The fear is that this will lead to uncertainty as to the validity of the English forum agreements. Therefore, in its August 2017 document entitled «Providing a cross-border civil judicial co-operation framework – A future partnership paper», the government stated that it had always committed to continue participating in the 2005 convention, even after the UK`s withdrawal from the EU. Norton Rose Fulbright`s 2015 survey surveyed more than 800 business consultants representing companies from 26 countries about disputes and concerns. About 25 percent of respondents believe the number of disputes their company will face in the next 12 months will increase. «In view of the elections, almost half of those surveyed prefer to use arbitration procedures as a means of settling disputes, with a quarter preferring disputes, and the same proportion saying, `It all depends. The Hague Convention on Forum Arrangements (HCCCA) entered into force in the European Union on 1 October 2015. The Convention aims to create a judicial alternative to arbitration, for which the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards for International Companies Involved in Cross-Border Disputes has long established a uniform set of rules. However, unlike the New York Convention, the HCCCA has so far had only a very limited geographical scope. With the exception of the EU Member States, with the exception of Denmark, only Mexico has ratified the Convention. The United States and Singapore are signatories to the convention, but have not yet ratified it. But, as the explanatory memorandum timidly admits, this is a solution only for the United Kingdom and there is no guarantee that the courts of other States Parties will reply: «. the courts of the various courts of the United Kingdom which treat these agreements (unilaterally) as if, without this loophole, the Convention would continue to apply (except in respect of a judicial election of a Member State of the European Union concluded before the date of withdrawal, for which the Convention was in any event not applicable before that date under Article 26, paragraph (6). It aims to promote international trade and investment by providing greater security for parties involved in international business contracts and litigation. This is achieved by establishing a global framework of rules governing forum agreements (also known as selection decisions or jurisdiction clauses) in civil and commercial matters, and then by the recognition and enforcement of a judgment of a court of a Contracting State designated in such an agreement. 1.

This Convention shall apply to exclusive agreements of jurisdiction concluded in respect of the State of the elected court after its entry into force. 2. This Convention shall not apply to proceedings brought against the State of the court seised before its entry into force. (i) has not been served on the defendant in a timely manner and in a manner that allows him to organize his defence, unless the defendant appears and presents his case without contesting the service before the court of origin, provided that the law of the State of origin permits the contestation of service; or (ii) has been served on the defendant in the requested State in a manner inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the requested State with respect to the service of documents; (a) the court of origin has been designated in a non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement; (b) there is no judgment of another court which may be appealed pending under the non-exclusive trial agreement, nor is there any proceedings between the same parties before another court of that kind in respect of the same plea; and (c) the court of origin was the court that was first seized. . . .