(d) an exclusive court decision as part of a contract is treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. The validity of the exclusive decision cannot be challenged solely because the contract is not valid. 2. Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, a contracting State with two or more territorial units with different legal regimes is not required to apply this Convention to situations that concern exclusively different territorial units. 3. A jurisdiction of a territorial unit of a contracting state with two or more territorial units applying different legal systems is not required to recognize or apply a judgment of another contracting state simply because the judgment has been recognized or carried out in another territorial unit of the same contracting state under this Convention. 4. This article does not apply to a regional economic integration organization. Neither the convention nor the explanatory report specify whether “state law” refers to material or procedural law.

We believe it concerns material law (in the state of the elected court). The true intentions of the parties are of the utmost importance when they decide to invoke the exception. A nullity decision arising exclusively from the procedural provisions of the agreement and ignoring the true intentions of the parties would lead to a meaningless ECCA. Section 19 limits jurisdiction by granting the courts the right to refuse to rule on a foreign case by declaration. 1. The court or courts of a contracting state designated in an exclusive forum agreement have jurisdiction to rule on a dispute to which the agreement applies, unless the agreement is sharp under that state`s law. 2. A court competent under paragraph 1 does not reject jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute should be decided in a court of another state. (3) The previous paragraphs do not affect the rules – the Hague Conference began in 1996 with the “draft judgment”: the development of a convention on the competence and recognition of judgments. Jurisdiction within such a convention would be divided into three categories: grounds of jurisdiction that are mandatory, optional or prohibited.

Since negotiators were unable to reach consensus on such a convention, the scope of the work was limited to the competence and recognition of decisions based on a judicial agreement between the parties. During the negotiations, parallels were drawn between the New York Convention on Arbitration Awards: the aim was to create a system of recognition of decisions based on judicial proceedings in which the court was elected on the basis of a choice of judicial agreements, which would create the same level of predictability and application as in arbitration decisions in the states of the New York Convention. [3] (2) If the sentencing does not allow the court to consider whether the conditions of this chapter are met, that court may require all necessary documents.