9 U.S.C. § 301
Enforcement of Convention
The Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Repub. of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Repub. of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “§ 201 note), and completely predates the Inter-American Convention (which began its existence in 1975 and did not enter into force in the United States until 1990, see 9 U.S.C.A. § 301 note). The Second Circuit has observed with respect to the New York Convention that “the…”
Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, 832 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2016). “See 9 U.S.C. § 301 (“The Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of January 30, 1975, shall be enforced in United States courts in accordance with this chapter.”
Lummus Global Amazonas, S.A. v. Aguaytia Energy Del Peru, S.R. Ltda., 256 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D. Tex. 2002). “LGA also invokes the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Inter-American Convention”), 9 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), 9 U.”
China Minmetals Materials Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Corp., 334 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2003). “rict court in this circuit has refused to distinguish international arbitration proceedings from domestic arbitration proceedings, despite the greater presumption in favor of arbitration in the international context, in applying First Options to a case involving the…”
Esso Expl. & Prod. Nigeria Ltd. v. Nigerian Nat'l Petroleum Corp., 40 F.4th 56 (2d Cir. 2022). “2 As a signatory state, the United States has implemented the New York Convention under the express provisions 2Pemex and other decisions on which we rely arise in the context of a later-enacted treaty known as the Panama Convention.”
Vantage Deepwater Co. v. Petrobras Amer, 966 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2020). “DISCUSSION This case implicates Chapter 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 301–307, which governs nondomestic arbitration awards subject to the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of January 30, 1975, T.”
Corporacion AIC, SA v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A., 66 F.4th 876 (11th Cir. 2023). “245, which Congress implemented through Chapter 3 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. See Juan C. Garcia & Ivan Bracho Gonzalez, Interpretation of Arti- cle V of the New York Convention in the Eleventh Circuit: Indus- trial Risk Insurers, 74 U.”
In Re the Arbitration Between Trans Chem. Ltd. & China Nat'l MacHiney Imp. & Exp. Corp., 978 F. Supp. 266 (S.D. Tex. 1997). “9, 1986), reprinted in 9 U.S.C. § 301 . To clarify the scope of the United States’ reservation in adopting the Inter-American Convention Congress stated in section 304 of the implementing legislation that “[arbitral decisions or awards made in the territory of a foreign State…”
Banco De Seguros Del Estado v. Mut. Marine Offices, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “9 U.S.C. § 301 . 6 . Indeed, "[t]here is little case law interpreting the Inter-American Convention.”
Tecnicas Reunidas De Talara S.A.C. v. SSK Ingenieria Y Construccion S.A.C., 40 F.4th 1339 (11th Cir. 2022). “See 9 U.S.C. §§ 301–07. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that the parties’ mistake about the relevant convention was “of little concern” because “there is no substantive difference between the two Conventions.”
Sanluis Developments, L.L.C. v. CCP Sanluis, L.L.C., 556 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “§§ 202 , 203, 204, 205, and 207] shall apply to this chapter [ 9 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.]....”). Thus, under the Inter-American Convention, “[t]he [reviewing] court shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of…”
Termorio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electrificadora Del Atlantico S.A. E.S.P., 421 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2006). “See Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Panama Convention”) (reprinted after 9 U.S.C. § 301 ), and The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) (reprinted after 9 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.