The Principle of Competence-Competence: A Comparative Analysis

Subject Name: BAL6.6 International commercial arbitration

Academic Year: 2023-24
Semester: VI

Submitted by
AARYA KHOPKAR
UID: UG21-01

Submitted to:
Dr. Shaik Nazim Ahmed Shafi
Associate Professor of Law
Prof. Neha Choudhary
Assistant Professor of Law

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

JANUARY,2024.

1
 Table of contents

Sr.No. Particulars Page. No.

I Introduction 3

II Research objective 3

III Research question 3

IV Research methodology 4

V The principle of Competence-Competence 4

VI Kompetenz-Kompetenz in Indian 5
Arbitration
VII The Competence-Competence Principle 8
Under French Law
VIII The Competence-Competence 10
Principle: English Arbitration
IX Comparative Analysis of 12
Competence-Competence Principle
in Arbitration Law: India, France,
and England
X Conclusion 14

XI Bibliography 14

2
 I. Introduction
Commercial arbitration thrives on the premise of resolving disputes outside the traditional
court system. A cornerstone of this efficiency is the principle of competence-competence,
also known as Kompetenz-Kompetenz or compétence-compétence. In essence, it grants
arbitral tribunals the power to decide their own jurisdiction, even when challenged by a party.
This project delves into the application of the competence-competence principle across three
distinct legal systems:
 England
 India
 France
By examining these diverse approaches, we aim to:
 Understand the interpretations of competence-competence within each jurisdiction.
 Analyze the impact of these interpretations on upholding arbitration agreements and
the overall legitimacy of arbitral proceedings.
 Evaluate the effectiveness of each approach in balancing the competing interests of
respecting party autonomy and ensuring fair and efficient dispute resolution.
This comparative analysis will shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of each system,
ultimately contributing to a broader understanding of how competence-competence functions
in the global landscape of commercial arbitration.

II. Research Objective:

This research project aims to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the
competence-competence principle in international arbitration. The project will explore how
this principle, which empowers arbitral tribunals to decide on their own jurisdiction,
including the validity of the arbitration agreement itself, operates in the legal frameworks of
three prominent jurisdictions: France, India, and England.

III. Research Questions:

 How does the principle of competence-competence differ in its application and scope
within the legal systems of France, India, and England?
 To what extent do these variations in the competence-competence principle impact the
power dynamics between arbitral tribunals and courts in each jurisdiction?
 What are the potential benefits and drawbacks associated with the different
approaches to the competence-competence principle in these legal systems?

3
IV. Research Methodology:
This research will employ a comparative legal analysis approach. Data will be collected from
the following sources:
Primary Sources:
 Relevant legal statutes and regulations governing arbitration and the competence-
competence principle:
o France: Code of Civil Procedure (Article 1465)
o India: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (relevant sections)
o England: Arbitration Act 1996 (Section 30(1))
 Judicial pronouncements from courts in each jurisdiction related to the competence-
competence principle and its application in specific cases.
Secondary Sources:
 Scholarly articles and legal journals exploring the competence-competence principle
in comparative legal contexts with a focus on France, India, and England.
 Books and treatises by leading legal scholars on international arbitration and the
competence-competence principle.
 Reports and publications from international arbitration institutions and organizations
discussing the principle and its practical implications.

V. The principle of Competence-Competence:

The concept of competence-competence lies at the heart of international arbitration, shaping
the power dynamics between arbitral tribunals and national courts.
Core Function:
 Empowering Tribunals: Competence-competence grants arbitral tribunals the
authority to determine their own jurisdiction. This includes the ability to rule on the
existence, validity, scope, and interpretation of the arbitration agreement itself.
Essentially, the tribunal gets to decide if it has the legitimacy to hear the dispute in the
first place.
Global Recognition with Nuances:
 Widespread Acceptance: Most developed legal systems, particularly those adhering
to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration,
acknowledge this principle. This fosters predictability and efficiency in international
commercial disputes.
 Room for Review: Even after the tribunal makes its jurisdictional call, courts at the
seat of arbitration (where the arbitration takes place) may still review it later. This

