Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, giving one party a right to choose the forum for litigation after a dispute has already arisen, are widespread in international commercial contracting. And yet for close to a decade their enforceability and effects under EU law have been uncertain, with seven different competing decisions from France''s highest court progressively contributing to the murky waters. From the interpretation of material changes to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, to obiter comments by English judges as to whether the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention on ''exclusive'' jurisdiction clauses applies to asymmetric clauses, how can lawyers balance certainty, flexibility, and risk in this difficult legal landscape?This book explores this conundrum and aims to bring clarity to the current law on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in the EU, England, and Contracting States to the Hague Convention 2005. It seeks to prompt practitioners and scholars to reflect carefully and critically on how and why asymmetric clauses are used, whether courts will -and should- hold businesses to them, and how both the law and the clauses themselves could be better designed in the future.

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, giving one party a right to choose the forum for litigation after a dispute has already arisen, are widespread in international commercial contracting. And yet for close to a decade their enforceability and effects under EU law have been uncertain, with seven different competing decisions from France''s highest court progressively contributing to the murky waters. From the interpretation of material changes to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, to obiter comments by English judges as to whether the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention on ''exclusive'' jurisdiction clauses applies to asymmetric clauses, how can lawyers balance certainty, flexibility, and risk in this difficult legal landscape?This book explores this conundrum and aims to bring clarity to the current law on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in the EU, England, and Contracting States to the Hague Convention 2005. It seeks to prompt practitioners and scholars to reflect carefully and critically on how and why asymmetric clauses are used, whether courts will -and should- hold businesses to them, and how both the law and the clauses themselves could be better designed in the future.

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, giving one party a right to choose the forum for litigation after a dispute has already arisen, are widespread in international commercial contracting. And yet for close to a decade their enforceability and effects under EU law have been uncertain, with seven different competing decisions from France's highest court progressively contributing to the murky waters. From the interpretation of material changes to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, to obiter comments by English judges as to whether the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention on 'exclusive' jurisdiction clauses applies to asymmetric clauses, how can lawyers balance certainty, flexibility, and risk in this difficult legal landscape?This book explores this conundrum and aims to bring clarity to the current law on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in the EU, England, and Contracting States to the Hague Convention 2005. It seeks to prompt practitioners and scholars to reflect carefully and critically on how and why asymmetric clauses are used, whether courts will -and should- hold businesses to them, and how both the law and the clauses themselves could be better designed in the future.

This Commentary provides comprehensive analysis of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements that came into force in October 2015. Drawing on the contributors’ expertise from a range of legal traditions, including Commonwealth and US common law, as well as French and German civil law traditions, it presents an article-by-article examination of the Convention. Each provision is carefully examined using diverse perspectives to ensure an in-depth understanding of its history, context and meaning. The Commentary outlines past scholarly research and controversies arising from interpretation as well as indicating avenues for future study.Key Features:Provides an international and comparative perspective on the interpretation of the ConventionIncludes expansive reference to case law and legal literature, in a variety of languages, from across the globeAnalyses the ways in which the Convention is implemented in several jurisdictionsPresents insights into the negotiation of the Convention and the Hague Conference processThis Commentary is a crucial reference tool for practitioners in international dispute resolution and private international law. It is also a vital resource for scholars and students specialising in international dispute resolution in Asia, Europe, and the Americas.

This Commentary provides comprehensive analysis of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements that came into force in October 2015. Drawing on the contributors' expertise from a range of legal traditions, including Commonwealth and US common law, as well as French and German civil law traditions, it presents an article-by-article examination of the Convention. Each provision is carefully examined using diverse perspectives to ensure an in-depth understanding of its history, context and meaning. The Commentary outlines past scholarly research and controversies arising from interpretation as well as indicating avenues for future study.Key Features:Provides an international and comparative perspective on the interpretation of the ConventionIncludes expansive reference to case law and legal literature, in a variety of languages, from across the globeAnalyses the ways in which the Convention is implemented in several jurisdictionsPresents insights into the negotiation of the Convention and the Hague Conference processThis Commentary is a crucial reference tool for practitioners in international dispute resolution and private international law. It is also a vital resource for scholars and students specialising in international dispute resolution in Asia, Europe, and the Americas.

