ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE REDRESSAL

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC: GENEVA CONVENTION UNDER

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE REDRESSAL.
SIMRAN RAFIQ MIR
 Page|1

2107CUKMR -47 ILC-903

[Link].B 9TH SEM
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

TOPIC: GENEVA CONVENTION UNDER ALTERNATIVE

DISPUTE REDRESSAL
PROFERRED BY
SIMRAN RAFIQ MIR
2107 CUKMR 47
ILC 903
[Link]. B 9TH SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO
Dr Uzma Qadri.
Assistant professor
DoL, SLS, (CUK)
 Page|2

TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Sr. No. Contents Page No.
01.
INTRODUCTION 03
02. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 04-06
03. GENEVA CONVENTION UNDER THE ARBITRATION 07-10

04. ENFORCEMENT OF GENEVA CONVENTION 11

05. ENFORCEMENT OF GENEVA CONVENTION IN 12-15
ARBITRAL AWARD IN INDIA.
06. CASE STUDIES AND CHALLENGES AND LIMITATION 16-20
UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION UNDER
ARBITRATION ACT.

07. GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE 21-22

ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS
UNDER GENEVA CONVENTION.

08. Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign 23-24

Arbitral Awards

09. CONCLUSION 25
 Page|3

INTRODUCTION

Sir LJ Earl Warren once said that – “It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps the
justice alive.”

Presently, the commercial transactions take place between almost every country. Every
nation is engaged in some trade or business with the other nation. While doing these
commercial businesses, dispute may arise between the parties. But as the dispute resolution
through the court procedure takes time and is not cost-efficient, the international community
came up with an alternate method called Arbitration. Any dispute of commercial nature,
which arises between 2 different nations, was dealt by the method of arbitration. But the
problem arose during the administration of the arbitral award in the other country due to the
difference of laws. This made it difficult for the decree holder to get the fruit of his decree.
To solve this administration problem of foreign arbitral award, the international community
drafted some treaties.
During that time, the league of nation came up and drafted a Geneva protocol and convention
on the implementation of the foreign arbitration award. It was then signed by many nations
who were at that time also, the party to the League of Nations. It laid down the course of
action for implementation of overseas arbitral award. This Convention made administration
of the external arbitral award, easy & smooth. As India was party to that convention, and has
signed it, the Convention applies to it also.
The current Indian law on arbitration proceedings i.e., the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 includes the provisions of Geneva Convention under Part 2, Chapter 2, under section
53 to 60.

These sections include the procedure for implementation of the foreign arbitral award and the
particulars which must be submitted in the court for the enforcement. This also lay down the
grounds on which the court may ignore the enforcement. The arbitral award given under the
submission to arbitration, made in accordance with the Geneva Convention may be
administered in any of the countries which are a party to the Convention.
The arbitral award can be easily administered in nations which are signatory to it. But there
were several issues which arose during the award administration under this; therefore, it was
replaced by the New York Convention of 1958 which is the most successful treaty on foreign
award administration till.
Arbitration at international level is governed by both, private agreement of parties as well as
by international conventions on arbitrations which applies on the parties’ agreement
independently. The main goal of these international arbitration conventions is to encourage
the arbitration internationally and to help the states and parties to enforce the arbitral awards
given at such level. The key convention on the international arbitration was the Geneva
protocol of 1923 followed by the Geneva Convention of 1927. This instrument, which was
the Convention on the implementation of overseas Arbitral Awards played principal role in
the promotion and development of the international standard for arbitration.
 Page|4

Historical Context of the Geneva Conventions Under Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR)
The Geneva Conventions and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms have
deep roots in international law, with the Geneva Conventions providing a foundation for
humanitarian law, while ADR methods offer peaceful means of resolving disputes. The
historical evolution of both these legal frameworks demonstrates how international
humanitarian law (IHL) has been influenced by and, in turn, has influenced dispute
resolution mechanisms. Understanding this historical context helps in appreciating the role
that ADR mechanisms play in ensuring the enforcement and interpretation of the Geneva
Conventions.
1. The Origins of the Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions trace their origins to the First Geneva Convention of 1864,
which was influenced by the humanitarian work of Henry Dunant, a Swiss philanthropist
who witnessed the horrors of war at the Battle of Solferino in 1859. His efforts led to the
formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the first treaty
aimed at protecting wounded soldiers and civilians during conflict. Over time, this treaty
evolved into a series of conventions, the most significant being those signed in 1949, after
the Second World War. These conventions, along with their Additional Protocols (notably
Protocol I, adopted in 1977), form the modern body of international humanitarian law
(IHL).
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 laid down clear rules regarding the treatment of prisoners
of war, wounded soldiers, and civilians in times of armed conflict, marking a significant shift
from previous military laws to those focused on human dignity.
2. The Role of ADR in the Geneva Conventions
Although the Geneva Conventions themselves do not explicitly provide for Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as arbitration or mediation, they set the stage
for methods of resolving disputes and ensuring compliance. The Geneva Conventions and
their Additional Protocols have been intertwined with ADR in several key ways,
particularly in the establishment of processes for conflict resolution and the enforcement of
humanitarian law.
A. Early Developments in ADR and the Geneva Conventions:
While the first Geneva Convention of 1864 did not foresee modern ADR techniques, it laid
the groundwork for cooperative mechanisms. The International Red Cross played a
mediatory role in conflicts by acting as an intermediary between warring parties and
providing humanitarian aid. The Geneva Conventions, particularly in their expanded form
after World War II, allowed for more formal mechanisms to resolve disputes regarding the
interpretation and application of humanitarian law. ADR became a natural extension of these
principles, as nations and non-state actors sought ways to resolve differences peacefully
without resorting to further violence.
B. The Introduction of Arbitration and Fact-Finding Mechanisms:
The introduction of arbitration and fact-finding within Protocol I (1977) was a direct
response to the need for a neutral, non-confrontational means of resolving disputes related to
IHL. Article 7 of Protocol I provides a clear framework for arbitration in disputes between
contracting states concerning the interpretation or application of the Geneva Conventions.
 Page|5

