In 'Mitsubishi,' the Court held that antitrust claims will be arbitrated when an international agreement encompasses a broad arbitration clause, even if there would be a contrary result in a domestic context. This is the first time the Court has considered whether or not an international contract containing a valid arbitration clause preempts the domestic policy requiring judicial determination of antitrust conflicts. Historically, courts and commentators have ignored the flexibility of arbitration and have treated arbitration of antitrust claims as a clash between two competing philosophies. Although courts have traditionally disfavored the arbitration of antitrust disputes, public policy favoring arbitration is evidenced by the enactment of the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958. The Court dismissed Soler's contention that an arbitration clause must expressly mention a statute before a court may compel arbitration of a claim based upon the statute. The Court states that 'absent allegations of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself, arbitration must proceed when an arbitration clause on its face appears broad enough to encompass the party's claims.' The initial impact of this decision will be to encourage parties to negotiate the inclusion of an arbitration clause in international contracts, knowing that the clause will be enforced. 106 footnotes.