Dans un cadre mondial, les relations commerciales peuvent être soumises à la compétence d'une pluralité de juridictions, aussi, les outils juridiques permettent-ils la conclusion de conventions de juridiction. Pour autant, ils ne les qualifient pas. Ces conventions peuvent pourtant être rattachées à la matière contractuelle ainsi qu'à la matière procédurale et cette nature duale ressort de la jurisprudence nationale. La doctrine ne s'accorde pas non plus sur la qualification adéquate à retenir. Enfin, malgré l’entrée en vigueur du Règlement 1215/2012 et de la Convention de La Haye de 2005, ce caractère hybride emporte des conséquences en termes de loi applicable. Afin d'améliorer l'efficacité des conventions de juridiction et d'assurer une plus grande sécurité juridique, la thèse envisage une approche téléologique de ces conventions. Elle consiste à s'interroger sur la finalité des outils relatifs à ces dernières : de protection et de promotion des rapports commerciaux. Sur cette base, l'adoption de solutions matérielles et leur cadre juridique peuvent être envisagés.Matériellement, il s’agit de l'intérêt d'une qualification téléologique des conventions de juridiction et du choix de la qualification adéquate. Intimement liée à la qualité des parties, elle fournit l'occasion de redéfinir les critères de distinction de ces acteurs. Le cadre juridique consiste à démontrer l'intérêt d'adopter un instrument international portant une telle qualification et celui de cette qualification autonome.In international contracts, there are many potential competent jurisdictions. This leads to insecurity for contractors and can discourage the formation of international contracts altogether. Given this concern, the legal instrument will provide an agreed upon jurisdiction. However, in many instances the instrument does not specify how these jurisdictional agreements should be characterized. Such provisions could be characterized as contractual or as procedural. As a result, national jurisdictions do not all appreciate such agreements in the same way. What’s more, the legal scholars, will agree on the relevant legal characterization of these jurisdictional agreements. This problem persists despite the express statement by the Convention of 2005, and Regulation 1215/2012, that the lex fori designated by the agreement should be used in determining the substantial validity of such jurisdictional agreements. Indeed, because of this difficult characterization that influences the applicable law, in practice these jurisdictional agreements cannot produce consistent and uniform results amongst all nations. This work aims to analyze the approach of international legislation as well as European legislation. This analysis highlights the two important policy goals underlying the legislation: (1) protection of the weaker contracting party; and, (2) promotion of successful formation and enforcement of international contracts between professionals. In others words, a teleological approach. The analysis also highlights potential weaknesses in the legislative approaches discussed, and proposes potential solutions. One possible solution is material, and consists of characterizing jurisdictional agreements in accordance with the ultimate aim of international and European law. This solution should also include a new way to determine the quality of the contractors involved, since it is essential to be able distinguish and establish the quality of the contractors in these agreements. The second potential solution concerns the appropriate tool for the designation of the jurisdictional territory. This solution also proposes the best way for such designation to be made: autonomously