The purpose of this article is to examine whether the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements can truly be considered as the litigation counterpart to the 1958 New York Convention as well as an instrument which challenges the hegemony of the latter in the field of transnational dispute resolution. The article highlights the main characteristics of the Hague Convention and considers whether the Hague Convention and the New York Convention are truly comparable instruments. The article concludes by examining the effects which the Hague Convention has had or may have with regards to the effective resolution of transnational disputes.