A critical analysis of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements under the Brazilian perspective
Prof. Inez Lopes / Prof. Valesca Raizer
University of Brasilia / Federal University of Espirito Santo Brazil
Dr. Tugce Nimet Yasar / Biset Sena Gunes
Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University
Whilst the idea that parties to a dispute can designate the forum for their existing or future disputes dates back to the Roman law, jurisdiction agreements were refused in many jurisdictions for a long time on the grounds that jurisdiction of courts could only be established by the law based on the sovereignty of the states. Therefore, the change of jurisdiction of courts by the parties could have presented challenges to the public policy of the states. With the growth of international trade, however, the need to avoid jurisdiction problems in litigation has been increased. Thus, today, based on the party autonomy, i.e. ‘the most widely accepted private international rule of our time’, parties to a commercial transaction are allowed to choose the forum to resolve the disputes arising out of their transaction. This is also the case in the European Union and Turkey.
Dr. Brooke Adele Marshall
University of New South Wales
This paper is concerned with normative reasons for respecting jurisdictional party autonomy. Justifications for the enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction agreements have not been comprehensively explored in the literature, which is surprising given their wide acceptance. Jurisdiction agreements overall have received significantly less theoretical attention than choice-of-law clauses.