The public policy exception is inherently a fluid device. Its content is basically left to each State. A shared public policy is an exception. Therefore, the obligation of uniform interpretation, as provided in Article 20 of the 2019 Judgments Convention, will have an inherent limit here. Moreover, the Convention leaves some important issues, including procedure, to national rules. Each requested State retains a discretion to invoke the Convention grounds of refusal in a concrete case, and on whether to make an ex officio inquiry or have the parties prove those refusal grounds. The Convention also provides for the concrete applications of the public policy exception, following the model of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. Here, a purely grammatical reading may create some peripheral problems, especially with the specific defences of conflicting judgments and parallel proceedings. Solutions may be found in the method of purposive interpretation and some general principles, particularly the evasion of the law and the abuse of rights, before resorting to the public policy defence.

中文翻译：

---

新的 2019 年 HCCH 判决公约下的公共政策例外

公共政策例外本质上是一种流动装置。其内容基本上留给每个国家。共享的公共政策是一个例外。因此，《2019 年判决公约》第 20 条规定的统一解释义务在此具有内在限制。此外，公约将一些重要问题，包括程序问题，留给了国家规则。每个被请求国保留在具体案件中援引《公约》拒绝理由的酌处权，以及是否进行当然调查或让当事方证明这些拒绝理由。该公约还按照 2005 年《选择法院公约》的模式规定了公共政策例外的具体应用。在这里，纯粹的语法阅读可能会产生一些外围问题，尤其是对相互冲突的判决和平行诉讼的具体抗辩。在诉诸公共政策辩护之前，可以通过有目的的解释和一些一般原则，特别是规避法律和滥用权利的方法找到解决办法。