I know that’s the theory, but as I pointed out in an earlier comment to this post, US law currently provides exceptions to the ordinary requirement of recognition when judgments are contrary to public policy and when judgments are obtained by fraud. If the treaty has one exception but not the other, expect litigants to argue that the other exception no longer exists in US law—which is why I think it should be included in the treaty.

Ted, a fraudulent judgment (or a fraudulent arbitration award alike) shall not be enforced in any jurisdiction as a matter of public policy, irrespective of whether or not the treaty had been in force.

I wonder if Doug could kindly provide some more details about that initiative in the Hague to establish a set of international arbitration rules for disputes involving businesses and human rights.

Well, you make a very good point.

I hope that advocates do not say something like: “if only the treaty had been in effect, the Ecuadoran judgment would have been entitled to recognition in the United States!” It seems to me that that idea motivates much of the opposition to the treaty given the US courts’ findings about what happened in Ecuador, and surely it’s bad PR to say that the treaty will allow judgments to be recognized even if fraudulent.

With pleasure – doug