1.1.          ABSTRACT

Arbitration clauses are particularly significant in international commercial agreements when it comes to alternative dispute resolution procedures. It is difficult to describe how judges read arbitration agreements because of their ambiguous and complex language and possible disagreement with the public values of domestic law. This paper examines recent shifts in the interpretation of international law by competing jurisdictions, considers international law when assessing India’s case law, and examines how courts have interpreted arbitration clauses. Three doctrinal concepts—severability, competence-competence, and party autonomy. The primary topics of the analysis include as well as the implementation of the New York Convention.

1.2.          INTRODUCTION

Due to its efficacy, confidentiality, and finality, arbitration has become the preferred means of settling disputes involving international commerce.  Usually found at the end of contracts, the arbitration provision specifies the relevant law, process, forum, and other guidelines that will be adhered to in the event of a disagreement. In any event, it is far too common and easy for ambiguous or badly draughted clauses to result in jurisdictional gaps that necessitate judicial conflict.

Following the 2015 and 2019 revisions, Indian courts have also changed their stance in favour of a pro-arbitration stance that upholds the essence of “The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996”.  Despite all these changes, there are still interpretational gaps, particularly when it comes to cross-border provisions that include conflicting legal systems, languages, and jurisdictions.

In the context of international trade, courts around the world are finding it more and more difficult to execute foreign arbitral awards and interpret arbitration terms that differ from local procedural rules. The judicial interpretation of arbitration provisions is therefore one of the most crucial issues in contemporary international trade and investment.