question: In a contract between two international parties, how is jurisdiction and enforcement decided?
comment: Normally it is stated specifically in the contract, and thus agreed upon by both parties: "This agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of ___ and any disagreement shall be heard in the courts of ___." Or similar.
passages: Section::::International jurisdiction over contractual matters.:Choice of jurisdiction.
  
  Courts in member nations to whose jurisdiction the contracted parties have agreed to submit the matter in writing will have jurisdiction to settle controversies stemming from civil or commercial international contracts.
  
  Section::::International jurisdiction over contractual matters.:Agreement of choice.
   The jurisdiction can be agreed on at the time the contract is signed, during the life of the contract, or even when the dispute actually arises. The validity and effects of the choice of venue will be governed by the law of the member nations that normally have jurisdiction to hear the case, always resorting to the law most favorable to the validity of the contract. Whether or not jurisdiction is chosen, such jurisdiction will be prorogated in favor of the courts of the member state where the proceedings are in fact filed, provided the respondent voluntarily allows this in an affirmative and unfeigned way.
   BULLET::::2. Recognition of foreign judgments. Even where a conflict of laws exists, the court will recognize the validity of a foreign judgment in most cases. Under U.S. law, this authority is part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under international law, this authority is part of the doctrine of comity. The court will invoke comity by its discretion and will usually look to two factors before using its discretionary powers: did the foreign court have jurisdiction, and were fair procedures used in adjudicating the case? Under English law, it is the doctrine of obligation. Within the European Union the Brussels Recast Regulation determines jurisdiction and recognition.
   Should the contracted parties not agree on courts competent to settle disputes, the member state chosen by the plaintiff of the case has jurisdiction—the court of the place where the contract is to be performed, the court of the domicile of the respondent, or the court of the domicile, or headquarters of the claimant when the latter can show that it has done its part. For purposes of item (i) above the place of performance of the contract is the member state where the obligations on which the claim is based have been or should be performed, taking into consideration the following: For contracts involving certain specific items, the place where they existed at the time of contract signing; For contracts involving specific items according to their type, the place of domicile of the debtor at the time of contract signing; For contracts involving fungible items, the place of domicile of the debtor at the time of conclusion of the contract; and For service rendering contracts:
   Under Article 9, a contract concluded between persons who are in the same country is formally valid if it satisfies the formal requirements of either the Applicable Law or the law of the country where it is concluded. A contract concluded between persons who are in different countries is formally valid if it satisfies the formal requirements of either the Applicable Law or the law of one of those countries. Where a contract is concluded by an agent, the country in which the agent acts is the relevant country for the purposes of the earlier tests. But a contract relating to immovable property is always subject to the mandatory provisions of the "lex situs".
   The rules on litigation jurisdiction over contractual matters will apply to disputes arising from civil or commercial international contracts between private-law legal entities or individuals provided that: They are domiciled or headquartered in different member states: At least one of the parties to the contract is domiciled or headquartered in any member state and, additionally, has made a choice of jurisdiction in favor of a court in one of the member states. In this case, there must be a reasonable connection between the jurisdiction chosen and the controversy. The scope of the application of the international jurisdiction guidelines over contractual matters excludes the following: legal relationships between bankrupt entities/individuals and their creditors and any other analogous proceedings (especially concordatas composition with creditors); matters under agreements involving family and succession law; social security contracts; administrative contracts; employment contracts; consumer sales contracts; transport contracts; insurance policies; and rights in rem.
   The ICSID does not conduct arbitration or conciliation proceedings itself, but offers institutional and procedural support to conciliation commissions, tribunals, and other committees which conduct such matters. The center has two sets of rules that determine how cases will be initiated and conducted, either under the ICSID's Convention, Regulations and Rules or the ICSID's Additional Facility Rules. To be processed in accordance with the ICSID Convention, a legal dispute has to exist between one of the center's contracting member states and a national of another contracting member state. It must also be of a legal nature and relate directly to an investment. A case can be processed under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules if one of the parties to the dispute is either not a contracting member state or a national of a contracting member state. However, most cases are arbitrated under the ICSID Convention. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is entirely voluntary. However, once the parties have consented to arbitration under the ICSID Convention, neither party can unilaterally withdraw its consent.
   The Convention applies to contracting parties only; however, in cases where a contracting party court has to confirm the ruling of a non-contracting state, they retain a duty to act within the confines of article 6. Such was the case in "Pellegrini v Italy" (2001), a case concerning the application of a Vatican ecclesiastical court ruling on a divorce case.
   The article provides three different methods of reaching a choice of forum agreement, which can be both formal and less formal, consistent with commercial practice. The first route to reach a choice of forum agreement, is through ‘writing or evidenced in writing’; consistent with the above-mentioned purpose however, the mere fact that for instance a clause conferring jurisdiction is printed among the general conditions on the reverse of the contract, is not sufficient on its own, since “no guarantee is thereby given that the other party has really consented”. Second, one can reach a choice of forum agreement 'in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves'; in this situation, an oral agreement can for example be sufficient, if it "forms part of a continuing trading relationship" and that "the dealings taken as a whole are governed by the general conditions of the party giving the confirmation". Indeed, in that scenario, it would be "contrary to good faith" for the recipient of the confirmation to deny the existence of a jurisdiction conferred by consent, "even if he had given no acceptance in writing". The third way to prorogate jurisdiction is, in the hypothesis of international trade or commerce, through a 'form which accords with a usage of which parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such a trade or commerce is widely known'.
   The CISG also applies if the parties are situated in different countries (which need not be Contracting States) and the conflict of law rules lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State. For example, a contract between a Japanese trader and a Brazilian trader may contain a clause that arbitration will be in Sydney under Australian law with the consequence that the CISG would apply. A number of States have declared they will not be bound by this condition.
   Nevertheless, because the U.S. has ratified the CISG, the CISG in the U.S. has the force of federal law and supersedes UCC-based state law under the Supremacy Clause. Among the U.S. reservations to the CISG is the provision that the CISG will apply only as to contracts with parties located in other CISG Contracting States, a reservation permitted by the CISG in Article 95. Therefore, in "international" contracts for the sale of goods between a U.S. entity and an entity of a Contracting State, the CISG will apply unless the contract's choice of law clause specifically excludes CISG terms. Conversely, in "international" contracts for the sale of goods between a U.S. entity and an entity of a non-Contracting State, to be adjudicated by a U.S. court, the CISG will not apply, and the contract will be governed by the domestic law applicable according to private international law rules.
   Section::::International jurisdiction over contractual matters.:Counterclaims.
  
