A problem that has been increasingly raised by international arbitrations is whether third parties can be admitted into arbitration proceedings without their explicit consent. A recently closed CNUDCI case involved a situation where only the applicant and the opponent of the first appeal signed an arbitration agreement, while the second and third were not. The second respondent created and was responsible for the main agreement, while first Respondent was created exclusively for the project – a typical example of an VPS. Serbian law is similar to most legal systems and requires a written form of arbitration clauses. The rigidity of the legislation is a major obstacle to the extension of arbitration clauses. (a) the parties to an arbitration agreement, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, have their offices in different states; It should be noted that, unlike litigation in courts where third parties can often be involved in proceedings, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal is limited to allow the Joinder or the intervention of third parties in an arbitration procedure. The Tribunal`s jurisdiction derives from the agreement of the parties to the arbitration agreement and, therefore, membership or intervention is generally only possible with the agreement of all parties (including the original parties and third parties of the arbitration proceedings). [3] The State of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards, UNCI homepage, uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards/status2, last access: 30 June 2020. The New York Convention and the laws of many states parties governing international arbitration apply only to “international” or “foreign” arbitration agreements. B. Location: Arbitration, Court or Arbitration; The above clause includes all elements of an arbitration agreement, including arbitration issues, arbitration intent, arbitration headquarters, arbitration institution, arbitration rules, the right to the validity of the arbitration agreement, the constitution of the arbitration tribunal and the language of arbitration, and clearly explains concepts that are easy to confuse.

While the parties wish to mediate in other arbitration institutions, they may also use the compromise clause of this model as a reference. A positive attitude towards the extension of an arbitration clause represents a significant risk to the plethora of investments modelled by the SPV, as this means that foreign investors – not the signatories of the main agreement and the controversial arbitration clause – may be involved in arbitration proceedings. To avoid this risk, we recommend that the extension of the compromise clause to non-signatories be expressly excluded from any agreement.