If the parties agree on arbitration clauses, the potential dispute will be removed from the jurisdiction of the State Court. This may be seen as a contradiction with constitutional rights for his case to be heard by a state court – as a result, most legal systems have particular formal requirements when entering into an arbitration agreement, particularly the requirements that the arbitration agreement be concluded „in writing“. Although the second arrondissement had not previously considered whether the federal courts had jurisdiction over Section 9 confirmation applications, it had addressed the issue in a Section 10 deportation application. In that case, the court adopted the „look-through“ approach used by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether a district court had jurisdiction over a forced conciliation application under FAA Section 4. The Supreme Court asked the district courts to „consult“ the petition on the content of the underlying controversy to decide whether it involved federal law. In this case, the second circuit found no reason not to apply the same standard to an application that must be confirmed in accordance with Section 9. Applying this standard, it found that the district court was „probably“ competent in the case, given that the underlying controversy raises issues of federal trademark law. The court then found that the district court duly upheld the arbitration award, particularly in light of the extreme fear that the courts would have to make such distinctions. The Fifth Circuit was looking into whether Louisiana state law had authorized Daewoo`s temporary seizure. The arbitrator`s jurisdiction is subject to a valid arbitration agreement. These include (i) an individual`s ability to enter into a legally binding arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbiter status of the object; (iii) compliance with certain formal requirements; and (iv) the need to identify the parties, disputes and the legal relationship or relationships that are the subject of them.