O reconhecimento e execução de sentenças arbitrais estrangeiras no Brasil e nos Estados Unidos: um estudo comparado entre civil law e common law

Abstract

The research examined the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Brazil and the United States in order to compare how the civil law and common law traditions shaped the application of the 1958 New York Convention and the effectiveness of international arbitration. The study analyzed doctrine, legislation and case law through an analytical and comparative method supported by a selection of leading cases from both jurisdictions. It identified how Brazil structured its model through the Arbitration Act and the central role of the Superior Court of Justice, which exercised a limited delibation control and applied narrow grounds for refusal such as violation of due process, procedural irregularities and breach of public policy. In the United States, the research found a strong federal pro arbitration policy based on the Federal Arbitration Act, the influence of judicial precedents and the jurisdiction of federal courts, with refusal grounds strictly confined to those listed in the New York Convention. The analysis of the cases showed that Brazil and the United States converged in their restrictive interpretation of the Convention’s exceptions while diverging in the scope of party autonomy, the judicial role and the intensity of post award review. The study concluded that both systems, despite their distinct legal traditions, strengthened legal certainty and predictability in international commerce, although challenges remained regarding public policy, arbitrator impartiality and the harmonization of procedural practices