Alternatives and uncertainties of the dispute settlement clauses in international maritime contracts

Abstract

Disputes about jurisdiction are very common in litigation arising from international maritime contracting. In this context the choice of forum is an important matter. Jurisdiction and ar­bitration clauses are two different mechanisms that help to ensure impartiality and predictability in international dispute resolution. Despite their benefits, in the context of international maritime transport documents these clauses can be inconvenient for parties that are forced to litigate many times before distant fora. Most bills of lading contain jurisdiction clauses providing that parties are to resolve any disputes arising in connection with the contract of carriage contained in the bill through litigation in the courts. Where a bill of lading is issued under a charter party, however, and where it expressly incor­porates the charter party’s arbitration clause into its terms, the parties to the contract of carriage con­tained in the bill of lading, including any transferees of the bill, may be obliged to refer their disputes to arbitration. Article 468 of the new Maritime Navigation Act regulates the formal validity of choice of court agreements and arbitration agreements establishing the submission to a foreign court or to an arbitration located abroad.