A second and “compelling” reason for dealing with an arbitration agreement under the Statute of the Court of Arbitration in the absence of choice was that such a construction complies with international law as provided for in the 1958 New York Convention and other international instruments. Nor does the principle of dissociatability require that an arbitration agreement be treated as a separate agreement to determine its existing law. As Moore-Bick LJ stated in Sulamica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA against Enesa Engenharia SA  EWCA Civ 638 to : Thanks for this comment. I agree that the minority`s approach to Article 3 of Rome I is perhaps the most persuasive. I am less sure that the very right of the main contract is also the correct right of the arbitration agreement in the absence of an explicit or tacit choice of the existing law of the main contract. In particular, the example given in paragraph 237 (to which Paraden s.256 refers) seems to be wrong: if the exclusionary rule referred to by the minority (contrary to the apparent opinion of the minority) is rightly referred to as a rule of procedure and not an essential rule (see, for example. B BQP/BQQQ  SGHC 55), the problem mentioned would disappear. In addition, I think the majority`s arguments regarding consistency with Article V (1)a) NYC are stronger than their alleged rebuttal in Parares. 251 and follows the minority opinion. “However, the very notion of dissociatability merely reflects the parties` presumed intention to maintain its agreed dispute resolution procedure in circumstances that would render the material contract inoperative. It is intended to give effect to this intention and not to protect the material contract arbitration agreement in all respects.” There are two types of Russian, public (“open”) and private (“closed”) limited companies. The founders of a limited company sign a written agreement for its creation.
This agreement establishes procedures for the incorporation of the business, such as the size of the authorized capital, the types and classes of shares, the cost of the shares, the mandate to settle payments and the rights and obligations of the founders. This agreement then becomes the organisational charter, containing information on the name of the company, the location of the offices, the type of business (public/open (a, OJSC) or private/concluded (PJSC) as well as other specific information on shares, capital, etc. The shares awarded at the time of the creation of the company must be paid in full within one year of the creation of the company, unless the foundation contract requires a shorter period of time. However, at least half of the shares must be paid within three months of the company`s registration by the State. However, a paid action does not necessarily give its owner voting rights.  The dewings and doctrine of dissociation in arbitration law, although primarily similar, should not be mixed. As the majority agreed, the principle of dissociatability does not mean that an arbitration agreement should be treated as a separate agreement for all purposes. On the contrary, the doctrine of dissociatability requires that an arbitration agreement be distinguished from the main contract only for the purpose of determining its validity or applicability. This is clear from the text of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
3. Is the election of an English seat an implicit choice of English law to govern the arbitration agreement? …. “If the parties did not choose the law of the arbitration agreement but chose the seat of arbitration, it would be illogical for the English courts to treat the validity of the arbitration agreement according to the right of the seat, if the parties chose a foreign seat [i.e..