CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Kateřina zabloudilovÁ CYIL 12 (2021) to this rule. 130 In the author’s view, these exceptions must be interpreted restrictively – excessive application of these exceptions could jeopardize the effectiveness of jurisdiction agreements as well as legal certainty. Summary The NY Convention, Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the Hague Convention contain provisions that aim to safeguard parties’ agreement regarding the dispute resolution process. Under all three legal regulations, national courts are obliged to give effect to arbitration or jurisdiction agreements at the request of one of the parties. The difference between the three legal regulations is that the NY Convention itself does not govern the process of giving effect to arbitration agreements which is governed by national law. Contrarily, the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Hague Convention contain specific regulations of such a process. Under the two legal instruments, the chosen court must hear the case even if another court is seized first, while the non-chosen court must stay or dismiss the proceedings. The solution adopted under the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Hague Convention is, however, far from perfect as it poses a risk of tactical litigation. Contracting parties are therefore highly recommended to check the process of referring parties to arbitration under potentially relevant national law. Should the potentially relevant law be more favourable than the process incorporated under the Brussels Ibis Regulation, it may be more convenient to conclude an arbitration agreement and vice versa. Moreover, the Hague Convention regulates exceptions to the rule that the non- chosen court shall suspend or dismiss proceedings that may jeopardize the parties’ original intention and the effectiveness of jurisdiction agreements. From this point of view, the NY Convention seems more advantageous in comparison to the Hague Convention because it does not regulate any exceptions to the rule that national courts shall recognize an arbitration agreement and refer parties to arbitration. Conclusion The NY Convention, Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the Hague Convention provide subjects of international commercial transactions with greater certainty that any disputes will be resolved in the way they had agreed. The understanding of arbitration and jurisdiction agreements under the three legal regulations is very much alike – arbitration and jurisdiction agreements under the NY Convention, Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the Hague Convention are perceived as agreements whereby parties choose a specific forum in which to resolve their dispute. Moreover, the regulation of material and formal validity of jurisdiction and arbitration agreements under the NY Convention, Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the Hague Convention is comparable. The concept of arbitration and jurisdiction agreements differs in requirements regarding their exclusivity. Arbitration agreements under the NY Convention are exclusive in their nature. if, for exceptional reasons beyond the control of the parties, an agreement cannot reasonably be performed. Finally, Art. 6(e) of the Hague Convention comes to effect if the chosen court has decided not to hear the case. 130 Art. 6 of the Hague Convention.

414