Is there a defence of public policy in international arbitration where an award has been awarded by a tribunal in another country?

I disagree. Vikeda wishes to rely on a public policy defence to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Public policy is truly an exceptional defence. Courts have recognized that the defence of public policy must be construed narrowly in light of the overriding purpose of the Convention “to encourage recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries”. In Schreter v. Gasmac Inc., Feldman J. made the following remarks about the defence of public policy at paras. 47 and 48: The concept of imposing our public policy on foreign awards is to guard against enforcement of an award which offends our local principles of justice and fairness in a fundamental way, and in a way which the parties could attribute to the fact that the award was made in another jurisdiction where the procedural or substantive rules diverge markedly from our own, or where there was ignorance or corruption on the part of the tribunal which could not be seen to be tolerated or condoned by our courts. It is true that arbitral awards have been viewed with less confidence than judgments of a court because the procedures of the courts are more regulated and standardized, and judges are sworn to uphold those procedures and to apply the law, while the qualifications and training of arbitrators may diverge greatly. And it is of concern to a court in this jurisdiction that a party to a foreign arbitration may feel that justice was not done or that the award is perverse in law.