Most of the time, these are arbitration clauses that provide that all disputes arising from the contract are settled before the « arbitration tribunal. » In determining the actual intention of the parties, it turns out that one party (usually a Russian company) would have been arbiter by the State (taking into account the judicial system of the Russian Federation), the other party – the arbitration institution, that is, a non-governmental court. It is also not uncommon for an arbitration clause to specify a non-existent arbitration procedure. Such a clause simply cannot be respected. The crown courts decided to enforce the sentence and rejected the respondent`s arguments that the centre was not competent. The Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Russia overturned the judgments of the preliminary proceedings, which found substantial violations of material and procedural law. The highest court found that the parties had not agreed on an arbitration procedure, as the arbitration agreement did not qualify any arbitration institution (or ad hoc arbitration rule) as competent in dispute resolution. As a result, the compromise clause could not be construed as an agreement between the Dispute Resolution Centre. Many national laws have recognized that the disability, non-existence, illegality or termination of the material contract does not affect the validity, legality or existence of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, arbitrators have the prerogative to consider all challenges related to the existence, validity, legality or termination of the main contract, as these challenges do not affect the arbitration agreement itself. It is not uncommon for the parties to invoke the arbitration agreement to resolve disputes that arise before the contract is concluded. In this regard, some courts have agreed to retroactively apply the arbitration agreement (see.B. Clark v.

Kidder, Peabody-Co., 636 F.Supp. 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)). In an important English decision, Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping, [1981] A.C. 980, Lord Diplock discussed the nature of the compromise clause and found that « the compromise clause itself constitutes a contractual guarantee or ancillary assistance to the [underlying] contract. « . Lord Diplock`s statement was approved by two other members of the House of Lords. The U.S. Federal Arbitration Act does not explicitly address the issue of the separation of arbitration agreements. However, the U.S. courts have applied the doctrine of dissociability in various cases and have established uniform jurisprudence on the autonomy of the compromise clause (cf.

B Prima Paint Corp/ Flood – Conklin Mfg Co, 388 U.P.395, 87 P. Ct. 1801 (1967)). – Texts of additional direct agreements recommended. Today, the doctrine of dissiability is acceptable throughout the world to be considered the cornerstone of international arbitration, regardless of the law applicable to the procedure or the merits.