Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law: General Report

  • Mary KeyesEmail author
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 37)


The law in relation to choice of court agreements has developed significantly in recent years, but most of this development has concerned exclusive choice of court agreements. Optional choice of court agreements have not been the focus of attention by lawmakers or by commentators. This chapter provides an overview of this area of the law, synthesising the national reports which comprise this collection, and drawing out the themes that emerge from those reports. It shows that the legal treatment of optional choice of courts differs substantially between legal systems, and argues that this topic warrants greater attention from scholars and lawmakers.


  1. Briggs A (2008) Agreements on jurisdiction and choice of law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Briggs A (2012) The subtle variety of jurisdiction agreements. Lloyd’s Maritime Commer Law Q:364Google Scholar
  3. Collins L (ed) (2012) Dicey, Morris & Collins on the conflict of laws, 15th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Hartley T (2013) Choice-of-court agreements under the European and international instruments. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Hartley T, Dogauchi D (2010) Explanatory report on the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. In: Permanent Bureau of the Conference (ed) Proceedings of the twentieth session, Tome III. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  6. Joseph D (2015) Jurisdiction and arbitration agreements and their enforcement, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Keyes M (2015) Party autonomy in dispute resolution: implied choices in the context of jurisdiction. Jpn Yearb Int Law 58:223–246Google Scholar
  8. Keyes M, Marshall BA (2015) Jurisdiction agreements – exclusive, optional and asymmetrical. J Priv Int Law 11:345–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu X, Zhou Q (2014) The actual connection principle and forum non conveniens in Chinese contractual jurisdiction system. Legal Sci 12:50Google Scholar
  10. Maher G, Rodger B (2010) Civil jurisdiction in the Scottish Courts. W Green, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  11. Marshall BA, Keyes M (2017) Australia’s accession to the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements. Melb Univ Law Rev 41:246Google Scholar
  12. Nygh P (1999) Autonomy in international contracts. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Tang ZS (2012) Effectiveness of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Chinese Courts – a pragmatic study. Int Comp Law Q 61:459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tang ZS, Xiao Y, Huo Z (2016) Conflict of laws in the People’s Republic of China. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Yeo TM (2005) The contractual basis of the enforcement of exclusive and non-exclusive choice of court agreements. Singapore Acad Law J 17:306Google Scholar

National Reports Cited in This Chapter

  1. Buxbaum H (2019) United States: the interpretation and effect of permissive forum selection clauses, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen R-C (2019) Taiwan: legislation and practice on choice of court agreements in Taiwan, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  3. Chong A (2019) Singapore: a mix of traditional and new rules, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  4. Guillemard S, Sabourin F (2019) Canada – Civil Law (Québec): Les clauses d’élection de for facultatives en droit international privé québécois, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  5. Haas E, MacCabe K (2019) Switzerland: choice of court agreements according to the code on civil procedure, the Private International Law Act and the Lugano Convention, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  6. Mailhé F (2019) France: a game of asymmetries, optional and asymmetrical choice of court agreements under French Case Law, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  7. Marshall B (2019) Australia: inconsistencies in the treatment of optional choice of court agreements, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  8. Merrett L, Carruthers J (2019) United Kingdom: giving effect to optional choice of court agreements – interpretation, operation and enforcement, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  9. Oprea EA (2019) Romania: interpretation and effects of optional jurisdiction agreements in international disputes, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  10. Panapoulos G (2019) Greece: a forum favorable to optional choice of court agreements, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  11. Rammeloo S (2019) Netherlands: optional choice of court agreements in a globalizing world, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  12. Rozehnalová N, Mahdalová S, Zavadilová L (2019) Czech Republic: the treatment of optional and exclusive choice of court agreements, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  13. Saumier G (2019) Canada – common law: choice of court agreements in common law Canada, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  14. Schoeman E (2019) South Africa: Time for Reform, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  15. Takahashi K (2019) Japan: quests for equilibrium and certainty, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  16. Tarman ZD, Oba ME (2019) Turkey: optional choice of court agreements in Turkish Law, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  17. Tu G, Huang Z (2019) China: optional choice of court agreements in the Vibrant Age, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Calster G, Poesen M (2019) Belgium: optional choice of court agreements, legal uncertainty despite a modern legal framework, in this collectionGoogle Scholar
  19. Weller M (2019) Germany: optional choice of court agreements – German National Report, in this collectionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith Law School, Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations