For the purposes of Chapter II, a case is international, unless the parties reside in the same contracting state and the relationship between the parties and all other relevant views, regardless of the seat of the elected jurisdiction, is related only to that state. Convinced that such enhanced cooperation requires, among other things, an international legal order that guarantees security and ensures the exclusive choice of judicial agreements between parties to commercial transactions and regulates the recognition and enforcement of judgments resulting from procedures based on these agreements, this should be emphasized with regard to the relationship between the draft convention and other international instruments. that this draft convention refers to, among other things, the non-exclusive choice of judicial agreements to give preference to the application of the HCCH Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on the exclusive election of judicial agreements. See paragraphs 220 to 225 and 410 to 430 of the draft explanatory report. KW — Ratification and accession to the Hague election N2 — The article describes some of the history of the negotiations of the failure of the Hague Convention (1992-2001) and the Hague Electoral Convention (2002-2005). The latter was chosen from among the small areas of consensus in the negotiations on the Judgment Agreement. The article thus argues that in 1992 the Permanent Office was right to argue for a convention of recognition and application that would prohibit exorbitant jurisdictions, what the author calls a «flexible mixed agreement», and that the time has come for the Hague Conference to resume work on such a project. The article does not contain a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Hague Convention, but rather verifies the article-by-article analysis of Ron Brand and Paul Herrup, two of the U.S. negotiators of the convention, in their book on the convention. The article highlights differences in the interpretation of the convention by Brand and Herrup, as well as by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, rapporteurs of the Convention, who wrote the official interpretive report. From time to time, the author presents different interpretations of Brand and Herrup`s and the explanatory report, including whether the existence of a judicial «agreement» is a concept that can be analyzed as a question of fact or whether it is a court right, or whether the provisions of the convention relating to formal validity and agreements on the choice of material validity and capacity. The author also attempts to shed light on certain provisions of the convention in order to complement what Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report have done. B, for example, declarations and reservations and relations with Community law.

Finally, the article sets out the prospects for the adoption of the agreement in some key countries and notes that the signing of the United States and the EC in early 2009 will, I hope, prompt many countries to take the necessary steps to be bound by this agreement.