Can a U.S. Court Refuse to Recognize or Enforce an International Arbitration Award Under the New York Convention? U.S. Federal Courts, Eleventh Circuit, and Fourth Circuit

Yes—but only on narrow, treaty-based grounds, and the party resisting recognition ordinarily carries the burden of proving them. A U.S. court does not rehear the international arbitration or refuse enforcement merely because the arbitrators may have misread the contract, weighed evidence differently, or applied law in a way the losing party considers incorrect.

The analysis changes materially depending on where the arbitration was seated. A U.S. court sitting in the primary jurisdiction may have authority to set aside a U.S.-seated award under applicable vacatur law, while a U.S. court acting only as a secondary enforcement jurisdiction generally decides whether to recognize a foreign award under the limited defenses in Article V of the Convention.

The Answer Depends On…

• whether the award is foreign or “nondomestic” and falls under the Convention as implemented by Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act;

• the juridical seat of arbitration and the law under which the award was made;

• whether the U.S. court is exercising primary jurisdiction or secondary enforcement jurisdiction;

• whether the applicant seeks confirmation, recognition, enforcement against assets, or all three;

• whether the resisting party timely pursued set-aside relief in the primary jurisdiction;

• whether a U.S.-seated Convention award is also subject to FAA Chapter 1 vacatur grounds;

• whether the arbitration agreement was valid and binding on the party against whom the award is invoked;

• whether that party received proper notice and a meaningful opportunity to present its case;

• whether the award exceeded the scope of the parties’ submission to arbitration;

• whether the tribunal’s composition or procedure violated the parties’ agreement or applicable seat law;

• whether the award is binding or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the primary jurisdiction;

• whether the subject matter is arbitrable under U.S. law;

• whether enforcement would violate the forum’s most basic, well-defined public policy;

• whether the award creditor supplied the award, arbitration agreement, certifications, and translations required for recognition;

• whether a sovereign party, sovereign assets, sanctions regime, bankruptcy, or parallel foreign proceeding adds another legal layer;

• whether the correct federal district, personal jurisdiction, service, venue, and asset-enforcement requirements have been satisfied; and

• whether the time to confirm, oppose, vacate, seek a stay, or appeal has expired.

The Convention Starts With a Strong Enforcement Rule

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—commonly called the New York Convention—creates a uniform framework for enforcing covered arbitration agreements and awards across contracting states. In the United States, Congress implemented the Convention through Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208.

Section 207 provides the basic command: a court “shall confirm” an award falling under the Convention unless it finds a Convention ground for refusal or deferral. This produces a strong presumption favoring recognition and a deliberately limited judicial role.

The confirmation court is not an appellate tribunal over the arbitrators. It generally does not ask:

• whether it would have interpreted the contract differently;

• whether another witness was more credible;

• whether the tribunal selected the best damages methodology;

• whether the reasoning was persuasive in every respect; or

• whether ordinary legal error occurred.

The question is whether the resisting party has established a recognized ground that permits refusal under the governing treaty and statutes.

First Determine Whether the Award Falls Under the Convention

Under 9 U.S.C. § 202, an arbitral award arising from a commercial legal relationship can fall under the Convention. An entirely domestic relationship between U.S. citizens ordinarily does not fall under it unless the relationship has a qualifying foreign connection—for example, property or contemplated performance abroad or another reasonable relation with a foreign state.

This means the Convention may cover:

• an award made outside the United States;

• an award between a U.S. company and a foreign company;

• certain U.S.-seated awards involving foreign parties or performance; and

• qualifying maritime, construction, distribution, licensing, finance, energy, investment, or other commercial disputes.

Classification matters because it affects subject-matter jurisdiction, removal, venue, deadlines, available defenses, and whether Chapter 1 of the FAA supplements Chapter 2.

Primary and Secondary Jurisdiction: The Critical Divide

Primary jurisdiction

Courts in the country where the arbitration was seated—or under whose arbitral law the award was made—generally exercise primary jurisdiction. A primary-jurisdiction court may have authority to annul or set aside the award under the governing arbitration law.