4
 review can happen during enforcement proceedings, offering a safety net for potential
errors.
Underlying Rationale:
 Party Autonomy: When parties enter into an arbitration agreement, they are
presumed to consent to the tribunal handling any challenges to its own jurisdiction.
This reflects respect for party autonomy – the freedom to choose arbitration as their
preferred dispute resolution mechanism.
 Tribunal's Impartiality: The principle assumes that the arbitral tribunal, composed
of neutral experts, is capable of making an objective and fair decision about its own
authority over the dispute.
Variations in Application:
 Strength of Support: While widely recognized, the degree of enthusiasm for
competence-competence varies across jurisdictions. Some legal systems may have
stricter limitations on the scope of issues the tribunal can decide regarding its
jurisdiction.
Impact on Courts:
 Level of Scrutiny: When a party seeks court intervention to enforce arbitration, the
court's examination of the arbitration agreement's validity hinges on the specific
jurisdiction's laws. The concept of competence-competence influences whether the
court conducts a thorough review or a more preliminary assessment.
 UNCITRAL Model Law: Jurisdictions following this model typically empower
arbitrators to have the final say on the agreement's validity, further strengthening
competence-competence.
Court Control and Enforceability:
 Potential for Review: Despite competence-competence, arbitral decisions on
jurisdiction are generally not immune to later review by courts at the arbitration's seat.
This review ensures fairness and prevents potential abuse of power by tribunals.
 Enforceability and Recognition: If a tribunal's competence-competence decision
goes unchallenged, the resulting award is enforceable under international treaties like
the New York Convention. This provides certainty and finality to the arbitration
process.
Scope and Potential Limitations:
 Broad Reach: Ideally, the scope of competence-competence (ratione materiae)
should be broad enough to encompass any potential jurisdictional issue the tribunal
might encounter. This strengthens the principle's effectiveness.
 Exploiting Limitations: Narrowing the scope of competence-competence can be
strategically used by parties to delay proceedings by raising jurisdictional challenges
outside the tribunal's authority.

5
Beyond Party Autonomy:
 A Balancing Act: While rooted in party autonomy, competence-competence has
limitations. The principle cannot extend to the tribunal judging the validity of the very
agreement that grants its authority. This would create a situation where the tribunal
acts as judge and jury in its own case.
The competence-competence principle plays a critical role in international arbitration by
empowering tribunals and promoting efficiency. However, it operates within a framework
that allows for potential court oversight and ensures fairness in the process. Understanding
the nuances of this principle across different jurisdictions is crucial for navigating the
complexities of international commercial disputes.

VI. Kompetenz-Kompetenz in Indian Arbitration:

Kompetenz-Kompetenz, meaning "competence of competence" in German, is a crucial
principle shaping Indian arbitration law. It empowers arbitral tribunals to decide matters
related to their own jurisdiction. This includes the authority to assess the validity and
existence of the arbitration agreement itself.
Historical Development:
The application of Kompetenz-Kompetenz in India has evolved over time:
 Pre-Amendment Era (Limited Scope): Prior to the 2015 Amendment to the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), courts exercised broader powers under
Section 11. Courts could decide various jurisdictional issues before referring a dispute
to arbitration, including the validity of the arbitration agreement and threshold issues
like limitation. While Section 16 of the Act granted tribunals the power to decide their
jurisdiction (Kompetenz-Kompetenz), its application was limited when parties
approached the court under Section 11.
 The Shift: Strengthening Kompetenz-Kompetenz: Recognizing this limitation, the
Law Commission of India recommended restricting judicial intervention under
Section 11. This recommendation was incorporated through the insertion of Section
11(6A) in the 2015 Amendment.
 Post-Amendment Era (Enhanced Scope): Section 11(6A) now mandates courts to
solely examine the existence of a valid arbitration agreement when deciding an
application under Section 11. This significantly reduces judicial intervention and
strengthens Kompetenz-Kompetenz.
Impact of the Amendments:
The 2015 Amendment significantly strengthens the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle in
India. This promotes a more streamlined and efficient arbitration process by:
 Granting tribunals greater authority to decide jurisdictional issues.
 Minimizing unnecessary court involvement at the pre-reference stage.

