• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Jurisdiction agreements: exclusive, optional and asymmetrical

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    KeyesPUB969.pdf (425.2Kb)
    File version
    Accepted Manuscript (AM)
    Author(s)
    Keyes, Mary
    Marshall, Brooke Adele
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Keyes, Mary E.
    Year published
    2015
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The paradigm of the jurisdiction agreement designates a single, exclusive forum, allowing each party to determine, in advance of a dispute, the forum for litigation. The principles governing the enforcement of jurisdiction agreements are largely designed for this model. Some parties draft agreements that differ from this model, including agreements that purport to nominate multiple courts with “exclusive” jurisdiction, and unilateral optional agreements giving one party an option to select the forum after a dispute arises. These features raise the question of whether principles developed for the exclusive model regulate ...
    View more >
    The paradigm of the jurisdiction agreement designates a single, exclusive forum, allowing each party to determine, in advance of a dispute, the forum for litigation. The principles governing the enforcement of jurisdiction agreements are largely designed for this model. Some parties draft agreements that differ from this model, including agreements that purport to nominate multiple courts with “exclusive” jurisdiction, and unilateral optional agreements giving one party an option to select the forum after a dispute arises. These features raise the question of whether principles developed for the exclusive model regulate jurisdiction agreements that depart from it. This article explores the approach to exclusivity under the Hague Choice of Court Convention, the Brussels I Recast, and at common law. We demonstrate that non-uniquely “exclusive” and unilateral optional jurisdiction agreements are uncomfortably accommodated within and inconsistently treated by these regimes, comparing, particularly, the acceptance of unilateral optional agreements in England with their rejection in France.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Journal of Private International Law
    Volume
    11
    Issue
    3
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2015.1106718
    Copyright Statement
    © 2015 Taylor & Francis (Routledge). This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Private International Law 23 Nov 2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2015.1106718
    Subject
    Conflict of laws (incl. private international law)
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/101976
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander