This article will argue that exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses are in some respects more similar but conversely in other respects less similar than is currently accounted for. Both involve a party submitting to the jurisdiction of a named court or courts which means that the result in cases involving stays or service out should usually be the same. Conversely, a key difference, which is not always given proper weight, is the preclusive effect of exclusive jurisdiction agreements on foreign proceedings. This should usually lead to a different result where a party is seeking an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in a non-chosen court. It is crucial to start by identifying and construing the contractual promises contained in a jurisdiction agreement, both express and implied and both positive and negative. The difference between exclusive and non-exclusive agreements lies in the complex interplay between these positive and negative aspects.

中文翻译：

---

解释非专属管辖权协议

本文将争辩说，排他性和非排他性管辖权条款在某些方面更相似，但在其他方面则比当前解释的不那么相似。两者都涉及当事方服从一个或多个指定法院的管辖权，这意味着涉及中止或送达的案件的结果通常应相同。相反，关键区别（并非总是给予适当的重视）是专属管辖权协议对外国程序的排他性影响。如果当事方寻求反诉讼禁令以限制非选择法院的诉讼程序，通常这将导致不同的结果。至关重要的是，首先要确定和解释管辖权协议中包含的明示和暗示以及肯定和否定的合同承诺。