For a Convention award made in the United States, the Eleventh Circuit held en banc in Corporación AIC, S.A. v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A. that FAA Chapter 1 supplies grounds for vacatur because Chapter 1 applies residually through 9 U.S.C. § 208 when it does not conflict with Chapter 2 or the Convention. That decision overruled inconsistent Eleventh Circuit precedent that had treated Convention defenses as the exclusive grounds in that primary-jurisdiction setting.

Secondary jurisdiction

A court in another contracting state generally has secondary jurisdiction. It ordinarily cannot annul the award worldwide. It decides whether the award will be recognized and enforced in that country, applying Article V’s limited defenses.

This distinction prevents a party from treating every enforcement country as a fresh forum for vacatur. It also makes seat selection consequential long before a dispute arises.

The Article V(1) Defenses the Award Debtor Must Prove

Article V(1) identifies defenses that must ordinarily be established by the party resisting the award.

1. Incapacity or invalid arbitration agreement

Recognition may be refused if a party lacked capacity or if the arbitration agreement was invalid under the law selected by the parties—or, absent such a selection, under the law of the country where the award was made.

This defense requires careful choice-of-law analysis. It is not enough to say that the contract would be invalid under the law the resisting party now prefers. The court must identify the law Article V directs it to apply, the agreement’s formation and scope, and the party or nonsignatory against whom enforcement is sought.

The Supreme Court’s decision in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC confirms that the Convention does not categorically displace domestic doctrines that may permit a nonsignatory to enforce an arbitration agreement. But GE Energy concerned enforcement of the agreement, not an automatic rule that every nonsignatory is bound by an eventual award. Consent, applicable domestic law, due process, and the award’s scope still require analysis.

2. Lack of proper notice or inability to present the case

Article V(1)(b) addresses improper notice of the arbitrator’s appointment or proceedings and circumstances in which a party was otherwise unable to present its case.

The defense is narrow. It ordinarily requires a serious denial of the opportunity to be heard—not ordinary disagreement with case management, evidentiary limits, scheduling, or the tribunal’s assessment of the proof.

Relevant evidence may include:

• the arbitration demand and proof of delivery;

• notices of appointment and hearing;

• procedural orders and scheduling communications;

• requests for adjournment or additional submissions;

• transcripts and hearing recordings;

• evidence the tribunal excluded or declined to receive; and

• contemporaneous objections showing prejudice.

A party that participated without making a timely objection may face waiver or credibility problems when later characterizing the procedure as fundamentally unfair.

3. The award exceeded the submission to arbitration

Article V(1)(c) permits refusal when an award decides a dispute not contemplated by, or beyond the scope of, the submission to arbitration. The analysis focuses on the arbitration clause, submitted claims and defenses, terms of reference if any, procedural orders, and the relief actually awarded.

This is not a general merits-error defense. An arbitrator can decide an issue incorrectly while still acting within the submitted dispute.

Article V also permits severability. If the portion addressing matters properly submitted can be separated from the portion outside the submission, the proper portion may still be recognized and enforced.

4. Improper tribunal composition or arbitral procedure

Under Article V(1)(d), recognition may be refused if the tribunal’s composition or procedure did not conform to the parties’ agreement or, absent an applicable agreement, the law of the arbitral seat.

The court should begin with the parties’ chosen rules and appointment mechanism. Questions may include:

• the number and qualifications of arbitrators;

• appointment, replacement, or challenge procedures;

• agreed institutional rules;

• deadlines and hearing format;

• disclosure obligations; and

• whether the challenged departure was timely raised and material.

Not every technical irregularity justifies nonrecognition. Courts commonly evaluate whether the agreed procedure was reasonably followed and whether the alleged departure affected the integrity of the process.

In its 2026 unpublished decision in Adserballe & Knudsen A/S v. Facilities Development Corp., the Fourth Circuit affirmed enforcement of a Danish award and rejected challenges based on both public policy and tribunal composition. Although unpublished and therefore not binding Fourth Circuit precedent, the decision provides a current illustration of the Convention’s narrow defenses.

