Yemen as non-convention state of New York convention 1958: Advantages and disadvantages

• Main Authors: Bawazir, Omar Saleh Abdullah, Megat Latif, Hairuddin, Hussain, Mohammad Azam, Nafees, S.M.M.
• Format: Conference or Workshop Item
• Language: English
• Published: 2017
• Subjects: K Law (General)
• Online Access: http://repo.uum.edu.my/24549/1/SICONSEM%202017%2090%2092.pdf; http://repo.uum.edu.my/24549/

Purpose - This study was aimed to investigate the advantages and disadvantages on Yemen by not being a signatory state to NYC.This study helps the legislator to modernize the arbitration system in Yemen. Also, introduce the foreign investor of that Yemen is a non-signatory state. New York Convention 1958 (NYC) is the contemporary instrument to deal with the international arbitration system, especially, the recognition and the enforcement of arbitration agreement and international arbitral award (IAA). However, Yemen is not a signatory state to the NYC. Currently, there are 156 states that ratified the New York Convention 1958, however, Yemen is not a signatory state. Such large number of the signatory states could mean that the NYC brings positive effects to their national economies more than negative effects. Thus, the researcher is surprised about the rationale behind non-ratifying the convention by Yemen. As most countries have ratified it and some of such signatory states apply principle of the shari’a like Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the states that have a trade with other states, mostly do Bilateral Investment Trades (BITs) in order to protect the national investors’ rights in case of expropriation of their investment rights (Qureshi, 2011). Such agreements tries to protect the investors of place suit in case of violation of international law, investment rights, enforcement of arbitral awards, whereas the legal action could be taken by the original state of the investors against the place suit of the investment. It has to refer to the case of Desert Line Projects L.L.C v. Republic of Yemen, In this case the host country of the arbitration was Yemen. The claimant Desert Line Projects L.L.C could not enforce the arbitral award in Yemeni court because of political and tribal interference. Thus, the creditor party applied to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) to settle the dispute after long time of procrastination without enforcement of the IAA. ICAID rendered an award in favour of Desert Line Projects L.L.C.