He may conclude that the Singapore Court of Appeal has no problem in granting the parties considerable private autonomy in how they wish to settle their disputes. The protection of each party, which has the same means of dispute settlement, therefore seems less important. Singapore therefore seems to be a safe choice for parties wishing to use an AAC. This is further evidence that Singaporean courts respect the party`s autonomy. It is likely that Singaporean courts will verify the scope and content of the underlying dispute, as well as the corresponding clause, before deciding whether the dispute will ultimately be referred to arbitration.14www.ciarb.org.sg/singapore-court-appeal-confirms-validity-unilateral-option-arbitrate-clauses. However, Russian law does not appear to require a mere symmetrical arbitration agreement. Alternative dispute settlement agreements, in which both parties have the choice of referring a dispute either to a court or to an arbitral tribunal, appear to be valid and enforceable under Russian law. Similarly, a clause has been validated, according to which one of the parties can only refer disputes to arbitration, but the other is only entitled to procedural law. “A people`s court, when ruling on the law applicable to the recognition of the effect of a foreign arbitration arbitration agreement under Article 18 of the Law of the People`s Republic of China on the Choice of Law Applicable to Civil Relations Abroad, shall invoke the law that recognizes the effect of the arbitration agreement if neither party chooses an applicable law.