The article examines the substantive and procedural aspects of the public order clause, which has become classic for all countries. The application of this clause gives grounds for the judicial authorities of the state to recognize the decision of a non-governmental dispute resolution body as illegal or to refuse to recognize a foreign arbitration act; or to refuse to issue a writ of execution for such decisions. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan recommended that the Government consider the possibility of clearly formally legally securing the definition of the term «public order» in the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On Arbitration» «in order to ensure its formal certainty and clarity». The relevance of the topic is due to the increase in appeals from participants in arbitration proceedings for the issuance of writs of execution for arbitration decisions and a large number of appeals to cancel arbitration decisions. In particular, complaints are justified by a violation of public order, or the courts independently see in the legal relationship under consideration facts of violations of public order and in the absence of a foreign element. The novelty of the topic is due to the lack of scientific publications in modern legal literature of Kazakhstan on the legal essence of the content of public order, its legal definition; consideration of examples of the application of the clause on public order in judicial practice. The main conclusions of the study are the recognition of the term «public order» as an evaluative category subject to individual qualification in each case by the courts. The results of the analysis indicate a trend in the judicial practice of Kazakhstan of cases challenging arbitration decisions on the grounds of violation of public order with the participation of residents of Kazakhstan.
Sara Idrysheva (Tue,) studied this question.