§ 9-9-58.Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of arbitration award

This is the section that decides whether an international arbitration award gets enforced in Georgia — and it makes refusal the exception, not the rule. Recognition or enforcement “may be refused only” on the grounds listed here, regardless of what country produced the award.

The first group of grounds puts the burden on the resisting party to prove the defect: incapacity of a party, or an arbitration agreement that was not valid under the law the parties chose to govern it or, absent that choice, under the law of the country where the award was made; lack of proper notice of the arbitrator’s appointment or the proceedings, or an inability to present its case; an award that strays beyond what was submitted to arbitration in the first place (with the valid part still enforceable if it can be separated from the rest); a tribunal composition or procedure that did not match the parties’ agreement or, absent one, the law of the country where the arbitration happened; or an award that is not yet binding, or that has already been set aside or suspended by a court where, or under whose law, it was made. A second group lets the enforcing court act on its own: subject matter that is not arbitrable under United States law, or enforcement that would conflict with United States public policy.

These grounds track the setting-aside grounds in Code Section 9-9-56 closely, which makes sense — both provisions guard against the same categories of defect, just from different vantage points: one asks whether a court at the seat should undo the award, the other asks whether a court elsewhere should give it effect. And when a setting-aside or suspension application is pending before a court at the place the award was made, the enforcing court has flexibility: it can adjourn its own decision and, if the party seeking enforcement asks, order the other party to post security in the meantime.