  In the event of there being a counterclaim based on any act or fact that served as the basis for the main proceeding, the courts hearing the main proceeding will be competent to hear any counterclaims that may arise.
  
  Section::::Educational integration.
   Section::::Agreements on jurisdiction ('choice of court' or 'prorogation of jurisdiction').
  
  The Article 23 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 25) regulates the right of parties to determine (within boundaries) the court which professional parties may choose (prorogation of jurisdiction or choice of forum). The article stipulates that unless the parties have agreed otherwise, this jurisdiction is exclusive; however, unlike the exclusivity under Article 22 of the Regulation (2012 recast: Article 24), a judgment denying a choice of court agreement or its conditions cannot be refused recognition.
   BULLET::::- The "lex fori" determines whether a foreign judgment can be recognised and, if so, how it will be enforced, e.g. what property belonging to the defendant may be taken to satisfy the judgment (see enforcement of foreign judgments). But in the Law of Contract, this is subject to Article 10 of the Rome Convention 1980 which provides that the applicable law governs the consequences of breach, including the quantification of damages.
   Recognition and enforcement of an international commercial arbitral award will be according to the laws of State seeking enforcement . Where the State has adopted the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, enforcement will be according to the terms of the Convention. The Convention provides a simple, uniform and effective means of enforcing arbitral awards and processes. In practice, the Convention is the chief means of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards globally.
  
