In this case the Supreme Court considers the resolution of two adverse historical policies: the judicial aversion to arbitration of antitrust claims and the strong public policy favoring arbitration. Courts have traditionally disfavored arbitration and advocated judicial determination of antitrust disputes due to the public interest in the enforcement of antitrust laws. In Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., however, the Supreme Court refused to extend the domestic policy of nonarbitrability established in Wilko v. Swan to an international securities dispute. In Mitsubishi v. Soler the Scherk doctrine is extended. The Court holds 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. The initial impact of this decision will be to encourage parties to negotiate the inclusion of an arbitration clause in international contracts with confidence the clause will be enforced in the courts. 106 footnotes.