Universal, Regional, National – Ways of the Development of Private International Law in 21st Century



The aim of the contribution is to assess whether Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement and Brussels Ibis Regulation are comparable legal instruments as far as choice of court agreements are concerned. The article shall analyze mutual features of the two legal instruments as well as their divergences in relation to choice of court agreements. The article shall demonstrate whether Hague Convention presents a complete and a comprehensive solution in terms of choice of court agreements for the UK provided that the Brussels Regulation is no longer applicable.

Klíčová slova

Choice of Court Agreement; Hague Convention; Brussels I bis Regulation.


Affaki, G. B., Naón, A. G. H. Jurisdictional choices in times of trouble. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce, 2015, 213 p.

Alameda, C. A. Choice of Court Agreements under Brussels I Recast Regulation [online]. ejtn.eu [cit. 24. 3. 2019]. http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Themis%20Luxembourg/Written_paper_Spain1.pdf

Beaumont, P., Ahmed, M. Exclusive choice of court agreements: some issues on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and its relationship with the Brussels I Recast especially anti-suit injunctions, concurrent proceedings and the implications of Brexit. Journal of Private International Law. 2017, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 386–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2017.1348782

Beaumont, P., Ahmed, M. I thought we were exclusive? Some issues with the Hague Convention on Choice of Court, Brussels Ia and Brexit [online]. abdn.ac.uk. Published on 21 September 2017 [cit. 24. 3. 2019]. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/blog/i-thought-we-were-exclusive-some-issues-with-the-hague-convention-on-choice-of-court-brussels-ia-and-brexit/.

Blackwell, H. Recent Developments in the PRC: A Change in Tide for Arbitration? [online]. arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com. Published on 5 December 2017 [cit. 15. 5. 2019]. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/12/05/recent-developments-prc-change-tide-arbitration/

Born, B. G. International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2016, 468 p.

Brand, A. R. Forum non conviens: history, global practice, and future under the Hague convention on choice of court agreements. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 342 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195329278.001.0001

Brekoulakis, L. S. The Notion and the Superiority of Arbitration Agreements over Jurisdiction Agreements: Time to Abandon It? Journal of International Arbitration. 2007, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 341–364.

Bříza, P. Choice-of-Court Agreements: Could the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention and the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation be the Way out of the Gasser – Owusu Disillusion? Journal of Private International Law. 2009, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/17536235.2009.11424370

Choice of court section [online]. hcch.net [cit. 24. 3. 2019]. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/choice-of-court

Croisant, G. Towards the Uncertainties of a Hard Brexit: An opportunity for International Arbitration [online]. arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com. Published on 27 January 2017 [cit. 15. 5. 2019]. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/01/27/towards-the-uncertainties-of-a-hard-brexit-an-opportunity-for-international-arbitration/

Cuniberti, G. Denmark to Apply Brussels I Recast [online]. conflictoflaw.net. Published on 24 March 2013 [cit. 15. 5. 2019]. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/denmark-to-apply-brussels-i-recast/

Forner-Delaygua, Q. Changes to jurisdiction based on exclusive jurisdiction agreements under the Brussels I Regulation Recast. Journal of Private International Law. 2015, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2015.1104822

Forner-Hooft, v. A. Brexit and the Future of Intellectual Property Litigation. Journal of International Arbitration. 2016, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 541–564.

Frischknecht, A. A. et al. Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Judgements in New York. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2018, 338 p.

Gonclaves, A. S. de S. Choice-of-Court-Agreements in the E-Commerce International Contracts. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. 2017, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 63–76. https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-4

Hartley, C. T. Choice-of-court agreements under the European and international instruments: the revised Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, and the Hague Convention. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 495 p.

Hartley, T., Dogauchi, M. Explanatory Report of Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements [online]. hcch.net. Published on 8 November 2013 [cit. 24. 3. 2019]. https://assets.hcch.net/docs/0de60e2f-e002-408e-98a7-5638e1ebac65.pdf

Jhangiani, S. Amin, R. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Rival to the New York Convention and a “Game-Changer” for International Disputes? [online]. arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com. Published on 23 September 2016 [cit. 15. 5. 2019]. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/09/23/the-hague-convention-on-choice-of-court-agreements-a-rival-to-the-new-york-convention-and-a-game-changer-for-international-disputes/?_ga=2.38319014.449827635.1558337497-2077811134.1558337497

Kyselovská, T., Rozehnalová, N. Rozhodování Soudního dvora EU ve věcech příslušnosti: (analýza rozhodnutí dle nařízení Brusel Ibis). Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2014, 514 p.

Landbrecht, J. The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) – an Alternative to International Arbitration? ASA Bulletin. 2016, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 112–125.

Masters, S., McRae, B. What does Brexit mean for the Brussels Regime. Journal of International Arbitration. 2016, No. 33, pp. 483–500.

Moser, G. Brexit, Cognitive Biases and the Jurisdictional Conundrum [online]. arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com. Published on 14 and 15 December 2018 [cit. 15. 5. 2019]. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/12/15/brexit-cognitive-biases-and-the-jurisdictional-conundrum/

National information and online forms concerning Regulation No. 1215/2012 [online]. e-justice.europa.eu [cit. 24. 3. 2019]. https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_brussels_i_regulation_recast-350-en.do

Newing, H., Webster, L. Could the Hague Convention Bring Greater Certainty for Cross-Border Disputes Post Brexit: And What Would This Mean for International Arbitration. Third-Party Funders in International. Dispute Resolution International. 2016, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 105–117.

Palermo, G. The Future of Cross-Border Disputes Settlement: Back to Litigation? In: Gonzalez-Bueno, C. (ed.). 40 under 40 International Arbitration. Madrid: Dykinson, 2018, 522 p.

Rea, M., Marotti, C. M. What is all the fuss? The Potential Impact of the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Agreement on International Arbitration [online]. arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com. Published on 16 June 2017 [cit. 15. 5. 2019]. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/06/16/fuss-potential-impact-hague-convention-choice-court-agreement-international-arbitration/

Rozehnalová, N., Drličková, K., Kyselovská, T., Valdhans, J. Mezinárodní právo soukromé Evropské unie. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2018, 389 p.

Rozehnalová, N., Drličková, K., Kyselovská, T., Valdhans, J. Úvod do mezinárodního práva soukromého. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2017, 303 p.

Slaughter and May. Brexit Essentials Jurisdiction Agreements: New Developments [online]. Slaughterandmay. Published on 5 July 2018 [cit. 24. 3. 2019]. https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/2536943/brexit-essentials-jurisdiction-agreements-new-developments.pdf

Status table [online]. hcch.net [cit. 24. 3. 2019]. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=98