Despite the limited scope of the doctrine, several authorities have given it a broader purpose by arguing that the reason why the arbitration agreement is not governed by the correct law of the matrix contract is that it is generally a clear agreement. According to Born, “the presumption of dissociability means that an arbitration agreement may be subject to a different national law than the underlying contract of the parties. The main explanation for this result is the presumption of separability, which postulates two separate agreements of different characters, which can easily be governed by two national (or other) legislations. This view is supported by other authorities. Doctrine has been essential for arbitration to function when a court faces a challenge with respect to its jurisdiction. A party wishing to evade its duty of conciliation could argue that the compromise clause, which is part of the main agreement, is also null and void because of the invalidity of the main agreement. In addition, the parties argued that the arbitral tribunal it established was not competent to award a sentence. (1) In this section, “arbitration agreement” means an agreement between the parties to submit to arbitration all or part of any dispute that has or has not been formed between them regarding a defined contractual relationship. This could be seen as an implicit assumption of something similar to the validation principle. Both the principle of validation and the English Arbitration Act prioritize the extension of the scope of the presumption of separability in relation to legislation for a single law that should resolve the issue. This is despite the latter being consistent with the principles of normal legislative conflict. However, given the central choice of the parties in the arbitration process, the lack of clarity on legal disputes is a victim that deserves to maintain the validity of arbitration agreements: in the absence of Section 2(5) of the Act, it is entirely possible that the NIOC`s application was successful and that the jurisdiction of the court could have been successfully challenged.
This result would have undermined the parties` express decision to settle their dispute through arbitration and would have forced them to do arbitration, which would have affected the exercise of an arbitration procedure as an effective and binding mechanism. Under English law, an arbitration agreement can be directly charged for public policy reasons. The question arises as to whether the arbitration agreement may be independent of the nullity contract4 or whether it supports the application of the arbitration agreement with a view to promoting or concealing an illegal system or circumventing a foreign right that led to its break.5 Unfortunately, the effect of this doctrine is so profound that practitioners do not apply it in its limited context. Arbitrators and scholars often venture into its limited context and apply it to generally separate the arbitration agreement from the affiliation agreement. This opened a Pandora`s box to the ordinary parts of the trial to stop/delay the resolution of disputes. This places a burden on the parties on the increase in expenses, and the courts are also burdened by cases lightly. Fourth, the application of the principle of dissociability in determining the correct right of the arbitration agreement is contrary to the basis of arbitration, that is, party autonomy. In the development of the main agreement, the parties can agree on a specific national law to regulate contractual obligations and arbitration. For example, the parties choose the current law of the main agreement as the law of New York, while the compromise clause contained in the main agreement does not express the choice of law, but the seat of arbitration was London.