Three separate choices
Every dispute resolution structure rests on three distinct decisions, each serving a different purpose. Governing law determines whose substantive rules interpret the contract - what a material breach means, how damages are calculated, whether specific performance is available. Jurisdiction determines which courts can hear a dispute. The dispute mechanism determines whether disputes go to court litigation or to private arbitration.
These are separate questions that need separate drafting. Specify the governing law expressly, then choose either court jurisdiction or arbitration as the mechanism. Leave either to implication and you create uncertainty - and uncertainty in a dispute clause is expensive exactly when you can least afford it.
Enforcement drives the design
The most sophisticated dispute clause is useless if the resulting judgment or award cannot be enforced where the other side's assets are. So work backwards from enforcement: where are the assets, and what travels there - a court judgment under a treaty, or an arbitral award under the New York Convention? Arbitration's dominance in cross-border deals comes largely from that Convention, which is in force in more than 170 states - far wider than any court-judgment regime.
Enforcement also explains why the structural choices below matter so much: exclusive versus non-exclusive jurisdiction, the seat of an arbitration, and the law governing the arbitration agreement each change what can be enforced, and where.
Party autonomy - and its limits
English law gives wide effect to the parties' choices. Under the assimilated Rome I rules a contract may be governed by the law of any country the parties choose, even one with no connection to the deal; asymmetric and unilateral option clauses are valid; and the courts will protect chosen jurisdiction and arbitration agreements robustly, including by anti-suit injunction.
But autonomy has limits: overriding mandatory rules and public policy can displace the chosen law, the choice must be of a national legal system, and some foreign courts will not enforce clauses (such as asymmetric ones) that English law upholds. Each supporting article takes one of these choices in turn.
What has changed: 2024-2025
The framework has moved recently, and contracts should reflect it. The Arbitration Act 2025 (in force 1 August 2025) introduced a new default that the law of the seat governs the arbitration agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise - reversing the previous case-law position. And the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 came into force for the UK on 1 July 2025, improving enforcement of judgments from non-exclusive and asymmetric jurisdiction clauses between the UK and other contracting states.
Post-Brexit, English courts have also restored their power to grant anti-suit injunctions against EU proceedings, and the Supreme Court has extended anti-suit relief to support some foreign-seated arbitrations. The defaults you relied on a few years ago may no longer hold.
How to use these guides
Treat the clause as three deliberate choices and test each against enforcement. The supporting articles cover: choosing the governing law; exclusive, non-exclusive, and asymmetric jurisdiction clauses (and anti-suit injunctions); the law governing the arbitration agreement after the 2025 Act; the seat and the institutions; choosing between arbitration and litigation; drafting the arbitration clause to avoid pathological defects; and who, beyond the signatories, is bound.
The unifying discipline is the same as elsewhere in contracting: decide deliberately and say so expressly. A dispute clause left to implication is a dispute about the dispute clause.
Use at the desk
Practical checklist
- Make three separate, express choices: governing law, jurisdiction, and court vs arbitration.
- Work backwards from enforcement - where are the assets, and what travels there (New York Convention award vs court judgment)?
- Specify a national governing law; do not leave it to implication.
- Decide exclusive vs non-exclusive jurisdiction, and check asymmetric clauses against the likely enforcement forum.
- After 1 August 2025, expressly state the law governing any arbitration agreement (the Arbitration Act 2025 default is the seat).
- Use current institutional model clauses and avoid pathological defects (see the drafting guide).
This guide is informational only and is not legal advice. It does not replace advice from licensed counsel on the facts of a specific transaction.
Product demo
Use the guide for context. Use Veqtor for the Word documents.
Watch Claude compare negotiation drafts and create a separate Word document with proposed tracked changes.
See Veqtor work with Word redlines