Vol. 12:2 (2023) ► pp.211–233
A repugnant possibility
The construction of the argumentation in the enforcement of annulled arbitral award Commisa v Pemex
Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity.
This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Feteris, 2005; van Eemeren, 2007; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor (Lakoff & Turner, 1989; Sopory & Dillard, 2002; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers (Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Case background: Commisa v Pemex
- 1.2The role of the New York convention and the Panama Convention
- 1.2.1The language in the conventions
- 2. Strategic manouvering in legal decisions
- 3.Interpersonality and rhetorical strategies of persuasion
- 4.The use of metaphor
- 5.Analysis and discussion of the argumentation of Commisa v Pemex
- 5.1First standpoint: Jurisdiction and venue
- 5.2Second standpoint: Discretion to confirm the award
- 5.3Third standpoint: Performance bonds
- 5.4Final remarks
- 6.Conclusions
- Notes
-
References