The second factor was the impact of the choice of Brazilian law as the law governing the arbitration agreement; That is, it could not be implemented without the agreement of both parties. It was asserted that if Brazilian law applied to the arbitration agreement, it would only be applicable with the agreement of both parties, and the judge stated that ”the risk is at least serious that an election of Brazilian law would significantly undermine this agreement”. There was no indication that the parties wished to conclude such a unilateral agreement. On this basis, the applicable Brazilian legislation could not be implicit and the issue then turned to the law with the ”closest and most real connection”. Lord Justice Moore-Bick found that an arbitration agreement in London does not have a close legal link with the legal system of the insurance policy, the purpose of which is not linked to that of dispute settlement. Instead, it has its closest and most effective connection with the law of the place where the arbitration is to take place and which exercises the support and supervisory competence necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the procedure. In this case, the arbitration agreement had its closest and most real connection to English law, so English law regulated the arbitration agreement. Article 1 specifies that ”this agreement” (roughly) covers all the contractual conditions that have been established, including Article 14. Since Article 15 provides that ”this Agreement shall be subject [again in bulk] to and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of England”, it is clarified that all the terms of the Agreement, including Article 14, are governed by English law. The answer to the proposition that, if this analysis were correct, any contract containing an applicable law clause would allow an explicit choice of the applicable law of the arbitration clause is essentially the answer given by Andrew Smith J to Arsanovia at . The applicable legal clauses do not necessarily cover the arbitration agreement. This is due to the correct conception of the terms of Articles 1 and 15 taken together. The arbitration agreement is often referred to as the ”cornerstone” of the arbitration process, as it is generally a method of dispute resolution based on the consensus of the parties to resolve future or current disputes.
under a substantive rule of international arbitration law, the cause of arbitration is legally independent of the principal contract in which it is contained or to which it relates, and unless there is a mandatory provision of French law or international public policy according to which its existence and validity depend solely on the common intention of the parties; without the need to refer to a national law But what happens if an arbitration agreement is part of an important contract such as an employment contract? Should you sign it? A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Singapore highlights the importance of the arbitration agreement if the seat of arbitration and the law of the underlying contract are not identical. Third parties may agree at any time to be bound by this arbitration agreement in any document sent to the parties to this agreement (agreement). The Court of Appeal adopted guidelines on this subject in sulamérica against Enesa. Following the rules of English common law for determining the applicable law in general, the applicable law of an arbitration agreement must be determined by a three-step study of the explicit choice; implicit choice; and the closest and most real connection.. . .