ERDEM-NEWSLETTER-2018-metin

133 ARBITRATION LAW not in accordance with the law of the country where the ar- bitration took place; • The award is not yet binding on the parties, as it may have been set aside or suspended; • Where the subject matter of the difference is not arbitrable; and • Public policy considerations. The Convention provides national courts’ discretion to reject an application for the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards. Therefore, this discretion has led to different approaches. The Convention also gives priority to domestic regimes that are more favorable to recognition and enforcement that again leads to dif- ferences between the contracting states (Article VII(1)). Should the New York Convention be revised? One of the issues that has been subject to debate in the past cen- tury relates to whether it is necessary to revise or amend the Conven- tion. One group argues that the New York Convention should be left alone as it has been in force for so long and has established case law and, just simply, because it works. Emmanuel Gaillard, who supports this view, states that the New York Convention should not be revised, and summarizes his position as what he calls the “three NOs”: there is no need, no hope, and no danger 8 . However, on the other hand, there are others who criticize the Convention and its application, and claim that there is room for up- date. They argue that the different interpretations of national courts have resulted in unsatisfactory decisions, and the Convention should be revised. Linda Silberman states the deficiencies of the New York Convention, and asserts that there are areas in which the Convention has failed to create harmony, including the treatment of awards that 8 Gaillard, Emmanuel : “ The Urgency of Not Revising the New York Convention” in 50 Years of the New York Convention, ICCA Congress Series No. 14, Dublin, A.J. van den berg ed., Kluwer Law International, 689 (2009).