6
Current Landscape:
While Kompetenz-Kompetenz empowers tribunals, there are still limited exceptions where
courts can intervene before arbitration:
 Fraud or Deception: If the arbitration agreement itself is suspected of being obtained
through fraud or deception.
 Draft Agreements: Disputes regarding a draft agreement with an arbitration clause,
when parties are still negotiating and haven't finalized a binding contract.
Kompetenz-Kompetenz is a cornerstone principle in Indian arbitration, granting tribunals the
primary authority to determine their jurisdiction. This fosters a more efficient and party-
centric dispute resolution process. However, limited judicial intervention remains a safeguard
against potential abuse1.
 SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (SBP Case):
o Established Court's Role under Section 11: This case defined the scope of
judicial authority under Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators) to include:
 Verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
 Confirming the requesting party's involvement in the agreement.
 Ensuring proper court jurisdiction.
o Expanded Judicial Power: The court went further, allowing examination of
"threshold issues" like the agreement's validity, the claim's viability (time-
barred or settled), at the pre-reference stage under Section 11.
o Created Tension with Kompetenz-Kompetenz: This broader judicial power
seemed to contradict Section 16, which grants tribunals the power to decide
their own jurisdiction (Kompetenz-Kompetenz). The court clarified that
Kompetenz-Kompetenz applies when parties go directly to the tribunal, but
court decisions under Section 11 were final, potentially limiting the tribunal's
authority2.
 Duro Felguera S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd.:
o Upholding Strengthened Kompetenz-Kompetenz: This case endorsed the
2015 Amendment that introduced Section 11(6A).
o Limited Judicial Role: Section 11(6A) restricts courts to solely examining
the existence of a valid arbitration agreement when deciding an application
under Section 11.
o Reduced Intervention, Enhanced Tribunal Power: This amendment
significantly reduces judicial intervention and strengthens Kompetenz-

1
https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration--dispute-resolution/1162214/understanding-the-kompetenz-
kompetenz-principle
2
(2005) 8 SCC 618.

7
 Kompetenz. Courts now focus on the agreement's existence, leaving other
jurisdictional issues for the tribunal to decide3.
Exception to Kompetenz-Kompetenz: Limitation in BSNL v. Nortel Networks
The case of BSNL v. Nortel Networks India (P) Ltd. (BSNL case) explores the interplay
between limitation periods and Kompetenz-Kompetenz in Indian arbitration. While tribunals
generally decide limitation issues, the BSNL case highlights a potential exception.
General Rule: Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Limitation
 In India, the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz empowers arbitral tribunals to
decide matters related to their jurisdiction, including limitations.
The BSNL Case and the Peculiar Issue
 This case dealt with the question of whether an application filed under Section 11 of
the Arbitration Act (seeking appointment of an arbitrator) could be rejected due to:
o The application itself being time-barred.
o The underlying claims being apparently time-barred (ex facie time-barred).
The Supreme Court's Reasoning:
 The court prioritized expeditious dispute resolution, a key objective of the Arbitration
Act.
 While Section 11 doesn't specify a time limit for filing an appointment application,
the court found Section 43 of the Limitation Act applicable to arbitrations.
 The court identified Article 137 of the Limitation Act as the residual provision, setting
a three-year limitation period for filing such applications. However, this limitation
applies to the application for arbitrator appointment, not the underlying claims
themselves4.
Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Ex Facie Time-Barred Claims
 The court acknowledged the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act, which mandates
courts to only examine the existence of a valid arbitration agreement under Section
11(6A).
 This implies all other issues, including limitations, fall under the tribunal's
Kompetenz-Kompetenz (Section 16).
 The court only allows a narrow exception: refusing to refer disputes to arbitration if
the claims are undeniably time-barred (ex facie time-barred) or demonstrably non-
arbitrable.

VII. The Competence-Competence Principle: Under French Law

3
(2017) 9 SCC 729.
4
BSNL v. Nortel Networks India (P) Ltd., (2021) 5 SCC 738.

