Court litigation over the existence or validity of arbitration agreements is a major threat to the efficacy of international commercial arbitration. While New York Convention Article II(3) requires a court to “refer the parties to arbitration” when faced with a valid and effective arbitration agreement, it fails to provide any guidance with respect to the process for answering that question, thus leaving the issue to national law. A recalcitrant respondent may, therefore, have a variety of options for court challenges—based on a disparate array of national laws—in seeking to delay or at least complicate any claims subject to arbitration. This paper briefly surveys the problem, as well as a few current proposed solutions, and then proposes its own novel solution in the form of a new convention making arbitration the default legal rule for resolution of international commercial disputes.
- Arbitration,
- Agreement,
- Commercial,
- Competence-compliance,
- FAA,
- Federal Arbitration Act,
- New York Convention,
- recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards,
- International,
- Jurisdiction,
- Graves,
- Jack Graves,
- litigation,
- Competence,
- international commercial arbitration,
- negative competence-competence,
- competence-competence,
- UNCITRAL
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/jack_graves/9/