RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN UZBEKISTAN
1. Introduction. – 2. Legal framework. – 2.1. The New York Convention. – 2.2. Regional Conventions. – 2.3. The Law on International Commercial Arbitration. – 2.4. Economic Procedure Code. – 3. Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. – 3.1. International Standards. – 3.2. Applications. – 3.3. Grounds for Refusal. – 3.4. Public Order. – 3.5. Enforcement Procedure. – 3.6. A Domestic Arbitral Award?. – 3.7. Challenge of the Award. – 4. Case Analysis – 4.1. Case Statistics. – 4.2. Appealed Cases to the Supreme Court. – 4.3. Rejected Cases. – 4.4. Returned Cases. – 4.5. Partial Enforcement. – 5. Conclusion.
Background: The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards reflect the business climate of a given country. Foreign investors and businesses closely monitor whether these processes align with established international standards, as they may affect their business. The business community prioritises effective dispute resolution and enforcement procedures. Thus, for Uzbekistan, addressing this matter is important not only to improve its business climate and attract foreign investment but also, from a wider perspective, to ensure access to justice.
Methods:
This research is based on primary data collected from court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Uzbekistan. It employs both qualitative and quantitative research methods. These decisions are then subjected to legal review and analysis to assess their compliance with international standards, utilising a comparative legal research approach. The research is also underpinned by relevant legal scholarship and international case law.
Results and conclusions:
An analysis of Uzbek court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards from December 2018 until June 2024 has led to key findings and conclusions. While minor oversights were observed at the first-instance court level, economic courts followed the international standards of a pro-enforcement approach and narrow interpretation of the grounds for refusal of the applications for recognition and enforcement. In most cases, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan demonstrated a commitment to aligning with best international practices in this area. Additionally, economic courts interpret public policy narrowly, which is in line with international standards.
Methods:
This research is based on primary data collected from court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Uzbekistan. It employs both qualitative and quantitative research methods. These decisions are then subjected to legal review and analysis to assess their compliance with international standards, utilising a comparative legal research approach. The research is also underpinned by relevant legal scholarship and international case law.
Results and conclusions:
An analysis of Uzbek court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards from December 2018 until June 2024 has led to key findings and conclusions. While minor oversights were observed at the first-instance court level, economic courts followed the international standards of a pro-enforcement approach and narrow interpretation of the grounds for refusal of the applications for recognition and enforcement. In most cases, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan demonstrated a commitment to aligning with best international practices in this area. Additionally, economic courts interpret public policy narrowly, which is in line with international standards.
Abstract
Background: The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards reflect the business climate of a given country. Foreign investors and businesses closely monitor whether these processes align with established international standards, as they may affect their business. The business community prioritises effective dispute resolution and enforcement procedures. Thus, for Uzbekistan, addressing this matter is important not only to improve its business climate and attract foreign investment but also, from a wider perspective, to ensure access to justice.
Methods:
This research is based on primary data collected from court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Uzbekistan. It employs both qualitative and quantitative research methods. These decisions are then subjected to legal review and analysis to assess their compliance with international standards, utilising a comparative legal research approach. The research is also underpinned by relevant legal scholarship and international case law.
Results and conclusions:
An analysis of Uzbek court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards from December 2018 until June 2024 has led to key findings and conclusions. While minor oversights were observed at the first-instance court level, economic courts followed the international standards of a pro-enforcement approach and narrow interpretation of the grounds for refusal of the applications for recognition and enforcement. In most cases, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan demonstrated a commitment to aligning with best international practices in this area. Additionally, economic courts interpret public policy narrowly, which is in line with international standards.
Methods:
This research is based on primary data collected from court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Uzbekistan. It employs both qualitative and quantitative research methods. These decisions are then subjected to legal review and analysis to assess their compliance with international standards, utilising a comparative legal research approach. The research is also underpinned by relevant legal scholarship and international case law.
Results and conclusions:
An analysis of Uzbek court decisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards from December 2018 until June 2024 has led to key findings and conclusions. While minor oversights were observed at the first-instance court level, economic courts followed the international standards of a pro-enforcement approach and narrow interpretation of the grounds for refusal of the applications for recognition and enforcement. In most cases, the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan demonstrated a commitment to aligning with best international practices in this area. Additionally, economic courts interpret public policy narrowly, which is in line with international standards.
About Authors
Sherzodbek Masadikov
PhD in Law, Docent, Chair of Civil Law and International Private Law Disciplines, International Law Faculty, University of World Economy and Diplomacy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Managing Advocate, SHERLAW, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
smasadikov@uwed.uz
s.masadikov@sherlaw.uz
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5958-4927
Corresponding author, responsible for writing, reviewing and editing this article.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The author declares that his opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Copyright: © 2025 Sherzodbek Masadikov. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PhD in Law, Docent, Chair of Civil Law and International Private Law Disciplines, International Law Faculty, University of World Economy and Diplomacy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Managing Advocate, SHERLAW, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
smasadikov@uwed.uz
s.masadikov@sherlaw.uz
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5958-4927
Corresponding author, responsible for writing, reviewing and editing this article.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The author declares that his opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Copyright: © 2025 Sherzodbek Masadikov. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Berg AJ, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 (TMC Asses Institute 1981).
2. Born GB, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd eds, Kluwer Law International 2021).
3. Masadikov S, ‘Arbitration Legislation of Uzbekistan: Further Development’ (2022) 1 Prospects of Development of International Commercial Arbitration in Uzbekistan 38, doi:10.47689/978-9943-7818-6-3/iss1-pp38-41.
4. Sharipov Ya, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Uzbekistan: Challenges and Uncertainties’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 11 November 2019)
2. Born GB, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd eds, Kluwer Law International 2021).
3. Masadikov S, ‘Arbitration Legislation of Uzbekistan: Further Development’ (2022) 1 Prospects of Development of International Commercial Arbitration in Uzbekistan 38, doi:10.47689/978-9943-7818-6-3/iss1-pp38-41.
4. Sharipov Ya, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Uzbekistan: Challenges and Uncertainties’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 11 November 2019)
Reviews for article
Add a Review
Publication history
-
Date of submission - 26 Sep 2024
Date of acceptance - 22 Jan 2025
Date of publication – 15 Feb 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked – No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round – 3 reports Number of revision rounds – 1Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/ Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
How to cite it?
-
Masadikov Sh, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Uzbekistan’ (2025) 8(1) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 368-84 <https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18- 8.1-r000120>