8
The competence-competence principle is a cornerstone of French arbitration law, granting
arbitral tribunals significant authority over their own jurisdiction. This principle ensures
efficient dispute resolution by allowing tribunals to determine their competence, including the
validity of the arbitration agreement itself.
Core Tenet:
At its heart, the competence-competence principle empowers arbitral tribunals to decide on
their own jurisdiction. This includes the power to determine:
 Whether a specific dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
 Whether the arbitration agreement itself is valid and enforceable.
Established Practice:
French courts have recognized and applied this principle even before it was formally codified
in French arbitration law in 1981. This demonstrates a long-standing commitment to
upholding the autonomy of arbitration and the authority of tribunals.
Legal Framework:
The competence-competence principal manifests in two key ways within French law:
 Article 1465 of French Code of Civil Procedure:
o This article explicitly grants jurisdiction to the arbitral tribunal to decide on its
own competence.
o In essence, the tribunal has the primary responsibility to determine its
authority over the dispute.
 Article 1448 of French Code of Civil Procedure:
o This article limits the power of French courts when a valid arbitration
agreement exists.
 If a party brings a claim to court despite an arbitration agreement, the
court must generally decline jurisdiction.
The negative effect of the competence-competence principle outlines specific situations
where courts defer to the arbitral tribunal:
 Court's Role:
o French courts can only decline jurisdiction based on an arbitration agreement,
not raise the issue themselves (unless neither party objects).
o Objections to court jurisdiction based on arbitration clauses must be raised
promptly at the beginning of the proceedings.
 Two Situations:
o No Ongoing Arbitration:

9
  Courts will decline jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is
manifestly void (clearly invalid) or manifestly inapplicable (does not
cover the dispute).
 This involves a basic assessment of the agreement's existence, validity,
and scope.
o Ongoing Arbitration:
 If arbitration proceedings have already begun, the French court must
refer the dispute to arbitration without investigating the agreement or
the dispute itself.
 The focus is on upholding the parties' agreement to arbitrate and
avoiding delays.
 Prima Facie Review:
o When assessing the arbitration agreement, courts conduct a preliminary
examination (prima facie review).
o This is not an in-depth analysis, but rather a surface-level check to ensure the
agreement seems valid and applicable.

Exceptions:
 Employment Matters: French courts might have some priority in deciding
jurisdiction for employment disputes. This is a potential exception to the general rule.
Review of Arbitral Decisions:
Even though arbitral tribunals have the primary authority on jurisdiction, their decisions are
not entirely final:
 Challenge to Jurisdictional Award:
o Decisions on jurisdiction by tribunals (through awards) can be challenged in
French courts under Article 1520.
o This allows parties who disagree with the tribunal's decision on its own
competence to seek review.
 De Novo Standard:
o The standard of review by French courts is de novo, meaning a complete new
review.
o The court can re-evaluate the jurisdictional issue independent of the tribunal's
decision.

10
  Uncertain Party Agreement:
o The validity of agreements granting tribunals final authority on jurisdiction
remains unclear in French law.
o It's uncertain whether parties can completely oust the court's review power.
Additional Considerations:
 Court decisions on jurisdiction can be appealed.
 Arbitration proceedings can proceed while appeals regarding jurisdiction are pending.
 French law doesn't allow applications to courts for separate declarations on the
existence, validity, or enforceability of the arbitration agreement.
 Courts can assist in forming an arbitral tribunal but can only do a basic assessment of
the agreement's validity in this context.
The competence-competence principle strengthens arbitration in France by giving tribunals
broad power over their jurisdiction. This promotes efficiency and party autonomy by
allowing tribunals to manage the dispute resolution process. While courts retain some limited
involvement to ensure basic validity and review challenged decisions, the focus remains on
upholding the parties' agreement to arbitrate. This principle fosters a robust arbitration
framework in France, facilitating the resolution of commercial disputes outside the traditional
court system5.

VIII. The Competence-Competence Principle: English Arbitration

The competence-competence principle plays a crucial role in English arbitration law, similar
to its function in French law. However, the English approach takes a more nuanced
perspective compared to the French system, balancing the power to decide jurisdiction
between arbitral tribunals and courts. Let's delve into the specifics:
Positive Effect (Section 30(1) of the English Arbitration Act 1996):
 Grants the arbitral tribunal the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction.
 This includes the power to determine:
o Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists (a).
o Whether the tribunal itself is properly constituted (b).
o What specific matters fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement (c).
Key Points on the Positive Effect:
 Arbitrators can decide on jurisdiction either as a separate preliminary issue before the
main dispute or within the final award on the merits.