  Section::::Conflict of laws rules in relation to private commercial disputes.
   Conflict of contract laws
  
  In the conflict of laws, the validity and effect of a contract with one or more foreign law elements will be decided by reference to the so-called "proper law" of the contract.
  
  Section::::History.
   Crucially there was an exporter that had a live contract to export, and one that did not. The Court of Justice held that the exporter with the contract was individually concerned as it was part of a closed group, and annulled the decision where it was concerned. However, the exporter without a contract, despite being directly concerned (affected by the measure), was found not to be individually concerned. 
  
  Furthermore, article 130 imposed an obligation on the Commission to take the interests of such exporters into account, and the Commission had not done so. 
   In contrast to the domestic situation, when a party to an international dispute needs to obtain evidence located in a foreign country, that party will usually need to make a request of the local court for it (the court) to issue a Letter of Request pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention. Under the HEC, each member state is required to designate a Central Authority to receive, review, and carry out incoming requests to obtain evidence from persons (or other entities) located in the receiving country.
   Unlike the Statute of the International Court, the treaty does not state the sources of law to be applied by the Court. The Treaty and any COMESA issued legal instruments, will make the initial law to be applied, but municipal law and international law may also be determined applicable by the Court.
   First, 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the Court (jurisdiction founded on "special agreement" or "compromise"). This method is based on explicit consent and is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the Court's jurisdiction. It is effective because the parties concerned have a desire for the Court to resolve the dispute, and are thus more likely to comply with the Court's judgment. Parties will usually define the nature of the dispute between them and the legal questions on which they wish the Court to rule.
  
  Section::::Contentious cases.:Compromissory clause.
   If there is no express choice, Article 4 provides that the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected. If the agreement is severable, two applicable laws may be selected. For these purposes, it is presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the "lex loci solutionis", i.e. the law of the place where the contract is to be performed, or the law of the habitual residence of the person who is to perform, or, in the case of a body corporate or unincorporate, where its central administration is located. However, if it is a commercial or professional contract, the applicable law will be the law of the place in which the principal place of business is situated or, where under the terms of the contract the performance is to be effected through a place of business other than the principal place of business, the country in which that other place of business is situated except that there is a rebuttable presumption:
   Section::::Contentious cases.:Optional clause declarations.:Succession from PCIJ.
  
  Finally, 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Permanent Court of International Justice's statute. Article 37 of the ICJ's statute similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.
  
  Section::::Contentious cases.:Doctrine of Forum Prorogatum.
  
  Refer to the Corfu Case.
  
  Section::::Advisory opinions.
   In cases in which a third state's interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in the case and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state "with an interest of a legal nature" may apply; however, it is within the court's discretion whether or not to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare, and the first successful application occurred only in 1991.
  
  Section::::Procedure.:Judgment and remedies.
   Some contracts are governed by multilateral instruments that require a non-chosen courts to dismiss cases, and require the recognition of judgements made by courts having jurisdiction based on a choice of court clause. For example, the Brussels regime instruments (31 European states) and the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (European Union, Mexico, Montenegro, Singapore), as well as several instruments related to a specific area of law, may require courts to enforce and recognize choice of law clauses and foreign judgments.
  
  Section::::Disputes.:Remedies.
   The time and place of performance are usually stipulated in the contract. The first port of call, therefore, is to examine the contract and determine whether or not it stipulates a particular place for performance. If there is no specific stipulation, the type of contract generally determines the place for the requisite performance. In the law of sale, for instance, it is the buyer's obligation to fetch the item from the seller. Some obligations can only be fulfilled in a certain place, like the transfer of property, which occurs only at the Deeds Registry.
  