The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.

The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.

The court discusses the second alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitration agreement is “contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams”.

The court discusses what more recent means of communication are also covered by the “exchange of letters or telegrams” alternative: telefax, email, e-commerce, etc.

The court discusses issues specific to an arbitration agreement concluded through an agent or broker, e.g., whether the authorization to conclude it must also be in writing.

The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.

The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.