5
https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/11/12/arbitration-of-consumer-disputes-in-france-get-
thee-behind-me-competence-competence/#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20competence%2Dcompetence
%20is%20enshrined%20in%20Article%201448,of%20the%20dispute%20and%20if

11
  Both positive and negative jurisdictional decisions by tribunals (decisions upholding
or rejecting jurisdiction) can be challenged in court under Section 67.
De Novo Review by Courts:
 When a party contests the arbitral tribunal's decision on jurisdiction, English courts
conduct a de novo review.
 This means the court re-evaluates the jurisdictional issue entirely, independent of the
tribunal's decision.
 Additionally, under Section 69, parties can challenge awards on specific legal
questions arising from the award itself.
Apparent Contradiction:
 Section 30 empowers tribunals, but Section 9 of the Act requires courts to grant a stay
of court proceedings if an arbitration agreement exists.
 This creates a potential conflict – who decides jurisdiction initially, the court or the
tribunal?
The Flexible Approach:
 English courts have developed a flexible approach to resolving this conflict.
 They consider various factors before deciding whether a court or the tribunal should
handle the jurisdictional objection:
o Challenge Type:
 If the challenge targets the arbitration agreement itself (existence,
validity, legality), the court might decide (separability doctrine).
 Challenges related solely to the main contract's scope are often left to
the tribunal.
o Specificity of the Challenge:
 Courts may decide if the objection concerns the existence of an
arbitration agreement or just its scope.
o Efficiency and Expertise:
 Considerations include the tribunal's ability to resolve the issue quickly
and whether a detailed examination is necessary.
o Cost and Convenience:
 The court weighs the parties' financial burden and ease of resolving the
issue in each forum.
o Strength of the Arbitration Agreement:

12
  If the party relying on arbitration appears to have a strong case for a
valid agreement, the court might be more inclined to refer the matter to
the tribunal.
o Existence of Other Disputes:
 If the parties have other arbitration agreements for related issues, the
court might consider referring the jurisdictional objection to maintain
consistency.
Unsettled Case Law:
 English courts haven't reached a definitive consensus on the exact threshold for
referring a jurisdictional objection to arbitration.
 Some cases suggest a "virtually certain" existence of an arbitration agreement is
required before referral.
 Others consider a wider range of factors listed above, leading to a variety of
approaches in practice.
The competence-competence principle in English law grants arbitral tribunals significant
power over their jurisdiction. However, unlike the French system, English courts play a more
active role. While upholding the principle, English law prioritizes flexibility by considering
various factors to determine the most appropriate forum for resolving jurisdictional
objections. This nuanced approach aims to strike a balance between respecting party
autonomy and ensuring fair and efficient dispute resolution6.
IX. Comparative Analysis of Competence-Competence Principle in Arbitration Law:
India, France, and England
The competence-competence principle is a cornerstone of international arbitration, granting
arbitral tribunals significant authority over their own jurisdiction. This principle ensures
efficient dispute resolution by allowing tribunals to determine their competence, including the
validity of the arbitration agreement itself. Here's a detailed analysis of how the competence-
competence principal functions in India, France, and England:
Power of Arbitral Tribunal:
 India: While not explicitly codified, Indian courts generally recognize the
competence-competence principle through judicial precedent. Tribunals have the
authority to decide on their jurisdiction (jurisdiction to decide). Recent Supreme Court
decisions have clarified the application of this principle in areas like arbitral fees,
limitation periods, unilateral appointments, and subject-matter arbitrability.
 France: Clearly established in Article 1465 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.
Tribunals have the power to determine both their jurisdiction (jurisdiction to decide)
and competence (jurisdiction over the subject matter). This strong positive effect
strengthens the autonomy of tribunals.

