<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/v2/static/oai2.xsl"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-09-18T23:51:14Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="oai:figshare.com:article/32769507" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:figshare.com:article/32769507</identifier>
        <datestamp>2026-06-23T11:29:04Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>portal_1132</setSpec>
        <setSpec>item_type_8</setSpec>
        <setSpec>month_year_06_2026</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"  xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>Determining the proper law of arbitration agreements</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>Pooya Fakharian (21043472)</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>arbitration agreements</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>This thesis examines the proper law of arbitration agreements, with particular focus on English
law following the enactment of the Arbitration Act 2025. The central problem arises where
parties choose the law governing their main contract and the seat of arbitration, but fail expressly
to choose the law applicable to the arbitration agreement itself. This omission can become
decisive when the validity, existence or scope of the arbitration agreement is challenged before
courts or arbitral tribunals, both at the pre-award and post-award stages.

The thesis critically evaluates the principal choice-of-law approaches used to determine the law
governing arbitration agreements. It first considers the matrix rule, under which the law of the
main contract is presumed to govern the arbitration agreement, and argues that this approach is
conceptually and practically problematic. It then examines the seat rule, now codified in section
6A of the Arbitration Act 1996 by the Arbitration Act 2025, and argues that although this reform
improves certainty, it does not adequately resolve the deeper difficulties created by rigid choice of-law rules.

Through analysis of English case law, comparative authorities, statutory materials, international
instruments and academic literature, the thesis argues that the validation principle offers a more
persuasive solution. Under this principle, where more than one connected law may apply, courts
should prefer the law that upholds rather than invalidates the arbitration agreement. The thesis
concludes that English law should not abandon validation principle, but should incorporate it as
a necessary safety valve to protect party autonomy, promote effectiveness, and support the pro-arbitration objectives of international arbitration.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
          <dc:date>2026-06-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Thesis</dc:type>
          <dc:identifier>10779/exe.32769507.v1</dc:identifier>
          <dc:relation>https://figshare.com/articles/thesis/Determining_the_proper_law_of_arbitration_agreements/32769507</dc:relation>
          <dc:rights>All rights reserved</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
