Battery Ltd., New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Canada, 19 August 1991, XVIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 354 (1993); Odin Shipping Co. (Pte) Ltd. v. Aguas Industriales de Tarragona, Supreme Court, Spain, 4 October 1983, XI Y.B. Com. Arb. 528 (1986). See also with respect to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement: McDermott International v. Lloyds Underwriters of London, Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, United States of America, 14 February 1992, 91-841, XVIII Y.B. Com. Arb. 472 (1993); Ken Acosta (United States), et al. v. Master Maintenance and Construction Inc., et al., Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, United States of America, 8 June 2006, 05-30126.
4. One example of an unsuccessful attempt to rely on article XIV’s reciprocity requirement is found in Fertilizer Corporation of India v. IDI Management Inc., a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. An arbitral award was rendered in India against a United States corporation, which argued before the Court that it should not be enforced in the United States on grounds that India would not have enforced the award had it been rendered in the United States in its favour, and that therefore, “the reciprocity between India and the United States as required by the Convention [article XIV] was absent”.1394 The contesting party further argued that article XIV requires courts to determine the extent to which India applies the Convention and whether India treats awards rendered in India in favour of Indian parties in a similar manner. The Court rejected this argument and enforced the award, finding that the Convention’s reciprocity requirement was satisfied in that case. It noted that article XIV gave “states a defensive right to take advantage of another state’s reservations with regard to territorial, federal or other provisions”. The Court added that, in any event, it was satisfied that Indian courts were not engaged in a “devious policy to subvert the Convention by denying non-Indians their just awards”.
1394. Fertilizer Corporation of India v. IDI Management Inc., District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, United States of America, 9 June 1981, C-1-79-570.
1395. Beiser v. Weyler, Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, United States of America, 19 March 2002, 01-20152.
1396. See Angela Kolbl, Commentary on Article XIV, in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958—Commentary 529, 531 (R. Wolff ed., 2012); Patricia Nacimiento, Article XIV, in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 541, 544 (H. Kronke, P. Nacimiento et al. eds., 2010).

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