The Party Autonomy Paradigm: European and Global Developments on Choice of Forum

  • Xandra Kramer
  • Erlis Themeli
Part of the Short Studies in Private International Law book series (SSIL)


One of the pillars of international commercial litigation is party autonomy as it has developed over the past fifty years. In Europe, the Brussels regime established considerable freedom for parties to select the court that would have jurisdiction. The enforceability of choice of court agreements has gained ground in many countries worldwide, and the freedom to select the competent forum is exercised widely in commercial practice. Early in 2015, the new Brussels Ibis Regulation became applicable, altering the rules on choice of court. These amendments, particularly the exception to the lis pendens rule, aim at increasing the efficiency of choice of court agreements and at preventing torpedo litigation tactics. This year also marks the entry into force of the Hague Choice of Court Convention that had been adopted ten years earlier. The present paper explores the concept and development of the party autonomy paradigm from the perspective of different disciplines, and discusses the empirical evidence available on the use of party autonomy in commercial practice. It also examines the main changes brought about by the Brussels I recast and the entry into force of the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and analyses these against the background of the party autonomy paradigm, as well as their contribution to effective litigation.


Choice of forum Party autonomy Efficiency Lis pendens Competition of courts Brussels Ibis Regulation Hague Choice of Court Convention 


  1. Alpa G (2006) Harmonisation of and codification in european contract law. In: Vogenauer S, Weatherill S (eds) The harmonisation of European contract law: implications for European private laws, business and legal practice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 149–170Google Scholar
  2. Basedow J (2013) Exclusive choice-of-court agreements as a derogation from imperative norms. In: Lindskoug P, Manusbach U, Millqvist G et al (eds) Essays in honour of Michael Bogdan. Juristförlaget, Lund, pp 15–31Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner SP (2002) The proposed hague convention on jurisdiction and foreign judgments: where we are and the road ahead. Eur J Law Reform 4:219–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaton P (2012) Globalisation and Scottish law. In: Kramer XE, van Rhee CH (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague, pp 263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaulier S (2005) Polycentrism and power: a reply to Warren Samuels. In: Stringham E (ed) Anarchy, state and public choice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 178–190Google Scholar
  6. Beaumont P (2014) The revived judgments project in The Hague. Ned Int Privaat Recht 4:532–539Google Scholar
  7. Brand RA (2003) Concepts consensus and the status quo zone: getting to “yes” on a hague jurisdiction and judgments convention. In: Carmody C, Iwasawa Y, Rhodes S (eds) Trilateral perspectives on international legal issues: conflict and coherence. American Society of International Law, Baltimore, MD, pp 71–108Google Scholar
  8. Brand RA (2014) The evolving private international law/substantive law overlap in the European Union. In: Mankowski P, Wurmnest W (eds) Festschrift für Ulrich Magnus zum 70. Sellier European Law Publishers, München, Geburtstag, pp 371–383Google Scholar
  9. Dammann J, Hansmann H (2008) Globalizing commercial litigation. Cornell Law Rev 94(1):1–72Google Scholar
  10. Dickinson A (2010) Surveying the proposed Brussels I bis regulation: solid foundations but renovation needed. In: Bonomi A, Romano GP (eds) Yearbook of private international law, vol XII. Sellier European Law Publishers, München, pp 247–310Google Scholar
  11. Durand-Barthez P (2012) The “governing law” clause: legal and economic consequences of the choice of law in international contracts. Int Bus Law J—Revue de Droit des Affaires Int 5:505–518Google Scholar
  12. Eidenmüller H (2011) The transnational law market, regulatory competition, and transnational corporations. Indian J Global Legal Stud 18(2):707–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evro L (2014) Nordic court culture in progress: historical and futuristic perspectives. In: Ervo L, Nylund A (eds) The future of civil litigation. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 383–408Google Scholar
  14. Fentiman R (2007) Lis pendens–related actions. In: Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) Brussels I Regulation, vol 1. Sellier. European Law Publishers, München, pp 475–522Google Scholar
  15. Garcimartin P (2015) Prorogation of jurisdiction. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I regulation recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Arts, pp 25–26Google Scholar
  16. Gottschalk E (2007) The law applicable to intellectual property rights: is the Lex Loci protection is a pertinent choice-of-law approach? In: Gottschalk E, Michaels R, Rühl G et al (eds) Conflict of laws in a globalized world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 184–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartley T (2005) Choice-of-courts agreements, lis pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: reflections on the Gasser case. In: Jobard-Bachellier M, Mayer P (eds) Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes: mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde. Dalloz, Paris, pp 383–392Google Scholar
  18. Hartley T (2013) Choice-of-court agreements and the new Brussels I regulation. Law Q Rev 129:309–317Google Scholar
  19. Hess B (2005) The draft hague convention on choice of court agreements, external competencies of the European Union and recent case law of the european court of justice. In: Nuyts A, Watté N (eds) International civil litigation in Europe and relations with third states, Bruylant, Brussels, pp 263–284Google Scholar
  20. Hess B, Pfeiffer T, Schlosser P (2007) Report on the application of regulation Brussels I in the member states. CF Müller, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. Kramer XE (2006a) Het nieuwe Haags Forumkeuzeverdrag: Een welkom compromis met vallen en opstaan. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 24:109–118Google Scholar
