PRIVIRE CRITICĂ ASUPRA UNOR OPINII EXPRIMATE ÎN DOCTRINĂ REFERITOR LA RĂSPUNDEREA INTERNAȚIONALĂ A STATULUI PENTRU NERESPECTAREA OBLIGAȚIILOR ASUMATE PRIN CONVENȚIA PENTRU RECUNOAȘTEREA ȘI EXECUTAREA SENTINȚELOR ARBITRALE STRĂINE, ADOPTATĂ LA NEW YORK, LA 10 IUNIE 1958

The Romanian State assumed by the New York Convention adopted on 10 June 1958 only the obligation to recognize and ensure the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the situation where the foreign arbitral award is pronounced on the territory of a signatory state of the Convention, and the dispute which has been settled by the respective foreign arbitral award may be qualified as being commercial by the national legislation. We appreciate that the Romanian State complied with this obligation by ratifying the New York Convention, by the Decree No 186/1961, and we emphasize, in this context, that the respective Convention is binding on the Romanian State only with regard to
foreign arbitral awards that fall within its scope of application.
Thus, for the foreign arbitral awards that do not fall within the scope of application of the New York Convention, the Romanian State is not bound by any conventional obligation, the state having the freedom to regulate legal provisions other than conventional ones regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Consequently, the existence of some domestic legal provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code, other than the provisions of the New York Convention, on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, is in no way likely to engage international responsibility of the Romanian State, since, as we noted in this study, the Romanian State complied with its conventional obligations assumed by the conclusion of the New York Convention, even the provisions of the mentioned Convention (Article 7.1) allowing the existence of some national provisions other than conventional regulations, since only in such a hypothesis there is the possibility of invoking by the interested person the more favourable national provisions (if the normative provisions were identical, in no case could the problem of applying some more favourable legal provisions be raised).