Legal nature of international jurisdiction agreements

Abstract

The problem of the legal nature of international jurisdiction agreements is directly related to the issue of their regulation in the national legislation, since, depending on the material or procedural qualifications of this institution, particular regulatory requirements for such agreements are to be established. This article analyzes various approaches to the definition of the legal nature and, consequently, the regulation of international jurisdiction agreements on the example of English, German and Russian legislation. The material qualification chosen in English law means a more flexible regulation of the agreements: the possibility to conclude an oral jurisdiction agreement as well as the possibility for one party to use remedies (anti-suit injunctions, damages) in case of violation of the jurisdiction agreement by the other party. The procedural qualification of jurisdiction agreements in German law presupposes the establishment of stricter formal requirements (requirements for the subjects of agreements, form (written or oral with written confirmation), time of the conclusion of the jurisdiction agreement). In Russian law, this issue has not been finally resolved and is debatable, so that the legislative regulation of agreements on jurisdiction is generally fragmentary and is replaced by the construction and interpretation of norms in judicial practice.

References

1. Bogdanova, N.A. (2017). Problematic aspects of the interpretation of agreements on international jurisdiction in domestic and foreign legal orders. Arbitration and civil process, 9, pp. 34–38 (in Russ.).
2. Valeev, D.K. (2008). About the agreement in the civil process. Development of procedural legislation: to the fifth anniversary of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation”. Voronezh (in Russ.).
3. Getman-Pavlova, I.V. and Filatova, M.A. (2018). The principle of lis pendens in international civil proceedings: problems of identity of claims and parties. Bulletin of Civil Procedure, 2, pp. 239–263 (in Russ.).
4. Eliseev, N.G., Rozhkova, M.A. and Skvortsov, O.Y. (2008). Contract law: agreements on jurisdiction, international jurisdiction, conciliation procedures, arbitration (arbitration) and settlement agreements. Moscow (in Russ.).
5. Zagidullin, M.R., Ruzakova, O.A. and Sitdikov, R.B. (2017). Commentary on the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Bulletin of Civil Procedure, 4, pp. 112–149 (in Russ.).
6. Karabelnikov, B.R. (2020). Russian justice will protect offended Russians. Law, 7, pp. 109–121 (in Russ.).
7. Kurochkin, S.A. (2012). Agreements in the civil process. Bulletin of the civil process, 3, pp. 52–72 (in Russ.).
8. Muratova, N.G. and Chelyshev, M.Y. (2012). On the intersectoral theory of procedural agreements: issues of civil law, civil law and criminal proceedings. Bulletin of civil process, 4, pp. 10–27 (in Russ.).
9. Starzhenetsky, V.V. and Ochirova, S.B. (2020). The impact of sanctions on the resolution of foreign economic disputes: maintaining the status quo or searching for alternative jurisdictions? International justice, 4, pp. 144–167 (in Russ.).
10. Shemeneva, O.N. (2017). The role of agreements between the parties in civil proceedings. Moscow (in Russ.).
11. Briggs, А. (2008). Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law. Oxford.
12. Briggs, А. (2012). The subtle variety of jurisdiction agreements. LMCLQ, 4, 364.
13. Collier, J.G. (2004). Conflict of Laws. Cambridge.
14. Fentiman, R. (2015). International Commercial Litigation. Oxford.
15. Ishfaq, А. (2017). Marzillier and the enforcement of exclusive English jurisdiction clauses. Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, 8, pp. 410–413.
16. Merrett, L. (2018). The future enforcement of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 67(1), pp. 37–61.
17. Musielak, H.-J. and Voit, W. (2020). Zivilprozessordnung: ZPO. München (in Germ.).
18. Pryles, M. (1976). Comparative aspects of prorogation and arbitration agreements. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 25(3), pp. 543–582.
19. Schack, H. (2017). Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht mit internationalem Insolvenz- und Schiedsverfahrensrecht. Ein Studinebuch. München (in Germ.).
20. Schlosser, P. and Hess, B. (2015). EU-Zivilprozessrecht. München (in Germ.).
21. Stein, F. and Jonas, M. (2014). Zivilprozessordnung. Tübingen (in Germ.).
22. Thomas, H. and Putzo, H. (2017). Zivilprozessordnung. München (in Germ.).
23. Weller, M. (2019). Die «verbesserte Wirksamkeit» der europäischen Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung nach der Reform der Brüssel I–VO . Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International, pp. 251–279 (in Germ.).
24. Wolf, M., Lindacher, W.F. and Pfeiffer, T. (2020). AGB-Recht: Kommentar. München (in Germ.).