5. The award is not binding, or it was set aside or suspended

Article V(1)(e) permits refusal when the award has not become binding or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the primary jurisdiction.

This ground makes foreign set-aside proceedings strategically important. But filing a challenge abroad does not automatically halt the U.S. case. Under Article VI, the U.S. court may adjourn its decision and may require suitable security.

Counsel should provide authenticated orders, reliable translations, the status of foreign proceedings, and foreign-law materials explaining the effect of the foreign court’s ruling.

The Two Article V(2) Grounds the Court May Consider

Article V(2) addresses matters the enforcing court may consider under its own law.

1. Nonarbitrability

Recognition may be refused if the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under U.S. law. The category is narrow because federal policy permits arbitration of many statutory and commercial disputes.

The question is not whether one party now prefers court. It is whether U.S. law reserves that category of dispute for judicial or governmental resolution despite the parties’ agreement.

2. Public policy

Article V(2)(b) permits refusal when recognition or enforcement would be contrary to U.S. public policy. Courts construe this defense narrowly to protect the Convention’s pro-enforcement purpose.

The resisting party generally must identify a well-defined and dominant policy touching the forum’s most basic notions of morality and justice. It is usually insufficient to argue that:

• the arbitrators committed legal error;

• the tribunal applied foreign law rather than U.S. law;

• the result would have differed in federal court;

• the damages are large;

• the award’s reasoning is incomplete; or

• enforcement disadvantages a U.S. party.

In Cvoro v. Carnival Corp., the Eleventh Circuit rejected a public-policy defense even though the foreign-law remedy differed from the remedy the claimant sought under U.S. maritime law. The court emphasized the narrowness of Article V(2)(b) and the strong policy favoring enforcement of international awards.

The Eleventh Circuit again described the public-policy defense as narrowly construed and rarely successful in Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panamá.

Article IV Documents, Authentication, and Translation

The award creditor should not treat the filing package as an afterthought. Article IV requires the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy, along with the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy. If those materials are not in an official language of the enforcing country, a certified translation may be required.

In Reddy v. Buttar, the Fourth Circuit held that the Convention’s documentary requirements were not conditions of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court nevertheless addressed compliance and affirmed enforcement of a Singapore award. The practical lesson is that a curable documentation issue should be corrected promptly rather than allowed to become a threshold battle.

The filing record may need:

• the complete award and any correction or addendum;

• the executed arbitration agreement;

• institutional certification;

• proof that the award is final or binding;

• certified translations;

• the applicable arbitral rules;

• evidence of service and participation;

• foreign set-aside or confirmation orders; and

• declarations establishing authenticity and procedural history.

Federal Jurisdiction, Venue, Removal, and Personal Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Under 9 U.S.C. § 203, an action or proceeding falling under the Convention arises under federal law, and federal district courts have original jurisdiction regardless of the amount in controversy.

That does not eliminate other threshold requirements. The court may still need personal jurisdiction over the award debtor, jurisdiction over property, valid service, and a justiciable enforcement dispute.

Venue

Section 204 provides Convention-specific venue rules. Counsel should evaluate the arbitral seat, location where the dispute could have been litigated absent the agreement, the defendant’s contacts, and where assets are located.

Removal

Section 205 supplies unusually broad removal authority for state-court actions relating to arbitration agreements or awards falling under the Convention. Timing and pleading rules remain important, and the relationship to the Convention should be articulated rather than assumed.

Sovereign parties and assets

If a foreign state or instrumentality is involved, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may govern jurisdiction, service, and attachment or execution. An arbitration exception to jurisdictional immunity does not automatically make every sovereign asset available for execution. Confirmation and collection can require separate analyses.

Deadlines: Confirmation, Vacatur, Opposition, and Appeal

Three years to seek confirmation

FAA § 207 allows a party to apply to confirm a Convention award within three years after the award is made. This differs from the one-year language governing domestic awards under FAA Chapter 1.

