The Court compelled arbitration of Sisca's claims against HAL, finding that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met: there was an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention, which provided for arbitration in the territory of a Convention signatory and arose out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which was considered commercial; and a party to the agreement was not an American citizen, or the commercial relationship had some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. The only disputed requirement here was that the personal injury claims arose one day after Sisca's employment agreement expired by its own terms. The Court explained that an employment agreement's termination does not automatically mean that the arbitration agreement is inapplicable. It referred to its own precedents and the precedents of other courts determining that disputes under broadly worded arbitration clauses such as the one in the parties' agreement were subject to arbitration even though the plaintiffs, as Sisca did here, argued that the employment agreement had terminated and thus the arbitration clauses did not apply. The Court then found that no affirmative defenses were proved, and compelled arbitration.