This was a progressive step, allowing states to avoid the escalation of disputes and to resolve
differences through mutual consent, without resorting to military action.
Moreover, Article 90 of Protocol I established the International Humanitarian Fact
Finding Commission (IHFFC), which is tasked with investigating alleged violations of
IHL. Although IHFFC does not offer a binding resolution, its work aids in the resolution of
disputes by providing impartial findings that can facilitate further negotiations or arbitration.
3. The Role of ADR in Post-World War II International Law
After the Second World War, the international community recognized the need for stronger
enforcement mechanisms to uphold humanitarian law. This period saw the establishment of
international ADR mechanisms that complemented the Geneva Conventions. A.
International Court of Justice (ICJ):
• The ICJ, established in 1945 under the United Nations Charter, became an
essential body for adjudicating disputes between states, including those related to the
Geneva Conventions. While the ICJ operates on a judicial basis and not as an ADR
mechanism, its function in interpreting international treaties and conventions
contributes to the peaceful resolution of disputes, a hallmark of ADR.
• The ICJ's advisory opinions, such as those on the legality of the use of force or the
treatment of prisoners of war, provide authoritative interpretations that guide state
behavior and help resolve ambiguities in the application of the Geneva Conventions.
B. Diplomacy and Political Negotiations:
• Beyond formal ADR processes like arbitration and mediation, diplomacy played a
crucial role in ensuring that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions were upheld.
States have frequently used diplomatic negotiations to settle disputes over the
treatment of civilians, prisoners, or the conduct of military operations.
• The post-World War II era marked an increase in multilateral diplomacy, with
various international organizations, such as the United Nations, using diplomatic
tools to mediate conflicts and encourage adherence to the Geneva Conventions.
4. The New York Convention and Its Relation to the Geneva Conventions
In the 1950s, the establishment of the New York Convention (1958) on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards represented a significant development in
international arbitration. This convention complemented the Geneva Conventions by
creating a global framework for recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards. It aimed to
promote arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution in international law.
The New York Convention enhanced the legitimacy and enforceability of arbitration
awards, encouraging states to resolve disputes, including those arising under international
humanitarian law, without resorting to military or judicial means. While the New York
Convention does not directly interact with the Geneva Conventions, it reinforced the trend
toward ADR in international law.
5. Key Moments in the Evolution of ADR under the Geneva Conventions A. The
Adoption of Protocols I and II (1977):
• The Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions were adopted in 1977,
expanding the provisions of the original treaties. Protocol I, in particular,
strengthened the mechanisms for dispute resolution by introducing the
International
 Page|6

Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) and formalizing arbitration as

a method for resolving disputes regarding the application of the Geneva Conventions. B. The
Increasing Role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs):
• In the 1980s and 1990s, NGOs became increasingly involved in the enforcement of
international humanitarian law. NGOs such as the ICRC have played vital roles in
facilitating negotiations between warring parties, using mediation and diplomatic
pressure to resolve issues related to humanitarian law. C. The Development of
Contemporary ADR Mechanisms:
• In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the evolution of international arbitration
continued to provide new opportunities for ADR under the Geneva Conventions.
Innovations in international arbitration, such as the use of international tribunals
and the International Criminal Court (ICC), allowed for further resolution of
disputes and accountability for violations of humanitarian law.
6. Challenges and Criticisms of ADR under the Geneva Conventions
While the Geneva Conventions and ADR mechanisms have contributed to improving
compliance with international humanitarian law, there are several challenges and criticisms
regarding their effectiveness:
1. State Sovereignty:
o ADR mechanisms often depend on the consent of the parties involved, and
states may refuse to participate in arbitration or accept the findings of
factfinding commissions, especially if the issue at stake involves sensitive
political or military concerns.
2. Enforcement:
o Even when arbitration or fact-finding commissions lead to resolutions,
enforcing the decisions can be difficult, especially when a state chooses to
ignore the findings.
3. Political Interference:
o In many cases, political pressures may interfere with the implementation of
ADR processes, particularly when the conflicting parties have competing
interests in the outcome.
Therefore, the historical context of the Geneva Conventions under ADR is characterized by
an evolving approach to humanitarian law that increasingly emphasized peaceful dispute
resolution through arbitration, fact-finding, and mediation. Over time, the development of
ADR mechanisms complemented the humanitarian goals of the Geneva Conventions,
providing non-violent means for resolving conflicts and ensuring accountability for
violations of international law. Although challenges remain in implementing ADR processes,
particularly with state sovereignty and enforcement, the Geneva Conventions have played a
significant role in shaping international efforts toward a more peaceful, just, and humane
approach to conflict resolution.
GENEVA CONVENTION UNDER THE ARBITRATION
The Geneva Conventions, primarily designed to protect individuals in times of armed
conflict, do not directly include provisions for arbitration in their original texts. However, in
the context of international law, arbitration can play a role in resolving disputes related to the
 Page|7

interpretation and application of the Geneva Conventions, especially where state parties
disagree on compliance or interpretation.
The Arbitration Act generally refers to a national or international legal framework for
resolving disputes outside of courts. In particular, the Geneva Conventions and Arbitration
interact in the sense that the Geneva Conventions provide mechanisms for resolving
disputes over humanitarian law, which can be settled through arbitration, provided that the
parties consent to it.
Here’s an exploration of how arbitration works in the context of the Geneva Conventions,
particularly under national arbitration laws (such as the Arbitration Act in various
countries) and international arbitration frameworks.
1. Geneva Conventions and Dispute Resolution
The Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977) lay down the
standards for the treatment of individuals during wartime, including prisoners of war,
wounded soldiers, and civilians. They also include mechanisms to ensure compliance and
provide ways to address disputes that arise from their interpretation or application.
While the Geneva Conventions do not explicitly reference the Arbitration Act or
arbitration in their text, the issue of dispute resolution in relation to the Geneva Conventions
is covered under certain provisions, particularly in Protocol I (1977).

Key Provisions for Dispute Resolution under the Geneva Conventions:

1. Article 7 of Protocol I (1977):

o Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions explicitly allows for arbitration in
cases of dispute between contracting parties regarding the interpretation or
application of the Conventions. o States can voluntarily enter into
arbitration to resolve disputes arising from the Geneva Conventions’ provisions.

2. Article 56 of Geneva Convention I:

o This article provides a framework for ensuring the Geneva Conventions are
respected during conflict and mentions the role of fact-finding commissions
and diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes, which can sometimes involve
arbitration if the parties agree.
2. The Role of the Arbitration Act
In most jurisdictions, the Arbitration Act refers to the national law governing arbitration
procedures. These laws, often based on international frameworks like the United Nations
Convention on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration) or the New York Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, provide the procedural rules for how arbitration
will be conducted. These frameworks can be used in disputes related to the Geneva
Conventions, particularly in terms of resolving state-to-state disputes related to humanitarian
law.
 Page|8

In the context of international humanitarian law (IHL), the Arbitration Act can provide a
venue and procedure for resolving disputes under the Geneva Conventions. However, this
typically requires the consent of the parties involved, as arbitration is inherently voluntary.

