Since 20 March 2008, a Parliamentary Initiative is pending before the Swiss Parliament which aims at amending Article 7 of the PILS in the sense that Switzerland would accede to the theory of the so-called "negative effect" of competence-competence. In the ASA Bulletin vol. 3/2010 at pp. 478-485, Pierre-Yves Tschanz recently presented his views on the advisability to vote in favor of the proposed amendment ('De l'opportunité de modifier l'art. 7 LDIP'). The author of the present article considers that a recent case decided by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (BGer 4A_279/2010) gives rise to some critical reflections on the proposal to amend Article 7 of the PILS. Besides a number of legal reservations, the author is not convinced that, as opposed to what the text of the Initiative promises, importing the "negative effect" of competence-competence into Swiss law would boost and further promote Switzerland as a major place for international arbitration. In addition, he believes that it is doubtful whether the proposed amendment would be in the best interests of the Swiss economy. While reducing the risk of parallel proceedings before arbitral tribunals and state courts is a concern that deserves to be supported, the author suggests that the proposed amendment to Article 7 of the PILS does not appear to be the appropriate way to proceed in this matter. Instead of going for a "national solo", it would be much wiser to concentrate the Swiss recourses on helping to develop uniform transnational standards in relation to potential conflicts between arbitral and state court jurisdiction. As a first step, for example, the UNCITRAL could and should prepare a Recommendation regarding the interpretation of Article II(3) of the New York Convention (as it exists for Article II(2) since 2006). By all means, Switzerland should refrain from taking further action in this matter until such time as it is clear how the EU intends to proceed with the "arbitration exception" in the ongoing revision of Brussels I.