In accordance with the informality of arbitration, the law is generally interested in obtaining the validity of arbitration clauses, even if it lacks the normal formal language associated with legal contracts. The provisions that have been upheld are that, given the role of public order as an exceptional instrument, the issues of waiver and exclusion of the objection at issue are treated differently from other reasons. Public order is a matter that a court can take into account automatically. Moreover, it relies primarily on the national law of the enforcement court, which may render insufficient recourse to arbitration tribunals. Therefore, the non-request to quash the sentence on public policy grounds should not prevent a party from objecting on the same basis of execution. Similarly, failure to rely on the public policy argument in arbitration proceedings should not be a means of considering this issue by the enforcement court. However, different considerations may apply when arbitrators have considered and rejected a public policy argument. In these circumstances, some courts were bound by the arbitrators` findings and refused to bring the de novo public order argument.23 In most jurisdictions, foreign states have certain immunities (usually before prosecution and execution) that protect them from court proceedings in another state. Although the defence of state immunity is not mentioned in the New York Convention or the UNCIR Model Act, it is often invoked in practice by unsuccessful states parties who oppose the enforcement of the arbitration awards against it. According to the widely accepted doctrine, the existence of state immunity depends on the fact that the acts of the state that give rise to litigation are considered to be an imperii (understood as the exercise of the sovereign functions of the state) or as acts committed in the commercial property of the state. The convention contains no indication as to the requirements that a court must consider in deciding the performance of a quashed arbitration award. In the absence of international standards, courts have taken different approaches to this issue in different legal orders.
In most jurisdictions, there is an increasing burden to be made in the event of an attempt to impose a premium declared non-applicable. In summary, the circumstances in which enforcement is permitted include: in addition, many countries, even if not a challenge, allow remedies on a question of law (although almost no country allows a complaint with respect to factual findings).