International arbitration agreements

Arbitration agreements—requirements of the New York Convention

This Practice Note sets out the requirements specified in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) for a valid arbitration agreement pursuant to Article II of the New York Convention. It also considers the enforcement of arbitration agreements pursuant to Article II(3) of the New York Convention.

See Practice Note: Arbitration agreements—requirements of the New York Convention.

Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose, the ‘in writing’ requirement and content

While largely focused on the position under the law of England & Wales, the following Practice Notes will be of interest and use for those considering international arbitration agreements:

•
Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose and interpretation
•
Arbitration agreements—the in writing requirement
•
Arbitration agreements—content

Arbitrability in international arbitration

This Practice Note discusses what matters are ‘arbitrable’ in an international context including which laws determine the question of arbitrability. It covers the position under English law and relevant provisions in the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law. The Practice Note also discusses when the issue of arbitrability should be raised.

See Practice Note: Arbitrability

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

The English Court of Appeal affirms the correct approach to treaty interpretation under customary international law (Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates)

Arbitration analysis: This appeal concerns the correct interpretation of Chapter 11 of the free trade agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America (the ‘Treaty’). In April 2018, Elliott Associates, LP (‘Elliott’) commenced arbitration proceedings, alleging that the Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) had breached specific provisions of Chapter 11 of the Treaty. Korea objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing that the claim fell outside the scope of Chapter 11, including its dispute resolution provisions. However, in June 2023, the tribunal upheld Elliott’s claims and awarded damages against Korea. In response, Korea applied to the High Court in July 2023 seeking to set aside the arbitral award under section 67 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The application was dismissed by Justice Foxton of the Commercial Court in August 2024, resulting in the present appeal. In overturning the High Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal (COA) clarified the correct approach to interpreting treaties. It affirmed that interpretation must align with the principles established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which reflect customary international law. Drawing from Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, the COA emphasised that treaty terms must be construed by reference to their ordinary meaning, in context, and in light of the object and purpose of the treaty without drawing from English authorities as to whether particular issues ‘will be jurisdictional for section 67 purposes’. The COA concluded that, on a proper interpretation, Section A of the Treaty imposes specific jurisdictional requirements that must be satisfied, for an offer to arbitrate under Section B of Chapter 11 to arise. Accordingly, the High Court was found to have erred in holding otherwise. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Naa Amorkor Amarteifio, partner at AB & David Africa, Ghana.

Enforcing the exclusivity of the supervisory jurisdiction of an arbitration (Star Hydro Power Ltd v National Transmission and Despatch Company Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal granted an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Pakistan intended to undermine an award in a London seated arbitration. The court emphasised the exclusivity of the supervisory jurisdiction of an arbitration for the purposes of a challenge to an award, noting that a ‘challenge’ to an award under the New York Convention is a shield against an application for recognition and enforcement of the award, not a sword with which the award may be cut down. Written by Jennifer Haywood, barrister, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court.

P.R.I.M.E. Finance announces New York conference on market volatility and disputes

The Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in France (P. R.I.M.E. Finance) has announced that its upcoming New York Conference is scheduled for 30 October 2025 at White & Case LLP's offices. The conference will address global market volatility, cryptocurrency regulation, sustainability policies and dispute resolution. Sessions will feature market practitioners, judges and academics discussing current challenges in international financial markets. A keynote address from a policy maker or jurist will frame the conference discussions on emerging market developments and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Arbitration weekly highlights—7 August 2025

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England and Brazil; updates from the ICJ, CAM-CCBC, HKIAC and ICAS; and coverage of AI-related developments and of the Arbitration Act 2025 coming into force. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.