Choice of Law Rules Applicable For International Arbitration Agreements

Abstract

The unsettled choice of law issues for preliminary challenges to international arbitration agreements not infrequently spark disputes over the disputes resolution mechanism. This article will examine the efficacy of the traditional choice of law rules widely used in leading jurisdictions covering popular arbitration seats to determine the law for substantive validity of arbitration agreements, i.e., the implied intent test and the closest connection test. Noting these tests fail to produce consistent and predictable results, this study will suggest a practical solution built on a faithful construction of the New York Convention. In addition, the article will briefly discuss about the New York Convention’s form requirements and the choice of law rules applicable to formal validity of arbitration agreements under the UNCITRAL Model Law.