Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

Introduction

In a world where businesses and individuals increasingly operate across borders, nothing is more fundamental to commercial liberty than the right to choose — in advance and with certainty — which court will hear a dispute and which law will apply. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2005) delivers exactly that freedom.

Currently binding on the European Union (including Denmark), Mexico, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and a growing list of other states (46 contracting parties as of late 2025), this treaty creates a global “New York Convention for court judgments.” It ensures that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a B2B contract is respected everywhere and that the resulting judgment circulates as freely as an arbitral award does under the 1958 New York Convention.

For Liberland — a jurisdiction that wants to be known as the most contract-friendly place on Earth — ratifying the Hague Choice of Court Convention is a strategic necessity. It gives our companies and residents the same iron-clad enforceability of court-choice clauses that arbitration users already enjoy, while preserving total freedom to continue using arbitration whenever preferred. In short: it multiplies legal certainty without sacrificing a single ounce of autonomy.

Summary

Adopted on 30 June 2005 after a twenty-year negotiation led by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the Convention entered into force on 1 October 2015. Its three simple chapters achieve three simple goals:

1. The chosen court must hear the case (Art. 5)
2. Any non-chosen court must decline jurisdiction (Art. 6)
3. A judgment from the chosen court must be recognised and enforced in all other contracting states (Arts. 8–9), subject only to narrow, New-York-Convention-style exceptions (fraud, public policy, or procedural unfairness exceptions.

The treaty applies only to exclusive choice-of-court agreements in civil and commercial matters (B2B). Parties remain completely free to choose arbitration instead, to pick non-exclusive clauses (which fall outside the Convention), or to select the courts of a non-contracting state. Ratification therefore imposes no restriction on existing practices — it only adds a powerful new enforcement tool.

Inner Content – Why it scored 64/70

Individual Liberty (9/10)
The Convention is pure party autonomy in treaty form. Parties decide in advance which court they trust most trust, and every contracting state is obligated to respect that decision. No government can override a freely negotiated exclusive jurisdiction clause except in the most extreme circumstances. A small deduction only because non-exclusive clauses are not covered.

Minimal Government (9/10)
Once ratified, the state’s role is limited to recognising foreign judgments that meet the treaty’s clear criteria. There is no new bureaucracy, no reporting requirements, no supranational court. National courts retain full control over their own proceedings while being required to stay out of cases that belong elsewhere.

Free Markets (10/10)
Exclusive jurisdiction clauses dramatically reduce legal risk and transaction costs. Empirical studies (World Bank, European Commission) show that reliable judgment enforcement increases cross-border trade and investment by measurable percentages. By joining, Liberland instantly becomes a “judgment-friendly” jurisdiction alongside Singapore, Switzerland, and the UK — an enormous competitive advantage for a new country.

Non-Aggression (8/10)
The treaty contains no coercive or punitive provisions whatsoever. It simply enforces private agreements and prevents forum-shopping aggression by litigants who try to ignore the chosen court. An 8 only because the public-policy exception (Art. 9(e)) could theoretically be abused in politically charged cases, though in practice this has been vanishingly rare.

Decentralization (10/10)
No central institution exists. Each contracting state applies the treaty through its own courts, yet a high degree of uniformity has already emerged through case law circulation (the Hague’s “INC” database now contains hundreds of decisions). This is polycentric order at its best.

Feasibility (9/10)
Implementation is exceptionally light: a one-page ratification law and a short declaration (if desired) on scope. No reservations are permitted that would undermine the core obligations, but declarations can limit application to outbound clauses only (Singapore-style). The treaty is already fully compatible with common-law and civil-law systems alike.

Citizen Consent (9/10)
The Convention respects consent at every level: states consent by ratification, businesses consent by inserting an exclusive clause, and individuals consent through the contracts they sign. It loses one point only because the treaty applies automatically to exclusive clauses without an opt-out mechanism at the treaty level (though parties can always choose non-exclusive wording or arbitration).

Conclusion

Ratifying the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention would give Liberland something extraordinarily valuable: the ability to offer two world-class dispute-resolution highways instead of one.

• Keep using the New York Convention for arbitration (already ranked #2 in our list, and
• Add the Hague Convention for those who prefer litigation in a trusted court.

Together they create a perfect menu: merchants can pick whichever method they want, safe in the knowledge that their choice will be enforced worldwide. No other pair of treaties comes closer to realising the libertarian ideal of privately chosen law and privately chosen judges.

For a young nation that wants to attract global startups, crypto exchanges, trading companies, and high-value service providers, this Convention is not merely useful — it is a force multiplier for economic freedom. It costs almost nothing to adopt, requires no new institutions, and immediately raises our credibility with international investors, and perfectly complements our existing arbitration-friendly stance.

Let us join Singapore, Switzerland, the UK, and the EU in this elite club. Let us give our citizens and residents the certainty they deserve. Let us ratify the Hague Choice of Court Convention without delay.