CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) Universal, Regional, and National Ways of Regulation of Jurisdiction … covered by such agreements. 16 Moreover, arbitration agreements must relate to sufficiently identified legal relationships either contractual or in tort. 17 The NY Convention does not explicitly require arbitration agreements to be exclusive. 18 A non-exclusive arbitration agreement would permit national litigation to proceed in parallel with the arbitration. 19 The author believes that arbitration agreements under the NY Convention are exclusive in their nature and that the NY Convention does not acknowledge non-exclusive arbitration agreements. “ Although arbitration clauses typically do not provide expressly that ‘all disputes shall be resolved by arbitration, to the exclusion of national courts,’ this negative obligation is the undisputed meaning of virtually all arbitration agreements .” 20 Undoubtedly, an objective of arbitration agreements would be frustrated if parallel national court proceedings were permitted. 21 Moreover, it has been confirmed by literature 22 and case law 23 that the principle of separability applies in terms of the NY Convention, even though it is not expressly regulated by it. 24 This principle implies that the validity of the main contract does not affect the validity 16 International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 56; see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: komentár. New York, 1958 , Wolters Kluwer, 2016, p. 54; see also UNCITRAL. UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). [online]. uncitral.org . 2016. [cit. 30. 12. 2020], p. 48, available at: https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/2016_Guide_on_the_Convention.pdf; see also Wolff, R. New York Convention: convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards of 10 June 1958: article-by-article commentary . München: C. H. Beck, 2019, p. 111. 17 International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 19; see also Kronke, H. et al. Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards: a global commentary on the New York convention . Austin: Wolters Kluwer, 2010, p. 49; see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí, komentár. New York, 1958 , p. 54; see also UNCITRAL. UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). (op. cit. sub 15), 22 Blackaby, N. et al. Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 147; see also Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), pp. 355, 356; see also Fouchard, P. et al. Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on international commercial arbitration . The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999, pp. 201, 202; see also International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 63; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), pp. 151, 187. 23 Ramasamy Athapan and Nandakumar Athappan v. Secretariat of Court, International Chamber of Commerce , Supreme Court in Madras, India, judgment of 29 th October 2008, available at: https://newyorkconvention1958. org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=880; see also Fiona Trust v. Privalov , Court of Appeal in England and Wales, judgment of 24 January 2007, available at: https://archive.onlinedmc.co.uk/fioan_trust_v__primalov_ (hofl).htm; see also China Minmetals Import & Export Co. v. Chi Mei Corporation , U. S. Court of Appeals, Third District, Judgment of 26 June 2003, available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1158356.html. 24 Commentators have reached divergent conclusions regarding the question whether provisions of Art. II(3) and Art. V(1)(a) of the New York Convention compel recognition of the separability doctrine. Some authors take the view that the Convention is “indifferent” to the existence of the separability doctrine. Others conclude that the Convention adopts or requires application of the separability doctrine “by implication”. Born claims that New York Convention rests on the premise that parties may, and ordinarily do, intend their arbitration agreements to be separable, and it requires national courts to give effect, to the parties’ agreement to treat their arbitration clause as separable, source: Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), pp. 355, 356. p. 49; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 112. 18 Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), pp. 1275, 1276. 19 Id . at 1274. 20 Id . at 1275, 1276. 21 Id . at 1275, 1276.

401