CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) Universal, Regional, and National Ways of Regulation of Jurisdiction … wider; it is, however, an exhaustive list. The list of admitted forms of arbitration agreements under the NY Convention is narrower; it can nonetheless be extended. From this point of view, it does not matter which legal regulation governs the formal validity of jurisdiction or arbitration agreement. IV. The Effects of Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements The following chapter evaluates the effects of jurisdiction and arbitration agreements under the NY Convention, Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the Hague Convention. The NY Convention As Born states: “ The most fundamental objective and effect of international arbitration agreements is to obligate the parties to participate cooperatively and in good faith in the resolution of their disputes by arbitration pursuant to that agreement .” 102 Rozehnalová provides that the purpose of arbitration agreements would be frustrated if one party could unilaterally avoid arbitration simply by bringing its claim in a court. 103 It is therefore essential to ensure that national courts of contracting states give effect to parties’ arbitration agreements. 104 Thus, the NY Convention obliges national courts to recognize arbitration agreements and to refer the parties to arbitration if they are seized in a matter in respect of which the parties have concluded such agreement. 105 The NY Convention leaves no discretion in this respect. 106 National courts shall refer the parties to arbitration at the request of one of them, which excludes this being done on the court’s motion. 107 The NY Convention, however, does not govern the process of the referral to arbitration which has to be governed by national arbitration or procedural law. 108 In continental law jurisdiction courts have adopted an approach that consists in declining the jurisdiction in the 102 Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 1253. 103 Rozehnalová, N. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 192; see also see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: (New York, 1958): komentár , p. 58. 104 International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 36. 105 Art. II.1 and II.3 of the NY Convention. In case law see also: Mccreary Tire & Rubber Company v. Ceat S.p.a., Appellant, v. Mellon Bank, N.a. Garnishee , U. S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, judgment of 10 June 1974, available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/501/1032/254893/; see also Intergen N.v. v. Eric F. Grina, U. S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, judgment of 29 July 2003, available at: https://law.justia. com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/344/134/603027/. 106 In literature Born, B. G. (op. cit. sub 1), p. 1277; see also International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 38; see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: (New York, 1958): komentár , p. 52; see also Paulsson, M. (op. cit. sub 57), p. 41; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 155. In case law Mccreary Tire & Rubber Company v. Ceat S.p.a. (op. cit. sub 104); see also Intergen N.v. v. Eric F. Grina, (op. cit. sub 104). 107 Art. II(3) of the NY Convention; see also International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 38; see also see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: (New York, 1958): komentár , p. 59; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 181. 108 Kronke, H. (op. cit. sub 16), p. 109; see also International Council for Commercial Arbitration. (op. cit. sub 14), p. 38; see also Mičinský, Olík. Dohovor o uznaní a výkone cudzích rozhodcovských rozhodnutí: (New York, 1958): komentár , p. 62; see also Wolff, R. (op. cit. sub 15), p. 197.

411