In contract law, an arbitration clause is a clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process. Although such a clause may or may not specify that arbitration occur within a specific jurisdiction, it always binds the parties to a type of resolution outside the courts, and is therefore considered a kind of forum selection clause.

Arbitration clauses are frequently paired with class action waivers, which prevent contracting parties to file class action lawsuits against each other. In the United States, arbitration clauses also often include a provision which requires parties to waive their rights to a jury trial. All three provisions have attained significant amounts of support and controversy, with proponents arguing that arbitration is as fair as courts and a more informal, speedier way to resolve disputes, while opponents of arbitration condemn the clauses for giving limited appeal options and allowing large corporations to effectively silence claims through "private justice".

Brazil has been very slow to adopt arbitration as its courts often refuse to enforce agreements to arbitrate, especially prior to the passage of Brazilian law number 9.307 (amended by Law No. 13.129 in 2017), the Brazilian Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1996, today considered to be the fundamental law for arbitration within Brazil. Since its passage, though, Brazilian courts have been more willing to enforce agreements to arbitrate, though precedent only stipulates that courts can compel arbitration in disputes involving what the law refers to as "arbitrable patrimonial rights", presumed to relate only to tangible and intangible property disputes. Brazil also requires all arbitrators to refer non-arbitrable disputes to the competent court. Brazil further restricts all arbitration proceedings to be decided by an odd number of arbitrators.

All provinces except for Quebec have adopted an arbitration code similar to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Model Law. Quebec has opted instead to require that arbitrations would be subject to the province's own Civil Code, including Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure. Arbitration in Canada is primarily administered by the ADR Institute of Canada and the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre.

Class action waivers lack a uniform policy across Canada, as the Supreme Court of Canada has found that provincial legislation governed disputes, though in Seidel v. TELUS Communications, the court found that because a class action waiver was attached to an invalid arbitration agreement, the class action waiver was void. The province of Ontario, per the Consumer Protection Act of 2002, has banned class action waivers. A court of appeals in British Columbia also found that class action waivers were unenforceable and unconscionable in Pearce v. 4 Pillars Consulting Group due to the contract in question being a standard form contract written by 4 Pillars and giving little bargaining power to Pearce.

In Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020), the Supreme Court found an arbitration clause requiring a gig worker to litigate before the Dutch International Chamber of Commerce void due to unconscionability.

China allows arbitration clauses to exist, though the Supreme People's Court has found that an arbitration clause that does not specify an "arbitral commission" is invalid and unenforceable. An agreement to arbitrate in China, in addition to specifying a commission, must contain a declared intent to arbitrate as well as name the disputes to be arbitrated in order to be enforceable. In the event that one party questions the validity of an arbitration agreement and requests that a PRC court to determine the validity of the agreement, the court shall determine the validity of the agreement.

French law generally supports arbitration, though declares that capacity, marriage and divorce cannot be arbitrated.