  22. Kramer XE (2006b) De forumkeuze als betrouwbaar alternatief voor het arbitraal beding in de internationale handelspraktijk? Het nieuwe Haags Forumkeuzeverdrag. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Handelsrecht 5:165–172Google Scholar
  23. Kramer XE (2014) Competitie in de Europese civiele rechtsruimte: een spanningsveld in de grensoverschrijdende geschillenbeslechting? Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 51(4):1745–1806Google Scholar
  24. Kramer XE, van Rhee CH (2012) Civil litigation in a globalising world: an introduction. In: Kramer XE, van Rhee CH (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague, pp 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kruger T (2006) The 20th session of the hague conference: a new choice of court convention and the issue of EC membership. Int Comp Law Q 55(2):447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Low G (2013) A psychology of choice of laws. Eur Bus Law Rev 24(3):363–387Google Scholar
  27. Magnus U (2012) Choice of court agreements in the review proposal for the Brussels I regulation. In: Lein E (ed) The Brussels I review proposal uncovered. The british institute of international and comparative law, London, pp 83–102Google Scholar
  28. Michaels R (2008) Economics of law as choice of law. Law Contemp Probl 71(3):73–105Google Scholar
  29. Moser LGM (2015) Parties’ preferences in international sales contracts: an empirical analysis of the choice of law. Uniform Law Rev 20:19–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nielsen PA (2013) The new Brussels I regulation. Common Market Law Rev 50(2):503–528Google Scholar
  31. Pertegás M (2010) The Brussels I regulation and the Hague convention on choice of court agreements. ERA Forum 11:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pertegás M (2015) Feeling the heat of disputes and finding the shade of forum selection. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht: 374–375Google Scholar
  33. Peters A (2014) The competition between legal orders. Int Law Res 3(1):45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rammeloo S (2003) The long and winding road towards freedom of establishment for legal persons in Europe. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 10(2):169–197Google Scholar
  35. Rühl G (2005) Das Haager Übereinkommen über die Vereinbarung gerichtlicher Zuständigkeiten: Rückschritt oder Fortschritt? Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 25:410–415Google Scholar
  36. Rühl G (2007) Party autonomy in the private international law of contracts: transatlantic convergence and economic efficiency. In: Gottschalk E, Michaels R, Rühl G et al (eds) Conflict of laws in a globalized world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salecl R (2009) Society of choice. Differences 20(1):157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salecl R (2012) Violence as a response to the ideology of choice. Cardozo Law Rev 33(6):2275–2288Google Scholar
  39. Schulz A (2006) The Hague convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements. J Private Int Law 2(2):243–269Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz B (2000) Self-determination: the tyranny of freedom. Am Psychol 55(1):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sieger LE (2011) Civil rights. In: Chatterjee DK (ed) Encyclopedia of global justice. Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smits J (1998) A european private law as a mixed legal system. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 5:328–340Google Scholar
  43. Stone P (2014) EU private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strong S (2014) Limits of procedural choice of law. Brooklyn J Int Law 39:1027–1121Google Scholar
  45. Symeonides SC (2013) The Hague principles on choice of law for international contracts: some preliminary comments. Am J Comp Law 61(4):873–899Google Scholar
  46. Thiele C (2007) The Hague convention on choice-of-court agreements: was it worth the effort? In: Gottschalk E, Michaels R, Rühl G et al (eds) Conflict of laws in a globalized world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64(5):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trachtman JP (1993) International regulatory competition, externalization, and jurisdiction. Harvard Int Law J 34(1):47–104Google Scholar
  49. Visscher L (2012) A law and economics view on harmonisation of procedural law. In: Kramer XE, van Rhee CH (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vogenauer S (2013) Regulatory competition through choice of contract law and choice of forum in Europe: theory and evidence. In: Eidenmüller H (ed) Regulatory competition in contract law and dispute resolution. Verlag C.H. Beck and Hart Publishing, München, Oxford, pp 227–286Google Scholar
  51. Vogenauer S, Weatherill S (2006) The European community’s competence to pursue the harmonisation of contract law—an empirical contribution to the debate. In: Vogenauer S, Weatherill S (eds) Studies of the Oxford Institute of European and comparative law. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland Oregon, pp 105–148Google Scholar
  52. Wagner G (2013) Dispute resolution as a product: competition between civil justice systems. In: Eidenmüller H (ed) Regulatory competition in contract law and dispute resolution. C.H. Beck, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, and Hart Publishing, München, Baden-Baden, Oxford, pp 347–422Google Scholar
  53. Wauschkuhn JL (2014) Babel of international litigation: court language as leverage to attract international commercial disputes. Ned Int Privaatrecht (3):343–350Google Scholar
  54. Weller M (2015) Mutual trust: in search of the future of European Union private international law. J Private Int Law 11(1):64–102Google Scholar
  55. Zimmer D (2000) Private international law of business organisations. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 1(3):585–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zimmermann R (2006) Contract law reform: the German experience. In: Vogenauer S, Weatherill S (eds) The harmonisation of european contract law: implications for european private laws, business and legal practice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 71–88Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser press and the authors 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus School of LawErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations