It could have been argued that the choice of law clause applied only to the underlying contract, since that agreement is severable from the arbitration agreement. However, this could have been challenged, given that the parties probably wished to extend the choice clause to all provisions of the treaty, including its arbitration agreement. An important aspect of the proper development of international commercial arbitration is the uniform application of arbitration agreements, which can only be achieved if different for a refrain from applying different local laws. For this reason, the direct application of the law of the judicial enforcement forum to the interpretation of arbitration agreements is insufficient. This has also been pointed out by recognized authorities, who have said this: it is particularly important for non-exclusive arbitration agreements that subject all disputes to arbitration, but contain carve-out provisions that reserve the right of the parties to go to court for certain types of claims or remedies. Therefore, Minnesota law should have been applied to interpret the scope of the arbitration agreement and the exception that was established. In addition, it would appear that the Supreme Court has extended the exception for arbitration to circumvent the choice of law provision.