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, giving one party a right to choose the forum for litigation after a dispute has already arisen, are widespread in international commercial contracting. And yet for close to a decade their enforceability and effects under EU law have been uncertain, with seven different competing decisions from France''s highest court progressively contributing to the murky waters. From the interpretation of material changes to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, to obiter comments by English judges as to whether the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention on ''exclusive'' jurisdiction clauses applies to asymmetric clauses, how can lawyers balance certainty, flexibility, and risk in this difficult legal landscape?This book explores this conundrum and aims to bring clarity to the current law on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in the EU, England, and Contracting States to the Hague Convention 2005. It seeks to prompt practitioners and scholars to reflect carefully and critically on how and why asymmetric clauses are used, whether courts will -and should- hold businesses to them, and how both the law and the clauses themselves could be better designed in the future.

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, giving one party a right to choose the forum for litigation after a dispute has already arisen, are widespread in international commercial contracting. And yet for close to a decade their enforceability and effects under EU law have been uncertain, with seven different competing decisions from France''s highest court progressively contributing to the murky waters. From the interpretation of material changes to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, to obiter comments by English judges as to whether the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention on ''exclusive'' jurisdiction clauses applies to asymmetric clauses, how can lawyers balance certainty, flexibility, and risk in this difficult legal landscape?This book explores this conundrum and aims to bring clarity to the current law on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in the EU, England, and Contracting States to the Hague Convention 2005. It seeks to prompt practitioners and scholars to reflect carefully and critically on how and why asymmetric clauses are used, whether courts will -and should- hold businesses to them, and how both the law and the clauses themselves could be better designed in the future.

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, giving one party a right to choose the forum for litigation after a dispute has already arisen, are widespread in international commercial contracting. And yet for close to a decade their enforceability and effects under EU law have been uncertain, with seven different competing decisions from France's highest court progressively contributing to the murky waters. From the interpretation of material changes to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, to obiter comments by English judges as to whether the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention on 'exclusive' jurisdiction clauses applies to asymmetric clauses, how can lawyers balance certainty, flexibility, and risk in this difficult legal landscape?This book explores this conundrum and aims to bring clarity to the current law on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in the EU, England, and Contracting States to the Hague Convention 2005. It seeks to prompt practitioners and scholars to reflect carefully and critically on how and why asymmetric clauses are used, whether courts will -and should- hold businesses to them, and how both the law and the clauses themselves could be better designed in the future.

This Commentary provides comprehensive analysis of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements that came into force in October 2015. Drawing on the contributors’ expertise from a range of legal traditions, including Commonwealth and US common law, as well as French and German civil law traditions, it presents an article-by-article examination of the Convention. Each provision is carefully examined using diverse perspectives to ensure an in-depth understanding of its history, context and meaning. The Commentary outlines past scholarly research and controversies arising from interpretation as well as indicating avenues for future study.Key Features:Provides an international and comparative perspective on the interpretation of the ConventionIncludes expansive reference to case law and legal literature, in a variety of languages, from across the globeAnalyses the ways in which the Convention is implemented in several jurisdictionsPresents insights into the negotiation of the Convention and the Hague Conference processThis Commentary is a crucial reference tool for practitioners in international dispute resolution and private international law. It is also a vital resource for scholars and students specialising in international dispute resolution in Asia, Europe, and the Americas.

This Commentary provides comprehensive analysis of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements that came into force in October 2015. Drawing on the contributors' expertise from a range of legal traditions, including Commonwealth and US common law, as well as French and German civil law traditions, it presents an article-by-article examination of the Convention. Each provision is carefully examined using diverse perspectives to ensure an in-depth understanding of its history, context and meaning. The Commentary outlines past scholarly research and controversies arising from interpretation as well as indicating avenues for future study.Key Features:Provides an international and comparative perspective on the interpretation of the ConventionIncludes expansive reference to case law and legal literature, in a variety of languages, from across the globeAnalyses the ways in which the Convention is implemented in several jurisdictionsPresents insights into the negotiation of the Convention and the Hague Conference processThis Commentary is a crucial reference tool for practitioners in international dispute resolution and private international law. It is also a vital resource for scholars and students specialising in international dispute resolution in Asia, Europe, and the Americas.