How Arbitration Under National Laws Works in Relation to the Geneva Conventions:
• Jurisdiction: The parties to a conflict (or the parties involved in interpreting the
Geneva Conventions) may agree to resolve disputes by arbitration under a specific
Arbitration Act. For example, if a dispute arises between two states regarding the
treatment of prisoners of war, they could agree to arbitrate the matter under the
Arbitration Act of a neutral country.
• Enforcement: If the arbitral tribunal renders a decision, the enforcement of that
decision can be subject to international conventions like the New York
Convention, which governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards. This provides a mechanism for ensuring that the arbitral awards are binding
and enforceable across different jurisdictions.
• Compliance: The Arbitration Act ensures that the arbitral process adheres to
internationally accepted standards, making it more likely that the parties will respect
the decisions made by the tribunal. This is especially crucial in cases related to
humanitarian law, where adherence to international norms is essential.
3. International Arbitration and the Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions do not mandate a specific system for dispute resolution, but
Protocol I of 1977 provides a framework for settling disputes over the interpretation or
application of the Geneva Conventions. In practice, these disputes could be resolved by
international arbitration.
International arbitration bodies, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), can play a
role in interpreting the Geneva Conventions. However, these bodies are not arbitration in the
traditional sense but judicial bodies that make binding rulings. Some disputes can be
resolved using arbitration as an alternative, especially when states agree to submit their
differences to a third party.
International Bodies and Arbitration:

1. International Court of Justice (ICJ):

o The ICJ can hear disputes between states related to the interpretation and
application of international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions. o
While the ICJ is not an arbitration tribunal, its rulings provide a form
of judicial resolution of disputes, and its advisory opinions can guide states
in their conduct, indirectly influencing ADR approaches.

2. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC):

 Page|9

o The ICC is a well-known international arbitration institution, primarily

focused on commercial disputes, but it can also provide arbitration in matters
that involve the Geneva Conventions if the parties agree.
o States could agree to resolve disputes regarding the interpretation of
humanitarian law under ICC arbitration rules, providing an ADR
mechanism.
4. Mechanisms for Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the Geneva Conventions
While the Geneva Conventions do not directly deal with the enforcement of arbitration
awards, they do emphasize the importance of ensuring compliance with humanitarian law.
The enforcement of arbitral awards arising from disputes related to the Geneva Conventions
can be challenging, especially in international conflicts.

Role of the New York Convention (1958):

• The New York Convention facilitates the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards
in over 160 countries, and it applies to disputes related to international law, including
humanitarian law under the Geneva Conventions. This means that if an arbitration
decision is made under the Geneva Conventions, it could be enforced
internationally, provided the parties to the dispute are signatories to the convention.

Diplomatic Efforts:
• In the case of disputes under the Geneva Conventions, diplomatic pressure and the
involvement of international organizations like the United Nations or the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) may play an important role in
ensuring compliance with arbitral awards.

Fact-Finding Commission
The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC), created under
Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, plays a significant role in investigating allegations
of violations of IHL. Though not an arbitral body, its findings can influence arbitration by
providing impartial evidence that the arbitral tribunal can consider when making decisions.
 P a g e | 10

5. Practical Application of Arbitration in the Geneva Conventions Context

While arbitration is not the primary method of dispute resolution under the Geneva
Conventions, its potential application is significant in certain contexts. These include:
• State-to-State Disputes: Arbitration could be a method for resolving disagreements
between states about the application or interpretation of the Geneva Conventions,
particularly when states are unwilling to engage in traditional judicial processes.
• Humanitarian Issues: Disputes over humanitarian law violations (such as the
treatment of prisoners of war or civilians) could be addressed through arbitration,
especially when political or military considerations make traditional courts or
diplomatic negotiations ineffective.
• Non-State Actors: Arbitration may also be used for resolving disputes involving
nonstate actors, though this is less common under the Geneva Conventions, which are
primarily state-centric.
Therefore, While the Geneva Conventions themselves do not directly incorporate arbitration
as a dispute resolution mechanism, they lay the foundation for arbitration through provisions
such as Protocol I (1977), which allows states to agree to arbitrate disputes related to the
interpretation or application of the Conventions. The Arbitration Act plays a significant role
in facilitating such disputes, particularly in jurisdictions where international arbitration laws
are applied. Additionally, international arbitration institutions, like the International
Court of Justice and International Chamber of Commerce, provide a forum for resolving
conflicts arising from humanitarian law violations, ensuring that the provisions of the Geneva
Conventions are adhered to.
ENFORCEMENT OF GENEVA CONVENTION
The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Geneva Convention is covered in Chapter
II, Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, with relevant provisions
spanning Sections 53 to 60.
In Section 53, a foreign award is defined as an arbitral decision on disputes related to
matters considered commercial under Indian law after July 28, 1924. The three
prerequisites for enforcement are:

➢ The award is in pursuance of an arbitration agreement covered by the Geneva

Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, 1923.
➢ The award is between parties subject to the jurisdiction of reciprocating territories, as
designated by the Central Government and where the Geneva Convention on the
Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1927 applies.
➢ The award is made in a territory designated as reciprocating by the Central
Government.
 P a g e | 11

According to Section 56, the party seeking the enforcement of the foreign award in India
must submit the following during the application:

• The original award or an authenticated copy.

• Evidence demonstrating that the award has become final.
• Evidence proving that the award was made in accordance with a valid arbitration
agreement under applicable law.
• Section 57(2) outlines conditions under which the enforcement of the award can be
refused. Finally, as per Section 58, when the Court is satisfied with the enforceability
of the foreign award under this Chapter, the award is then treated as a decree of that
Court.

Wherein further in Part 2 of the Act there is another convention under which the foreign
awards can be enforced that is the Geneva Convention and section 5319 of the act defines
conditions as when a award can be enforced under Geneva Convention that is:-

That the arbitral award must be because there must be difference between parties and that
such difference must be commercial as per the Indian Law

That any award made after 28th day of July, 1924 would only be considered as foreign award
under the Geneva Convention.

The second schedule shall apply to such award.