The award creditor should not wait merely because three years are available. Delay can affect asset location, interest, competing creditors, insolvency, foreign proceedings, evidence, and settlement leverage.

Three months may govern U.S.-seated vacatur

FAA § 12 generally requires service of notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct within three months after the award is filed or delivered. For a Convention award made in the United States, Corporación AIC makes Chapter 1 vacatur doctrine especially important in the Eleventh Circuit.

The Eleventh Circuit’s 2024 decision in Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A. illustrates the need to classify objections correctly. Although the award debtor had not filed a timely vacatur motion, the court held that it could still assert Article V’s public-policy defense at confirmation because public policy is not a Chapter 1 vacatur ground. The defense nevertheless failed on the merits because it attacked alleged illegality in the underlying contract rather than showing that recognition or enforcement of the award itself violated U.S. public policy. Other objections that could and should have been raised through timely vacatur may face a different result.

Opposition deadlines

Once a confirmation petition is filed, court rules and scheduling orders may create a much shorter response deadline than the outer Convention or FAA periods. A party served with a petition should not assume that the three-year confirmation period gives it additional time to oppose.

Appeal deadline

A final federal judgment confirming or refusing an award is generally appealable. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) ordinarily provides 30 days to appeal in a civil case, or 60 days when the United States or a qualifying federal party is involved. Timely motions listed in Rule 4(a)(4) can affect when the appeal period runs.

FAA § 16 separately governs appellate review of arbitration-related orders. Whether an order is immediately appealable depends on what the district court actually ordered—confirmation, denial, vacatur, a stay, an order compelling arbitration, or another form of relief.

What Standards Apply on Appeal?

The appellate court generally reviews legal interpretations of the Convention and FAA de novo. It may review underlying factual findings for clear error and discretionary case-management or evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.

Common appellate issues include:

Issue	Typical appellate treatment
Whether the award falls under the Convention	De novo legal review, with appropriate treatment of underlying facts
Interpretation of Article V or FAA Chapter 2	De novo
Interpretation of an unambiguous arbitration agreement	Often de novo
Historical facts concerning notice, consent, waiver, or procedure	Clear-error review after a bench determination
U.S. public-policy defense	Generally treated as a legal question reviewed de novo
Decision to adjourn enforcement under Article VI	Commonly discretionary
Summary judgment confirming an award	De novo under Rule 56 standards

The narrow substantive grounds do not make the appellate record unimportant. The panel still needs the agreement, award, procedural history, preserved objections, translations, foreign decisions, and district court’s reasoning.

Evidence and Record Development

An award debtor should assemble the Article V record before opposing confirmation. The court of appeals ordinarily will not receive evidence that was never presented to the district court.

Potential record materials include:

• signed contracts, amendments, and arbitration clauses;

• evidence governing nonsignatory status, assignment, succession, or agency;

• institutional rules and tribunal appointment records;

• arbitrator disclosures and challenge decisions;

• notices, delivery records, procedural orders, and hearing transcripts;

• excluded evidence and contemporaneous objections;

• pleadings defining the submitted dispute;

• the final award, dissent, correction, or interpretation;

• seat-law authorities and Rule 44.1 foreign-law submissions;

• set-aside filings, orders, and certified translations;

• declarations addressing authenticity and foreign procedure;

• sanctions, export-control, or public-policy materials; and

• asset and jurisdictional evidence relevant to enforcement.

General allegations of unfairness rarely satisfy Article V. The evidence should connect a specific procedural or jurisdictional defect to the treaty language and explain why the defect was preserved and material.

Can the U.S. Court Pause Enforcement While a Foreign Challenge Proceeds?

Yes, potentially. Article VI permits the enforcement court to adjourn its decision when a competent authority in the primary jurisdiction is considering an application to set aside or suspend the award. The court may also order suitable security at the award creditor’s request.

