that governs the agreement to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question. Id. at 419. Both parties acknowledge that this means Mississippi state law applies here. A. WMAS first argues that the arbitration agreement at issue should be interpreted to allow arbitration to proceed in any arbitration forum, including but not limited to the NASD. We have found no Mississippi case that interprets language like that presented in the agreement at issue. However, several federal circuit courts have indicated that clauses — like the one at issue here — providing for arbitration “in accordance with” a particular set of rules should be interpreted as forum selection clauses. See, e.g., In re Salomon Inc. S’holders’ Derivative Litig., 68 F.3d 554, 558 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); PaineWebber Inc. v. Rutherford, 903 F.2d 106,
holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration holding that plaintiff cannot be forced to submit to an arbitration process that imposes costs that render the arbitral forum less accessible than a judicial forum that the arbitrator is obligated to allocate costs and fees in accordance with the law and that therefore plaintiff bears no risk by proceeding to arbitration holding that language agreeing to arbitration in accordance with the nyse constitution and rules limited the forum of arbitration to the nyse holding membership in new york stock exchange with concomitant obligation to be bound by arbitration provisions of its constitution and rules sufficient to constitute consent to arbitration of covered disputes whether or not arbitration provisions are specifically incorporated in contract