ENFORCEMENT OF GENEVA CONVENTION IN ARBITRAL AWARD

IN INDIA.
The Geneva Conventions are a set of international treaties aimed at protecting individuals in
times of armed conflict, including prisoners of war, civilians, and wounded soldiers. The
Geneva Conventions, particularly in the context of International Humanitarian Law (IHL),
place significant obligations on state parties to ensure the humane treatment of individuals
during wartime. These Conventions, however, do not themselves establish specific
enforcement mechanisms for breaches under national legal systems, including in India.
However, disputes relating to violations of the Geneva Conventions can be subject to
arbitration, and arbitral awards can play an important role in their enforcement.
The enforcement of Geneva Conventions under arbitral awards in India involves the interplay
of international law, domestic law, and the legal framework provided by arbitration laws in
India, particularly under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This section will explore
how arbitral awards related to the Geneva Conventions are enforced in India, outlining the
legal procedures, challenges, and nuances.
1)Arbitration and the Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions themselves do not provide detailed mechanisms for dispute
resolution through arbitration. However, Protocol I (1977) of the Geneva Conventions
explicitly allows states to resolve disputes arising from their interpretation or application
 P a g e | 12

through arbitration. In cases where states or entities dispute the interpretation of International
Humanitarian Law (IHL), they may choose to resolve the matter through arbitration, provided
there is mutual consent.
In India, this issue is handled through the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which
incorporates both domestic and international arbitration principles and allows for the
enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention (1958).
1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA)
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs arbitration proceedings in India and
provides the legal framework for the enforcement of arbitral awards. It applies to both
domestic and international arbitrations and includes provisions for the recognition and
enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, as well as for resolving disputes relating to the
Geneva Conventions.
Key Provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Relevant to Enforcement of
Arbitral Awards under the Geneva Conventions:
1. Section 2(1)(f) - Definition of "Arbitration":
o This section provides a broad definition of arbitration and includes
international arbitration proceedings. This is important for arbitration
proceedings related to the Geneva Conventions, as disputes related to
international humanitarian law may involve parties from different
jurisdictions.
2. Section 34 - Setting Aside Arbitral Awards:
o Under this provision, a party may challenge an arbitral award in Indian courts
on grounds such as the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularities,
or contravention of Indian public policy. For arbitral awards concerning
Geneva Conventions, it is important to understand that violations of
humanitarian law may not always be considered as a valid ground for setting
aside an award unless they violate Indian public policy.
2. Section 48 - Grounds for Non-Recognition and Non-Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards: o This section outlines the grounds on which a foreign arbitral award
may not be enforced in India. While India is a signatory to the New York Convention
(1958), a foreign arbitral award related to the Geneva Conventions could be refused
enforcement if it contravenes public policy, including violations of fundamental
principles of Indian law or morality.
o Under this provision, if an arbitral award finds a violation of the Geneva
Conventions that is deemed to violate India's sovereignty or moral standing,
enforcement could be denied.
3. Section 49 - Enforcement of Foreign Awards:
o A foreign arbitral award that has been recognized as valid under Indian law
can be enforced in India. If a foreign arbitration tribunal rules on a dispute
related to the Geneva Conventions, its decision can be recognized and
enforced by Indian courts, provided it complies with Indian public policy.
4. Section 11 - Appointment of Arbitrators:
 P a g e | 13

o In cases of disputes under the Geneva Conventions, this provision is important

as it allows the Indian courts to appoint arbitrators if the parties have failed to
agree on the process. In cases of international disputes over humanitarian
issues, such as violations of the Geneva Conventions, India may appoint
qualified arbitrators to adjudicate the matter.

3. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Related to the Geneva Conventions in India The

enforcement of an arbitral award, particularly in the context of international humanitarian
law under the Geneva Conventions, in India depends on several factors. These include the
validity of the award, whether it is domestic or foreign, and whether it complies with Indian
public policy.
A. Domestic Arbitration Awards
In the case of domestic arbitration related to the Geneva Conventions, Indian courts can
enforce arbitral awards in the same manner as any other domestic award. If the dispute
concerns the application or interpretation of international humanitarian law, the award must
comply with the general requirements of Indian law.
• The Indian court will ensure that the arbitral award does not violate Indian public
policy.
• In cases involving violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Indian judiciary will
evaluate the award to ensure it does not conflict with India’s obligations under
international treaties, as well as India’s Constitutional principles, which prioritize
human rights and humanitarian law.
B. Foreign Arbitration Awards
When the dispute concerns a foreign arbitral award—for example, if a Geneva Conventions
dispute is arbitrated in an international tribunal—the award can be enforced in India under
Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided that the award is made in a
jurisdiction that is a party to the New York Convention (1958).
• New York Convention: India is a signatory to the New York Convention, which
allows for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In cases where the Geneva
Conventions dispute has been arbitrated in a foreign jurisdiction, India will recognize
the award unless the grounds for refusal under Section 48 are met (e.g., violation of
Indian public policy).
• Public Policy Exception: The public policy exception, under Section 48, is a key
consideration. For instance, if the arbitral award pertains to war crimes or gross
violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Indian courts could refuse to enforce the
award if it conflicts with Indian public policy, particularly if it concerns principles of
human rights or sovereign rights.
C. Enforcement Challenges
Enforcing arbitral awards related to violations of the Geneva Conventions in India can present
specific challenges:
1. Public Policy Concerns:
o Awards related to violations of humanitarian law that are considered to violate
the fundamental principles of justice or public policy in India may not be
 P a g e | 14

enforceable. o Disputes involving grave violations of the Geneva

Conventions, such as war crimes, could be difficult to enforce due to the
sensitive nature of these issues in Indian public policy.
2. Political Sensitivity:
o Many disputes under the Geneva Conventions involve sensitive issues related
to sovereignty and international relations. Enforcing an arbitral award may
require political considerations, especially if the award mandates actions
against a state or non-state actor with significant political or military power.
3. Jurisdictional Issues:
o Disputes under the Geneva Conventions often involve multiple parties across
different jurisdictions. The question of jurisdiction in international
humanitarian disputes may complicate enforcement, especially if the
arbitrators are not from India.

The dispute first came up for discussion between Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
Lachman das Sat Lal v. Parmeshri Das dispute that arose between parties regarding the
quality and quantity of goods sent to purchasers. An arbitrator was appointed by the
respective firm but the appellants failed to appoint anyone. The sole arbitrator made an award
in favour of the respondent. It was this award that which respondent sought to enforce under
provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940. Appellants contended that an award in
question was a foreign award and hence Indian Arbitration Act 1940 had no application.

