Conflict of laws

The seat of arbitration was in most cases sufficiently indicated by the country chosen as the place of the arbitration. For such a choice of place not to be given effect as a choice of seat, there would need to be clear evidence that the parties had agreed to choose another seat for the arbitration and that such a choice would be effective to endow the courts of that country with jurisdiction to supervise and support the arbitration. It was established principle that an agreement as to the seat of an arbitration was analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Any claim for a remedy going to the existence or scope of the arbitrators’ jurisdiction or as to the validity of an existing interim or final award was agreed to be made only in the courts of the place designated as the seat of the arbitration.