Favoring Validity: The Hidden Choice of Law Rule for Arbitration Agreements

Article, American Review of International Arbitration, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 327-358 (2016)

29 Pages Posted: 28 Sep 2015 Last revised: 23 Sep 2019

Date Written: 2016

Abstract

Many commentators have noted how the courts of leading international arbitration centers — namely England, Singapore, and Hong Kong — apply divergent choice of law rules to determine the law governing the arbitration agreement. Although this may be true on the surface, this Note demonstrates that these courts have actually been applying the same choice of law rule: an in favorem validitatis rule. In light of this fact, this Note argues that the courts of England, Singapore, and Hong Kong should begin expressly adopting the in favorem validitatis rule rather than hiding it. The reason is that aspiring arbitration jurisdictions — such as India, China, and Malaysia — look to leading arbitration centers to design their own arbitration laws and rules, and consequently may be misled into invalidating arbitration agreements that courts in the leading arbitration centers would probably find to be valid.

Keywords: arbitration, international arbitration, international commercial arbitration, law governing the arbitration agreement, arbitration agreement, applicable law, Sulamerica, FirstLink, choice of law

Suggested Citation

Tzeng, Peter, Favoring Validity: The Hidden Choice of Law Rule for Arbitration Agreements (2016). Article, American Review of International Arbitration, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 327-358 (2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2666103

Peter Tzeng (Contact Author)

Foley Hoag LLP ( email )

United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
204
Abstract Views
644
rank
150,093
PlumX Metrics