本文从法国最高法院对罗斯柴尔德银行案作出的判决入手,考察不同国家对单边法院选择条款效力的不同态度,认为这些冲突将导致判决结果缺乏可预见性,不利于国际金融交易纠纷的顺利解决,进而主张法院应当尊重当事人意思自治,承认此类条款的有效性和可执行性。此类条款的效力问题在当事人无选择时应适用被选法院地法来认定。当事人可以约定补救条款,以应对单边法院选择条款可能被判无效的风险。 This article starts with the judgment of the Supreme Court of France on the Rothschild Bank case and examines the different attitudes of different countries on the validity of unilateral court selection clauses. They think that these conflicts will lead to the lack of predictability of the judgment result and unfavorable to international financial transaction disputes And successfully advocated that the court should respect the autonomy of parties and recognize the validity and enforceability of such clauses. The question of the validity of such clauses should be validated by the law of the place of election before the parties have no choice. The parties may agree on remedies to deal with the risk that a unilateral court may choose to be invalidated.