Recognition is used mainly as a defensive tactic to get an arbitral decision. If the same parties
to a convention seek another arbitration, the "recognition" ensures protection to an arbitral
ruling. Any other claim qua arbitration between the parties in which the problems resulting
therefrom have previously been resolved may be offset by the opposing party by seeking
acknowledgment of an arbitral ruling. The concept of moving forward while attempting to
have the award recognised may be put on hold if new concerns that have emerged that were
not covered in the previous round(s) of arbitration are taken into consideration. On the other
hand, "enforcement" focuses more on the aggressive side. A party requesting the enforcement
of an award does so with the intention of employing proper legal remedies to not only enforce
the award but also to have it recognised. One may contend that "enforcement" and
"recognition" are contemporaneous concepts that work together.

The Supreme Court ruled; Brace Transport Corpn. of Monrovia v. Orient Middle East
Lines Ltd. that: “ An award may be recognised, without being enforced; but if it is enforced
then it is necessarily recognised. Recognition alone may be asked for as a shield against
reagitation of issues with which the award deals. Where a court is asked to enforce an award,
it must recognise not only the legal effect of the award but must use legal sanctions to ensure
that it is carried out.”

"foreign award" means now before moving on. Section 44 of the Arbitration Act of 1996
provides a definition of the phrase "foreign award". "Foreign award" is defined as "an arbitral
 P a g e | 15

award on differences between people arising out of legal connections, whether contractual or
not, regarded to be commercial under the law applicable in India, rendered on or after the
eleventh day of October, 1960." — • in accordance with a written arbitration agreement to
which the First Schedule's Convention shall apply, and • if the Central Government
determines that reciprocal arrangements have been made in one of these areas, it may notify
the public by publication in the Official Gazette. An "arbitral award" was described as "an
award rendered by an arbitrator appointed for each case, as well as those made by permanent
arbitral tribunals to which parties have submitted" in the New York Convention of 1958.

The phrase "foreign arbitration" would also cover arbitrations if one of the parties is from a
nation that has not joined the Geneva Convention, the High Court of Calcutta said in
Serajuddin & Co. v. Michael Golodetzxi . The Court went on to examine the decisions where
the terms “foreign arbitration” and “foreign award” were used and concluded that they were
used in connection with the following;
1. arbitrations in foreign lands;
2. foreign arbitrators;
3. application of foreign law; and
4. foreign nationals
The Court observed that the countries that have ratified the Geneva Conventions have
included certain class of such arbitrations and awards within the definitions under the
Arbitration(Protocol and Convention) provisions, however, the definitions were not
exhaustive. In this case where one party was Indian and the other US citizens, the Court was
of the view that even though the arbitration did not fall within the ambit of the Indian
Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 and American laws were applicable, it
satisfied all the characteristics of foreign arbitration as aforementioned.
The evolution of "enforcement" and "recognition" of foreign awards as per the provisions of
two archaic Acts, namely the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 and
the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, has been very skillfully handled by the
Delhi High Court in GAIL v. Spie Capage SA.
CASE STUDIES AND CHALLENGES AND LIMITATION UNDER THE
GENEVA CONVENTION UNDER ARBITRATION ACT.
The Geneva Conventions are key international legal instruments that regulate the conduct of
armed conflicts and protect persons who are not taking part in hostilities, such as civilians and
prisoners of war (POWs). While the Geneva Conventions provide a framework for
humanitarian protections, the concept of arbitration under these Conventions is not
explicitly laid out. However, the Geneva Conventions do envision the settlement of disputes
regarding their interpretation and application, which could involve arbitration in certain
circumstances.
A. The Nicaragua v. United States Case (1986)
One of the most notable international cases that involved issues under the Geneva
Conventions and arbitration (though not specifically under the Geneva Conventions
themselves) was Nicaragua v. United States.
 P a g e | 16

• Issue: The case concerned allegations of violations of international law, including the
Geneva Conventions, in the context of the U.S. intervention in Nicaragua during
the 1980s.
• Context: Nicaragua brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
accusing the United States of supporting Contra rebels against the Nicaraguan
government, as well as engaging in mining Nicaraguan harbors and violating
Nicaraguan sovereignty. The case raised issues related to the Geneva Conventions
because of the treatment of civilians and prisoners during the conflict.
• Geneva Convention Implications: Allegations included violations of Common
Article 3 (which applies to non-international armed conflicts) regarding the treatment
of civilians and prisoners.
• Outcome: In its judgment, the ICJ found the U.S. responsible for violations of
international law, including acts that violated the Geneva Conventions. However, the
U.S. refused to accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction and did not comply with the ruling,
illustrating the challenges of enforcing international humanitarian law through
legal mechanisms other than arbitration.
Key Takeaways:
• Although arbitration wasn’t utilized, the ICJ's involvement demonstrates how
international legal bodies address disputes related to the Geneva Conventions, despite
the limitations of enforcement.
• Sovereignty concerns and non-compliance with international judgments can limit
the impact of judicial proceedings, such as arbitration, especially in the case of
powerful states.

B. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (2000–2003)

Another case where arbitration played a role in Geneva Conventions-related disputes is the
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC).
• Issue: The Ethiopian-Eritrean War (1998–2000) led to various allegations of
violations of the Geneva Conventions, including the treatment of prisoners of war
(POWs) and the protection of civilians.
• Context: The EECC was established under the Algiers Agreement to address claims
arising from the war, including allegations of war crimes, human rights violations,
and breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
• Geneva Convention Implications: Both parties were accused of violations of the
Geneva Conventions, particularly related to the treatment of POWs and civilians.
The Commission was tasked with resolving the claims between the two parties, and
both sides submitted evidence of violations.
• Outcome: The EECC issued numerous rulings, holding both parties accountable for
various breaches of international law. The arbitral process successfully handled claims
of war crimes and violations under the Geneva Conventions, but it did not have the
power to enforce the decisions on the ground.
Key Takeaways:
 P a g e | 17

• The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission provides a rare example of how

arbitration can be employed to resolve disputes under the Geneva Conventions, even
in complex and prolonged conflicts.
• The EECC's success was largely due to the mutual agreement of the parties to
arbitrate the dispute, highlighting how willingness to arbitrate can facilitate
resolution, even in cases involving humanitarian law violations.
• However, enforcement remains a challenge in arbitration under the Geneva
Conventions, as the EECC's decisions were not always directly implemented by the
parties.

