Unilateral dispute resolution clauses, which are also known as "optional" or "asymmetrical" clauses, provide only one party with the right to refer a particular dispute to another dispute resolution forum than primarily agreed between the parties. Wording of such clauses vary a lot, thus one can distinguish between different types of unilateral clauses. There are unilateral jurisdictional clauses which offer one party the choice between various state courts. However, more often "optional clauses" involve arbitration as either the default dispute resolution mechanism, or an option reserved for one party only. The analysed clauses are commonly used in the practice of international business, especially in financial transactions. As they have their origins in common law jurisdictions, unilateral dispute resolution clauses are often introduced to contracts concluded with an American or English party. Their aim is to ensure flexibility of dispute resolution for the party which has a better bargaining position. In continental Europe, unilateral dispute resolution clauses raise many questions about their validity and enforceability. Therefore, this paper aims at explaining the main characteristics of unilateral dispute resolution clauses, considering, in particular, the business and legal rationale standing behind them as well as the procedural settings to which they can lead. Moreover, the author intends to compare the common law approach (England) and the civil law approach (Russian and Polish) in order to conclude what are legal effects of unilateral dispute resolution clauses.