6
English Arbitration Act, 1996. Reproduced in Heilbron, H. 2008. A Practical Guide to International
Arbitration in London. London: Informa Law, pp. 136 – 189

13
  England: Section 30(1) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 grants tribunals the
power to rule on their own jurisdiction, similar to France.
Power of Courts:
 India: Courts play a more active role compared to France. While they generally
decline jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement exists, they can intervene in
certain situations. This includes situations where the arbitration agreement is
manifestly void or the dispute falls outside the scope of arbitration altogether.
 France: Courts have a more limited role due to the strong negative effect of the
competence-competence principle. They must decline jurisdiction upon objection
based on an arbitration agreement with rare exceptions (e.g., manifestly void
agreement). This approach prioritizes upholding the parties' agreement to arbitrate.
 England: A complex interplay exists. Section 9 of the Act requires courts to stay
proceedings if an arbitration agreement exists, but courts also have the power to
decide on jurisdiction initially under certain conditions. This flexible approach
considers factors like the nature of the challenge to the arbitration agreement and the
efficiency of resolving the issue in each forum.
Key Differences:
 Clarity of Legal Framework: France has the clearest legal framework for the
competence-competence principle. India's approach relies more on judicial precedent,
leading to less clarity. England's system is flexible but can be less predictable due to
the case-by-case analysis of various factors.
 Court Involvement: French courts have the least involvement, while Indian courts
have more discretion. English courts take a balancing act approach, considering
various factors before deciding whether a court or the tribunal should handle the
jurisdictional objection.
 Standard of Review: All three jurisdictions allow challenges to arbitral decisions on
jurisdiction, but the standard of review differs:
o India: The standard of review by Indian courts on arbitral decisions on
jurisdiction remains unclear.
o France: French courts conduct a de novo review, meaning they re-evaluate the
jurisdictional issue entirely, independent of the tribunal's decision.
o England: Similar to France, England also employs a de novo review standard.
Similarities:
 All three jurisdictions recognize the importance of the competence-competence
principle in promoting efficient and streamlined arbitration processes.
 All allow challenges to arbitral decisions on jurisdiction, ensuring a check on tribunal
power and upholding the rule of law.
Analysis of National Approaches:

14
  France: France's approach offers a clear and tribunal-centric system, upholding the
parties' agreement to arbitrate and promoting efficiency. However, some argue that the
limited court involvement can restrict access to courts in cases where the arbitration
agreement itself might be questionable.
 India: India's evolving approach balances respecting arbitration agreements with
allowing courts some discretion to intervene in specific situations. This approach
might lack the clarity of the French system but offers more flexibility. Recent
Supreme Court decisions provide valuable insights into the application of the
competence-competence principle in various contexts.
 England: England's most flexible approach considers various factors to determine the
appropriate forum for jurisdictional challenges. This flexibility aims to balance
tribunal autonomy and court oversight, ensuring a fair and efficient resolution of
jurisdictional issues. However, the lack of a clear legal framework can lead to less
predictability compared to the French system.
X. Conclusion:
The competence-competence principle plays a vital role in international arbitration,
empowering arbitral tribunals to decide on their own jurisdiction, including the validity of the
arbitration agreement itself. This project explored how this principle operates in the legal
frameworks of India, France, and England.
Analysis revealed key differences in the balance of power between tribunals and courts.
France offers the clearest legal framework with a strong positive effect for tribunals and
limited court involvement. This prioritizes party autonomy and efficiency, but some argue it
can restrict access to courts.
India takes a more moderate approach, allowing courts some discretion to intervene in
specific situations while generally respecting arbitration agreements. This balance offers
flexibility but may lack the clarity of the French system.
England employs the most flexible approach, weighing various factors to determine the
appropriate forum for jurisdictional challenges. This aims to balance tribunal autonomy with
court oversight for fair and efficient resolutions, but it can be less predictable.
The future of the competence-competence principle likely lies in a refined balancing act.
Striking a careful equilibrium between respecting party autonomy and upholding essential
safeguards provided by courts will be crucial. As international arbitration continues to evolve,
ongoing discussions and potential harmonization efforts can lead to a more consistent and
predictable application of this principle across different legal systems.
This project has provided a valuable comparative analysis of the competence-competence
principle. By understanding the nuances of each jurisdiction, legal practitioners and parties to
international arbitration agreements can make informed decisions about where to resolve
their disputes.

XI. Bibliography

15
 Born, G. M. (2014). International commercial arbitration (2nd ed.). Oxford
University Press.
 Park, W. S. (2006). The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle in International
Commercial Arbitration. American Journal of Comparative Law, 55(1), 1-56.
 France: Code of Civil Procedure (Article 1465), India: Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, England: Arbitration Act 1996).

16