C. The Case of the US and the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo Bay (2002–Present)
The treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay has raised significant issues related to the
Geneva Conventions, and although the case did not go to formal arbitration, it illustrates
key challenges and controversies surrounding the application of international humanitarian
law.
• Issue: The U.S. was accused of violating the Geneva Conventions by holding
detainees without trial at Guantanamo Bay and subjecting them to inhumane
treatment. The U.S. government argued that the detainees were combatants and not
entitled to the full protections under the Geneva Conventions.
• Geneva Convention Implications: The key issue here concerned the status of
detainees and whether they were entitled to protections under the Third Geneva
Convention (which applies to POWs) or the Fourth Geneva Convention (which
applies to civilians). The U.S. initially classified many detainees as "enemy
combatants" to avoid providing them with the full legal protections afforded by the
Geneva Conventions.
• Outcome: After various legal challenges, including decisions from the U.S. Supreme
Court, the U.S. government was forced to grant detainees certain legal rights, though
the overall treatment of detainees remained controversial. While the case did not
directly involve arbitration, the legal battles over human rights and Geneva
Conventions compliance showed how disputes can be contested in courts and not
resolved through arbitration.
Key Takeaways:
• The Guantanamo Bay case highlights how national security concerns and the
sovereignty of states often prevent arbitration and push states toward domestic legal
solutions.
• While international tribunals like the ICJ and arbitration bodies could play a role
in enforcing Geneva Conventions principles, political factors and state interests may
prevent their application.
IN INDIA;
. India and the Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)
The Bangladesh Liberation War (1971) is a prominent case in which the Geneva
Conventions played a central role, particularly in the context of humanitarian law violations.
However, arbitration was not used as a mechanism for dispute resolution.
 P a g e | 18

• Issue: Allegations of violations of the Geneva Conventions, including treatment of

prisoners of war (POWs) and civilian casualties.
• Context: During the war, Pakistani military forces were accused of committing
widespread atrocities in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), including mass killings,
torture, and forced displacement of civilians. India was involved in supporting the
Bangladesh Liberation movement, and it was later accused of violations in terms of
treatment of POWs and humanitarian concerns.
• Post-Conflict Resolution: The Simla Agreement (1972), signed between India and
Pakistan, sought to resolve issues related to the conflict and normalize bilateral
relations. While the agreement addressed territorial issues, it did not engage in formal
arbitration concerning war crimes or humanitarian violations.
• Geneva Convention Implications: The Geneva Conventions (especially Common
Article 3) were highly relevant, as both India and Pakistan were bound by them.
Allegations were made about the violation of humane treatment of POWs.
• Relevance to Arbitration: Although both countries were parties to the Geneva
Conventions, there was no formal arbitration under these treaties. The Simla
Agreement was the preferred diplomatic solution, and the issue of war crimes was
sidelined in favor of a political resolution.
Key Takeaways: The Bangladesh Liberation War exemplifies how political will,
territorial disputes, and national sovereignty often take precedence over formal arbitration
under the Geneva Conventions. Diplomatic negotiations were prioritized over judicial
mechanisms like arbitration.

B. The Kargil War (1999)

In 1999, the Kargil War between India and Pakistan once again raised important issues
related to international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, particularly
regarding prisoners of war (POWs) and human rights violations.
• Issue: Allegations of violations of the Geneva Conventions concerning the treatment
of POWs and civilians.
• Context: The conflict began when Pakistani forces infiltrated the Kargil sector in
Jammu and Kashmir. After the war, there were reports that Pakistani soldiers were
captured by Indian forces. Allegations surfaced regarding the execution of POWs
by Pakistani soldiers. Additionally, both sides accused each other of committing
human rights violations during the conflict.
• Geneva Conventions Implications: As both India and Pakistan are signatories to the
Geneva Conventions, Article 3 (which requires humane treatment of persons not
taking part in hostilities) was directly applicable. Allegations of torture, extrajudicial
killings, and poor conditions for POWs were central to the controversy.
• Diplomatic and Legal Responses: While both India and Pakistan received calls from
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for compliance with the
Geneva Conventions, formal arbitration was not pursued. The matter was addressed
through diplomatic channels, and the war crimes allegations were largely handled
through humanitarian organizations and international pressure.
 P a g e | 19

• Relevance to Arbitration: Arbitration was not pursued, largely due to political

considerations and the territorial nature of the dispute. Both nations were
unwilling to submit the issue to a third-party tribunal, especially given the sensitive
nature of the conflict.
Key Takeaways: The Kargil War illustrates how sovereignty concerns and political
sensitivity often prevent the use of arbitration for resolving violations of the Geneva
Conventions, especially in territorial disputes like the Kashmir conflict. Diplomacy and the
involvement of organizations like the ICRC were favored over arbitration.

C. Kashmir Conflict and Humanitarian Violations

The ongoing Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan has been a source of constant
allegations of violations of the Geneva Conventions, especially concerning the treatment of
civilians and prisoners during counterinsurgency operations.
• Issue: Allegations of violations of international humanitarian law under the
Geneva Conventions, particularly concerning the protection of civilians.
• Context: The Kashmir conflict has resulted in frequent accusations from both sides
of extrajudicial killings, torture, displacement of civilians, and denial of
humanitarian aid. Both India and Pakistan have accused each other of violating the
Geneva Conventions during various phases of the conflict.
• Geneva Conventions Implications: The Fourth Geneva Convention (protection of
civilians in times of war) is central to the allegations. There have been concerns
regarding the treatment of civilians caught in the conflict and the use of force by
both sides against civilians.
• Diplomatic and Legal Responses: The issue has been raised repeatedly in
international forums such as the United Nations (UN) and human rights
organizations, but it has not been submitted to formal arbitration. Instead, it has
been handled through diplomatic negotiations and international pressure.
• Relevance to Arbitration: Despite the potential for arbitration, the political
sensitivities and sovereignty issues related to Kashmir make formal arbitration
highly unlikely. The issue remains primarily diplomatic rather than judicial. Key
Takeaways: The Kashmir conflict exemplifies the challenges of using arbitration
under the Geneva Conventions, especially when sovereignty and territorial claims
are central to the dispute.

