<![CDATA[This paper examines the implications of Article II of the 1958 New York Convention regarding the obligation of national courts to decline jurisdiction when a dispute is subject to a valid arbitration agreement. Using a comparative legal approach, the study analyzes two judicial decisions from different jurisdictions, namely The CYY v. CYZ Case (SGHC 101 of 2023) decided by the Singapore High Court and The Ever Judger v. Kroman Celik Case ([2015] 2 HKLRD 866) decided by the Hong Kong Court. This research highlights the interpretation and application of Article II of the New York Convention by national courts in dealing with arbitration disputes which has been brought before a domestic courts despite the existence of arbitration agreements. The results presented the national court’s decision to limit its judicial intervention and refer the disputes back to arbitration, thus showing a pro-arbitration stance. Therefore, Article II (3) is a significant rule in guaranteeing the enforceability of arbitration agreements throughout national jurisdictions, although different judicial implementations will ultimately influence the practical application. The outcomes contributed to the discussion surrounding enforceability of arbitration agreements across cross-border dispute resolution in both national domestic courts and international arbitration.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