The stay analysis may consider:

• the status and apparent seriousness of the foreign challenge;

• whether the foreign proceeding is being pursued diligently;

• the Convention’s interest in prompt enforcement;

• prejudice from delay;

• asset dissipation or insolvency risk;

• whether security can protect the award creditor; and

• the likely duration of the foreign proceeding.

After confirmation, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 govern stays of the U.S. judgment and requests for appellate relief. Filing a notice of appeal does not itself provide a stay for the full appeal.

Common Mistakes When Resisting Enforcement

1. Re-arguing the merits

Article V is not an invitation to retry contract interpretation, causation, damages, or witness credibility.

2. Ignoring the arbitral seat

The seat determines which courts can entertain annulment and which law may govern a primary-jurisdiction challenge.

3. Missing a vacatur deadline

Waiting for the winner to seek confirmation may forfeit arguments that required a timely motion in the primary jurisdiction.

4. Using “public policy” as a catchall

The defense is narrow. A disagreement with foreign law or the tribunal’s result ordinarily is not enough.

5. Failing to object during arbitration

Participation without a timely procedural, jurisdictional, or composition objection can support waiver arguments.

6. Submitting incomplete or unreliable foreign materials

Missing certifications, poor translations, or unexplained foreign orders can prevent the court from evaluating the defense.

7. Confusing recognition with collection

A confirmed award becomes a U.S. judgment, but locating assets, obtaining discovery, overcoming immunity, establishing alter-ego liability, and executing against property may require additional proceedings.

Possible Outcomes

A U.S. court may:

• confirm and recognize the award in full;

• refuse recognition under a proven Article V defense;

• recognize only the severable portion within the submission to arbitration;

• adjourn the decision while a primary-jurisdiction challenge proceeds;

• require security during an adjournment;

• deny a U.S.-seated vacatur motion and confirm the award;

• vacate a U.S.-seated award under an applicable FAA Chapter 1 ground;

• dismiss or transfer for a threshold jurisdictional or venue defect; or

• enter judgment and allow postjudgment discovery and execution.

On appeal, the Fourth or Eleventh Circuit may affirm, reverse, remand for findings, narrow the judgment, or address a threshold issue without reaching every Article V defense.

Authority Block: New York Convention Recognition and Enforcement

Key authorities include:

• Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Articles III–VI: recognition procedure, required documents, defenses, and adjournment pending set-aside proceedings.

• 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208: U.S. implementation of the Convention, scope, jurisdiction, venue, removal, confirmation, and residual application of FAA Chapter 1.

• 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–12: Chapter 1 vacatur grounds and the three-month notice period relevant to qualifying primary-jurisdiction challenges.

• 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6): the FSIA arbitration exception when a foreign state or instrumentality is involved.

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 44.1, 56, 58, 62, and 69: foreign law, summary judgment, entry and stay of judgment, and execution.

• Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3, 4, and 8; 9 U.S.C. § 16: appellate timing and review of arbitration-related orders.

• Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (1974): federal policy supporting international arbitration agreements.

• GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 590 U.S. 432 (2020): the Convention does not categorically prohibit applying domestic equitable-estoppel doctrines to nonsignatory enforcement of an arbitration agreement.

• Corporación AIC, S.A. v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., 66 F.4th 876 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc): FAA Chapter 1 grounds apply to vacatur of a U.S.-seated Convention award in primary jurisdiction.

• Cvoro v. Carnival Corp., 941 F.3d 487 (11th Cir. 2019): narrow construction of the Article V public-policy defense.

• Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panamá, 78 F.4th 1252 (11th Cir. 2023): rejection of Convention challenges, including a narrowly construed public-policy defense.

• Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 21-14504 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024): the distinction between Chapter 1 vacatur grounds and an Article V public-policy defense raised at confirmation.

• Reddy v. Buttar, 38 F.4th 393 (4th Cir. 2022): Convention jurisdiction, Article IV documentation, and enforcement of a Singapore award.

• Adserballe & Knudsen A/S v. Facilities Development Corp., No. 25-1604 (4th Cir. Apr. 10, 2026) (unpublished): rejection of public-policy and tribunal-composition defenses to a Danish award.