Challenges and Limitations of Arbitration Under the Geneva Conventions

Although the Geneva Conventions envisage the settlement of disputes relating to their
application through various means, arbitration has been limited in practice due to several
challenges and limitations.
A. Political Sensitivity and National Sovereignty
• Challenge: Arbitration requires the consent of both parties to the dispute, and in
cases where sovereignty or territorial integrity is at stake, states are unlikely to
submit to an arbitral process. This is particularly relevant in the context of armed
conflict and war crimes, where national interests are heavily involved.
 P a g e | 20

• Example: In the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan, both countries view
the region as a part of their sovereign territory. Arbitration is unlikely because it could
be seen as an international interference in a matter of national sovereignty.
B. Limited Enforcement Power of Arbitration
• Challenge: Arbitral bodies typically do not have the power to enforce their decisions
on states. Even if an arbitration tribunal issues a ruling, the enforcement of that ruling
depends on the cooperation of the involved parties.
• Example: In the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, while the arbitral tribunal
ruled on claims of violations under the Geneva Conventions, it had no real mechanism
to enforce its findings, and there was little practical impact on the ground.
C. Jurisdictional Issues and Legal Frameworks
• Challenge: The Geneva Conventions, while providing a framework for international
humanitarian law, do not establish a clear and robust mechanism for arbitration.
Often, disputes related to the Geneva Conventions are handled by international
courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or regional human rights
bodies instead of arbitration.
• Example: The ICJ's involvement in cases like Nicaragua v. United States or the
Guantanamo Bay detainee case reflects the use of judicial bodies rather than
arbitration to resolve disputes regarding Geneva Conventions violations.
D. Political Will and Consent for Arbitration
• Challenge: Arbitration requires the voluntary consent of the parties involved. In
cases of armed conflict or allegations of war crimes, the parties may be unwilling to
submit to arbitration, particularly if it involves political or military outcomes.
• Example: The U.S. refusal to accept ICJ rulings in the Nicaragua case or the refusal
of India and Pakistan to use arbitration in Kashmir conflicts reflect a lack of
political will for arbitration.
E. Complexity of Conflict and Humanitarian Law Violations
• Challenge: Humanitarian violations and war crimes often involve complex factual
and legal issues, making arbitration difficult. Tribunals may struggle to gather
evidence, especially when parties are engaged in active conflict or when there are
allegations of systematic violations that span large geographical areas.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN

ARBITRAL AWARDS UNDER GENEVA CONVENTION.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act of 2015, There are two avenues
available for the enforcement of foreign awards in India, viz., the New York Convention and
the Geneva Convention, as the case may be.

Sections 53-60 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 contain
provisions relating to foreign awards passed under the Geneva Convention. As per the
Geneva Convention, "foreign award" means an arbitral award on differences relating to
matters considered as commercial under the law in force in India made after the 28th day of
July 1924,- a. in pursuance of an agreement for arbitration to which the Protocol set forth in
 P a g e | 21

the Second Schedule applies, and b. between persons of whom one is subject to the
jurisdiction of someone of such Powers as the Central Government, being satisfied that
reciprocal provisions have been made, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to
be parties to the Convention set forth in the Third Schedule, and of whom the other is subject
to the jurisdiction of some other of the Powers aforesaid, and c. in one of such territories as
the Central Government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, by like
notification, declare to be territories to which the said Convention applies, and for the
purposes of this Chapter, an award shall not be deemed to be final if any d. proceedings for
the purpose of contesting the validity of the award are pending in any country in which it was
made. Section 56 provides that the party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award
shall, at the time of the application, produce before the court (a) original award or a duly
authenticated copy thereof; (b) evidence proving that the award has become final and (c)
evidence to prove that the award has been made in pursuance of a submission to arbitration
that is valid under the law applicable thereto and that the award has been made by the arbitral
tribunal provided for in the submission to arbitration or constituted in the manner agreed upon
by the parties and in conformity with the law governing the arbitration procedure. As per the
new Act, the application for enforcement of a foreign award will now only lie to High Court.
The conditions for enforcement of foreign awards under the Geneva Convention are provided
under Section 57 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. These are as follows:

a. the award has been made in pursuance of a submission to arbitration which is valid
under the law applicable thereto;
b. the subject matter of the award is capable of settlement by arbitration under the law
of India;
c. the award has been made by the arbitral tribunal provided for in the submission to
arbitration or constituted in the manner agreed upon by the parties and in conformity
with the law governing the arbitration procedure;
d. the award has become final in the country in which it has been made, in the sense that
it will not be considered as such if it is open to opposition or appeal or if it is proved
that any proceedings for the purpose of contesting the validity of the award are
pending;
e. the enforcement of the award is not contrary to the public policy or the law of India.

The Amendment Act has restricted the ambit of violation of public policy for international
commercial arbitration to only include those awards that are: - (i) affected by fraud or
corruption,
(ii) in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law,
(iii) conflict with the notions of morality or justice.
However, the said section lays down that even if the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled,
enforcement of the award shall be refused if the Court is satisfied that:- .
a. the award has been annulled in the country in which it was made;
 P a g e | 22

b. b. the party against whom it is sought to use the award was not given notice of the
arbitration proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to present his case; or that,
being under legal incapacity, he was not properly represented;
c. c. the award does not deal with the differences contemplated by or falling within the
terms of the submission to arbitration or that it contains decisions on matters beyond
the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that if the award has not covered
all the differences submitted to the arbitral tribunal, the Court may, if it thinks fit,
postpone such enforcement or grant it subject to such guarantee as the Court may
decide.
Furthermore, if the party against whom the award has been made proves that under the law
governing the arbitration procedure there is any other ground, entitling him to contest the
validity of the award, the Court may, if it thinks fit, either refuse enforcement of the award or
adjourn the consideration thereof, giving such party a reasonable time within which to have
the award annulled by the competent tribunal.

Section 58 provides that where the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable
under this Chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of the Court.

Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards

In the territories of any High Contracting Party to which the present Convention applies, an
arbitral award made in pursuance of an agreement, whether relating to existing or future
differences (hereinafter called "a submission to arbitration") covered by the Protocol on
Arbitration Clauses, opened at Geneva on September 24, 1923, shall be recognized as binding
and shall be enforced in accordance with the rules of the procedure of the territory where the
award is relied upon, provided that the said award has been made in a territory of one of the
High Contracting Parties to which the present Convention applies and between persons who
are subject to the jurisdiction of one of the High Contracting Parties.
To obtain such recognition or enforcement, it shall, further, be necessary:
[Link] the award has been made in pursuance of a submission to arbitration which is valid
under the law applicable thereto;
[Link] the subject-matter of the award is capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of
the country in which the award is sought to be relied upon;
[Link] the award has been made by the Arbitral Tribunal provided for in the submission to
arbitration or constituted in the manner agreed upon by the parties and in conformity with the
law governing the arbitration procedure;
[Link] the award has become final in the country in which it has been made, in the sense that
it will not be considered as such if it is open to opposition, appel or pourvoi en cassation (in
the countries where such forms of procedure exist) or if it is proved that any proceedings for
the purpose of contesting the validity of the award are pending;
[Link] the recognition or enforcement of the award is not contrary to the public policy or to
the principles of the law of the country in which it is sought to be relied upon.
Article 2
 P a g e | 23

