Article 6(c) of the Hague Choice of Court Convention (“Convention”) authorises courts seised (albeit not chosen) to ignore exclusive choice of court agreements at the jurisdictional stage if the effect of the agreement would lead to a “manifest injustice” or would be “manifestly contrary” to the public policy “of the State of the court seised”. Many seem to assume that only the domestic law of the State of the court seised matters in this context. Yet, a more nuanced interpretation is suggested in this article in the interest of furthering the Convention’s uniform interpretation. Article 6(c) establishes autonomously at treaty level concepts of injustice and public policy. These concepts do not exhaustively regulate when a court may rely on Article 6(c). However, they do define the potential scope (outer limits) of reliance on injustice and public policy concerns that a court seised (albeit not chosen) may make on the basis of domestic law.

中文翻译：

---

海牙《法院选择公约》第6（c）条中的“不公正”和“公共政策”概念

《海牙法院选择公约》（“《公约》”）第6（c）条授权（尽管未选定）被起诉的法院在管辖权阶段忽略法院协议的排他性选择，前提是该协议的效力会导致“明显的不公正”。或“明显违反”“被检举国”的公共政策。许多人似乎认为，在这种情况下，只有法院国的国内法才可以解决问题。但是，为了促进对《公约》的统一解释，在本文中提出了更为细微的解释。第6（c）条在条约一级自主确立了不公正和公共政策的概念。这些概念并未详尽地规定何时法院可以依赖第6（c）条。然而，