The governing law should be confirmed under current circuit precedent, the arbitral seat, the award’s date and status, and the precise relief requested.

Biazzo Law’s Appellate-Aware Approach

International award litigation requires more than reciting Article V. A serious assessment connects treaty text to the arbitration agreement, seat law, procedural record, foreign proceedings, U.S. jurisdiction, assets, deadlines, and the standard the court of appeals will apply.

Biazzo Law approaches these disputes through an appellate-aware litigation model that includes:

• federal litigation and appeals in the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits;

• Florida and North Carolina litigation involving contracts, enforcement, and complex commercial disputes;

• early issue preservation and development of a reviewable record;

• injunction and stay readiness when assets, enforcement, or parallel proceedings create urgency;

• Rule 44.1 analysis when foreign law affects validity, procedure, or set-aside proceedings; and

• a U.S. Supreme Court and amicus lens when a case presents a recurring treaty, FAA, sovereign-immunity, or circuit-conflict question.

For the award creditor, the objective may be prompt confirmation, security, asset discovery, and a judgment that will withstand appeal. For the award debtor, the objective may be a timely, evidence-based Article V defense, coordinated primary-jurisdiction relief, or a stay that preserves meaningful review. Either position should be evaluated before a statutory or court-ordered deadline closes the available path.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a U.S. court refuse enforcement because the arbitrators made a legal error?

Ordinarily, no. Article V does not authorize general merits review. The resisting party must connect the alleged problem to a recognized defense, such as invalid agreement, inability to present the case, excess of authority, improper procedure, nonarbitrability, or narrowly defined public policy.

What is the difference between vacating and refusing to recognize an award?

Vacatur or annulment is generally relief available in the primary jurisdiction and can affect the award’s legal status. A secondary-jurisdiction court ordinarily decides only whether to recognize and enforce the award within that country.

How long does a party have to confirm a Convention award in the United States?

FAA § 207 generally permits an application within three years after the award is made. Other practical and procedural deadlines may arise much earlier.

Can a party wait for confirmation proceedings before challenging a U.S.-seated award?

That is dangerous. FAA § 12 generally imposes a three-month service deadline for a motion to vacate, modify, or correct. Circuit precedent may prevent an untimely challenge from being repackaged as a defense to confirmation.

Is the public-policy defense broad enough to cover an unfair result?

No. Courts construe it narrowly. The alleged conflict must implicate fundamental, well-defined public policy—not ordinary legal error, a different foreign remedy, or dissatisfaction with the outcome.

What happens if the award is being challenged in the country of the arbitral seat?

The U.S. court may adjourn the recognition decision under Article VI and may require security. A foreign challenge does not automatically stay the U.S. proceeding.

Does confirming an award guarantee collection in the United States?

No. Confirmation produces an enforceable judgment, but asset discovery, execution, priority disputes, sovereign immunity, alter-ego theories, bankruptcy, and state exemption law may affect collection.

Can the order confirming or refusing the award be appealed?

Generally, a final confirmation judgment or final refusal can be appealed. The notice deadline is usually governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, while FAA § 16 affects which arbitration-related orders are immediately appealable.

Evaluate the Award, Seat, Defenses, and Assets Together

An international arbitration award should be reviewed as both a treaty instrument and a potential U.S. judgment. The decisive questions are often where the award was made, whether a primary-jurisdiction challenge remains timely, which Article V defense is supported by evidence, where the debtor and assets are located, and what relief can be preserved through appeal.

Learn more about Biazzo Law’s civil litigation and enforcement practice. Related guidance addresses vacating an arbitration award for evident partiality or inadequate disclosure and foreign-judgment and international-award enforcement in Florida or North Carolina.

Schedule a litigation strategy review to evaluate a Convention award, Article V defense, confirmation petition, vacatur deadline, stay request, asset-enforcement plan, or related Fourth or Eleventh Circuit appeal.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. International-arbitration deadlines, defenses, jurisdiction, service, and enforcement rights are fact-specific and should be evaluated promptly under current law.