Even if the conditions laid down in Article 1 hereof are fulfilled, recognition and enforcement
of the award shall be refused if the Court is satisfied:
[Link] the award has been annulled in the country in which it was made;
[Link] the party against whom it is sought to use the award was not given notice of the
arbitration proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to present his case; or that, being
under a legal incapacity, he was not properly represented;
[Link] the award does not deal with the differences contemplated by or fading within the
terms of the submission to arbitration or that it contains decisions on matters beyond the
scope of the submission to arbitration.
If the award has not covered all the questions submitted to the arbitral tribunal, the competent
authority of the country where recognition or enforcement of the award is sought can, if it
think fit, postpone such recognition or enforcement or grant it subject to such guarantee as
that authority may decide.
Article 3
If the party against whom the award has been made proves that, under the law governing the
arbitration procedure, there is a ground, other than the grounds referred to in Article 1 (a) and
(c), and Article 2 (b) and (c), entitling him to contest the validity of the award in a Court of
Law, the Court may, if it thinks fit, either refuse recognition or enforcement of the award or
adjourn the consideration thereof, giving such party a reasonable time within which to have
the award annulled by the competent tribunal.
Article 4

The party relying upon an award or claiming its enforcement must supply, in particular:
[Link] original award or a copy thereof duly authenticated, according to the requirements of
the law of the country in which it was made;
[Link] or other evidence to prove that the award has become final, in the sense
defined in Article 1 (d), in the country in which it was made;
[Link] necessary, documentary or other evidence to prove that the conditions laid down in
Article 1, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 (a) and (c), have been fulfilled.
A translation of the award and of the other documents mentioned in this Article into the
official language of the country where the award is sought to be relied upon may be
demanded. Such translation must be certified correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the
country to which the party who seeks to rely upon the award belongs or by a sworn translator
of the country where the award is sought to be relied upon.
Article 5
The provisions of the above Articles shall not deprive any interested party of the right of
availing himself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the
treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon.
Article 6
The present Convention applies only to arbitral awards made after the coming into force of
the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, opened at Geneva on September 24th, 1923.
Article 7
 P a g e | 24

The present Convention, which will remain open to the signature of all the signatories of the
Protocol of 1923 on Arbitration Clauses, shall be ratified.
Article 8
The present Convention shall come into force three months after it shall have been ratified on
behalf of two High Contracting Parties. Thereafter, it shall take effects in the case of each
High Contracting Party, three months after the deposit of the ratifications on its behalf with
the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
Article 9
The present Convention may be denounced on behalf of any Member of the League or non-
Member State. Denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Secretary-General of the
League of Nations, who will immediately send a copy thereof, certified to be in conformity
with the notification, to all the other Contracting Parties, at the same time informing them of
the date on which he received it.
The denunciation shall come into force only in respect of the High Contracting Party which
shall have notified it and one year after such notification shall have reached the Secretary-
general of the League of Nations.
The denunciation of the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses shall entail, ipso facto, the
denunciation of the present Convention.
Article 10
The present Convention does not apply to the Colonies, Protectorates or territories under
suzerainty or mandate of any High Contracting Party unless they are specially mentioned.
The application of this Convention to one or more of such Colonies, Protectorates or
territories to which the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, opened at Geneva on September
24th, 1923, applies, can be effected at any time by means of a declaration addressed to the
Secretary-General of the League of Nations by one of the High Contracting Parties.
Such declaration shall take effect three months after the deposit thereof.
The High Contracting Parties can at any time denounce the Convention for all or any of the
Colonies, Protectorates or territories referred to above. Article 9 hereof applies to such
denunciation.
Article 11
A certified copy of the present Convention shall be transmitted by the Secretary-General of
the League of Nations to every Member of the League of Nations and to every non-Member
State which signs the same.
 P a g e | 25

CONCLUSION
The Geneva Conventions, which form the cornerstone of international humanitarian law,
establish rules for the protection of individuals during armed conflicts and set out the
treatment of prisoners of war, civilians, and combatants. While the Conventions primarily
focus on humanitarian protection, they also create a framework for the resolution of disputes
between states regarding their interpretation and application. One avenue for resolving such
disputes is arbitration, which is often used in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems
to address conflicts without resorting to formal litigation or judicial proceedings.

While the Geneva Conventions provide a critical legal framework for protecting civilians
and prisoners in armed conflicts, arbitration remains an underused and challenging
mechanism for resolving disputes arising from violations of humanitarian law. Key
limitations include issues of political sensitivity, national sovereignty, and the enforcement
of arbitral decisions. Cases such as Eritrea-Ethiopia, Nicaragua v. U.S., and Guantanamo
Bay show how disputes often end up in courts or diplomatic negotiations rather than in
formal arbitration. As such, while arbitration can theoretically play a role in addressing
humanitarian law violations, its practical use remains constrained by numerous challenges.

The enforcement of Geneva Conventions in arbitral awards in India operates under the
framework provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. India, being a signatory
to the New York Convention (1958), has a well-established process for enforcing foreign
 P a g e | 26

arbitral awards, including those related to disputes under international humanitarian law.
However, the enforcement of such awards is subject to certain limitations, such as the public
policy exception and the political sensitivity of cases involving violations of the Geneva
Conventions.
While the Arbitration Act provides an avenue for enforcing arbitral awards, including those
related to the Geneva Conventions, the Indian judiciary must ensure that any award
complies with India's domestic laws, international obligations, and public policy
considerations. As a result, while ADR mechanisms such as arbitration can be a tool for
resolving Geneva Conventions-related disputes, the ultimate success of enforcement depends
on legal, political, and diplomatic factors.
The Geneva Conventions are fundamental to protecting human dignity in armed conflicts,
but their enforcement remains challenging, particularly when traditional judicial mechanisms
are unavailable or impractical. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers a valuable set
of tools, such as arbitration, mediation, and fact-finding, that can contribute to the
resolution of disputes and the enforcement of the Conventions.
Although ADR mechanisms do not directly impose legal sanctions like international courts,
they can help interpret the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, encourage state
compliance, and provide neutral forums for resolving disputes peacefully. However, the
effectiveness of ADR in enforcing the Geneva Conventions is often constrained by the need
for state consent, political dynamics, and the lack of binding enforcement.
Ultimately, ADR offers a complementary approach to more formal mechanisms for ensuring
respect for international humanitarian law, but it must be part of a broader framework that
includes international legal obligations, judicial enforcement, and diplomatic efforts.