CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) Universal, Regional, and National Ways of Regulation of Jurisdiction … III. The Formal Validity of Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements The following chapter evaluates the concept of formal validity of jurisdiction and arbitration agreements under the NY Convention, Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the Hague Convention. The NY Convention The NY Convention requires arbitration agreements to be “ in writing ”, 67 and further stipulates that: “ The term ‘agreement in writing’ shall include an arbitral clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams .” 68 To begin with, it stems from the wording of the NY Convention that the formal requirement is satisfied if an arbitration agreement 69 is signed by both parties. 70 Therefore, courts generally refuse to enforce arbitration agreements against parties that have not signed them. 71 Moreover, it is common practice that the main contractual document refers to standard terms and conditions (ST&C) containing an arbitration agreement. 72 The Supreme Court of Queensland in its decision of 27 June 2000, Commonwealth Development Corp v. Montague , as well as the District Court for Western District of Washington in its decision of 19 May 2000, Bothell v. Hitachi Zosen Corp ., held that an arbitration agreement contained in ST&C is valid if the main contract refers to ST&C which are attached to it and the other party could reasonably take note of the content of ST&C. 73 Next, the formal requirement is satisfied if an arbitration agreement 74 is contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams 75 which need not be manually signed. 76 The NY Convention 67 Art. II(1) of the NY Convention. 68 Art. II(2) of the NY Convention. 69 Or an arbitration clause incorporated in a contract. 70 International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 45; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 102. 71 In case law Concordia Trading B.V. v. Nantong Gangde Oil Co., Ltd , Supreme People’s Court in China, judgment of 3 August 2009, available at: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1501; see also: Kahn Lucas Lancaster, Inc. v. Lark International Ltd , U. S. Court of Appeals, Second District, judgment of 29 July 1999, available at: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1134&opac_ view=2. In literature UNCITRAL. UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). (op. cit. sub 15), p. 53. 72 International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 46. 73 Commonwealth Development Corp v. Montague , Supreme Court in Queensland, Australia, judgment of 27 June 2000, available at: https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=796; see also Bothell v. Hitachi Zosen Corp. , U. S. District Court for Western District of Washington, judgment of 19 May 2000, available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/97/1048/2339780/ Born, however, provides that: “ These provisions (Art. II Para. 1 of New York Convention) preclude Contracting States from imposing discriminatory or idiosyncratic rules of substantive validity on international arbitration agreements. Under these standards, the better view is that a blanket rule of national law, invalidating any arbitration agreement incorporated by a general reference to another instrument, would be invalid .” Source Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 820; see also see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: (New York, 1958): komentár , p. 53. 74 Or an arbitration clause incorporated in a contract. 75 Art. II(2) of the NY Convention. 76 In literature Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 680; see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: (New York, 1958): komentár , p. 56; see also Rozehnalová, N. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 171; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 126. In case law Compagnie de Navigation et Transports SA v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, Tribunal Federal in Switzerland, judgment of 16 January 1995,

407