article 1, para. 2(4), of the Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention excludes from the Convention's scope of operation ‘arbitration’, without specifying which aspects of arbitration – and whether all or only certain of these – are covered by the exclusion. In the negotiations leading to the accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom to the Convention, the Schlosser Report on Accession explains that there was a divergence of opinion between the United Kingdom and original Convention States as to the extent of the arbitration exclusion, the former supporting a more extensive construction than the latter, leading to a wider exclusion, and that in the end it was decided that the issue should be left to the states themselves to deal with in their implementing legislation.1 Since this invitation to member states was not, however, taken up, the question remains one for interpretation by national courts and, where possible, the European Court of Justice itself under its preliminary interpretative jurisdiction. As will be seen, an opportunity arose for English courts to consider the breadth of the Article 1, para. 2(4), arbitration exclusion, in The Atlantic Emperor ( Marc Rich & Co A.G . v. Societa Italiana Impianti P.A .),2 specifically in the matter of proceedings concerning the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. Subsequent to this, the European Court itself was requested to rule on the question, and its decision can be expected to be delivered in the forthcoming months. In the meantime, therefore, it is proposed to detail what is here believed to be the true position regarding the application or non-application of the Brussels Convention to the following aspects of arbitration: 1. Jurisdiction of arbitrators 2. Procedural applications to the courts prior to, in the course of, or following arbitration, for example, for appointment of arbitrators, for a …