Conflictoflaws

Views and News in Private International Law

Updated: 1 hour 10 min ago

Digital Governance, Regimes Theory and Private International Law. A tech diplomacy perspective

Mon, 11/17/2025 - 17:12

By Juliano Alves Pinto, Brazilian tech diplomat; former Deputy Consul of Brazil in San Francisco (2013–2016); State Undersecretary of Science, Technology, and Innovation (2019–2021); HCCH expert on digital economy (2023–2024); and Government Affairs Director at the Digital Cooperation Organization (DCO) (2024–2025)

Could Private International Law be an answer to digital governance? Though this idea has already been debated among PIL scholars, it must be said that it has not yet broken the bubble of the PIL niche. Diplomats usually overlook PIL as a small part of the larger International Law realm, which embraces Public International Law as the standard bearer of the multilateral framework that has been established ever since the Westphalia Peace in 1648.

However, the uniqueness of digital platforms architecture and its asymmetric relationship with individuals all around the world has made PIL emerge as a relevant normative toolbox to tackle the numerous situations in which the user needs to protect themselves from the leonine contracts and the frequent algorithmic abuses on data extraction, data privacy and, even more often, IA misleading guidance.

A digital platform is usually comprised of a number of layers, which may reflect different jurisdictions according to the territory in which a specific component of the platform architecture is localized. That said, an individual can access a platform in a country A and the platform could be hosted in a country B. Their personal data -collected by the platform- could be stored on a cloud-based server in a country C, not to mention third-party applications used by the platform that could be placed in different jurisdictions. If a lawsuit is set, which law is applicable? Is it the place of business the usual connecting factor?

Instead of long-lasting negotiations to approve an international treaty on a specific emerging technology governance, which usually turns out to be time and resource consuming, a simplified PIL convention that offers an applicable law methodology, defining connecting factors in typical conflict of law situations, as well as the ubiquity of specific platform layers, might be more effective. The current world order on digital governance is a highly fragmented reality, with a number of multilateral initiatives being launched within or without the UN System, from the traditional International Telecommunications Union to the emerging Digital Cooperation Organization, sponsored by Saudi Arabia.

Domestic regulatory frameworks on new technologies are becoming the standard approach in an array of jurisdictions. An example is the digital tokens realm, which has already been regulated in different countries, from Switzerland (2018) to Brazil (2022) and the EU (2023). Even though it might be difficult for lawmakers to cope with technology change, even a provisional regulation is better than self-regulation alone.

From an International Relations perspective, the International Regimes Theory is often regarded as the go-to approach among diplomats and multilateralism experts, as it deals with the idea that cooperation among countries, regardless of self-interest, should be done by a minimal normative system, not necessarily formalized by treaties or an international organization framework. Stephen Krasner defined international regimes in 1982 as sets of “principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actors converge in a given issue-area of the international relations.” [1] Normally these principles, norms, and rules are established by the actors themselves to make sure goals through cooperation are achieved. From a digital multilateralism point of view, it is no wonder that the very definition of internet governance included in the WSIS Tunis Agenda in 2005 coincides with Krasner’s classic approach:

34. A working definition of Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.[2]

It is worth noting that the WSIS approach embraces multiple actors, beyond the typical state-centered approach, as innovation requires a triple-helix perspective, alongside the private sector and Academia. Still, governance itself cannot be achieved without a minimal rule-based system. The main difficulty of multilateralism and Public International Law is the time needed to reach the necessary consensus to build up international rules by which countries need to abide.

Technology develops in a much faster pace, which means that the already-late-coming domestic norms are often approved quicker than any multilateral framework. In this sense, treaty-based multilateralism might not be the only solution to provide the necessary protection to individuals and digital platforms all around the world.

The other side of the coin is that domestic frameworks alone fail to provide individual protection when cross-border relationships are established through digital platforms and their multiple layers localized in different jurisdictions. PIL in this sense could be the right answer to law efficacy, not only from a multilateral perspective but also from a domestic regulatory system approach.

Interestingly, flexibility and adaptation became one of the main features of International Regimes Theory, not only by embracing new actors but also through the construction of unorthodox multilateral arrangements.[3] That said, PIL institutes, such as applicable law, jurisdiction and judgment recognition, could be included as components of any regime building methodology, whereas domestic regulatory frameworks could become the main normative sources of newly PIL-based regimes of digital governance. The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has been tackling this issue since 2022, having successfully established two groups of experts on digital tokens and CBDC’s. Though unfamiliar to most tech diplomats and multilateralism specialists, both initiatives might be fundamental to change the current fragile digital governance landscape, as the definition of the law applicable to platforms might shed some light onto a rather obscure international reality.

Hence, it is about time for tech diplomats, scholars, and policy makers to embrace PIL as a relevant digital governance mechanism. At the end of the day, we just need to make sure individuals receive the necessary protection across the globe, regardless of the jurisdiction concerning the multiple layers of a platform’s architecture.

—

This contribution is a summarized version of a PhD thesis originally written in Portuguese that will soon be included on: https://www3.ufmg.br/pesquisa-e-inovacao/teses-e-dissertacoes

[1] KRASNER, Stephen (1982) Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables

[2] WSIS: Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (2005)

[3] SNIDAL, ABBOTT (2009) The governance triangle: Regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

LEX and FORUM VOLUME I /2025

Mon, 11/17/2025 - 10:59

The sweeping pace of technological advancement and the accelerated transition to the digital realm are generating novel and complex challenges for the law. Established legal frameworks are increasingly being tested within the digital environment, where cutting-edge technologies — such as digital platforms and artificial intelligence — have come to play a decisive role in both social and economic activity.

Although the European Union may not yet have attained its full technological maturity, it stands at the forefront of confronting the legal implications of the digital era. The Union’s legislative agenda seeks to maintain a delicate equilibrium between, on the one hand, promoting innovation and technological development, and, on the other, safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals while ensuring transparency and accountability among digital service providers.

The areas most profoundly affected by the digital transformation of European law include data protection — governed primarily by Regulation (EU) 2016/679, commonly known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); electronic commerce and digital platforms facilitating cross-border transactions — regulated by Directive 2000/31/EC; cybersecurity; electronic governance; and digital markets — significantly shaped by Regulation (EU) 2022/1925. Within these domains, a dense and intricate body of Regulations, Directives, and legislative Acts has redefined the structure and operation of the online marketplace.

Prominent among these legislative instruments are the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), both designed to counter disinformation and enhance transparency in the operation of digital platforms; the Digital Governance Act (DGA), which seeks to reinforce the effective and trustworthy governance of digital services; the Data Act (DA), aimed at facilitating data access, management, and reuse in innovative applications; and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), which establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure the safe, lawful, and ethical deployment of artificial intelligence systems. Collectively, these instruments have come to dominate contemporary European legal discourse concerning the digital transformation.

The 17th online conference of Lex&Forum, held on 27 February 2025, was devoted to issues of particular interest and considerable complexity within the field of law. This session was organized, on this occasion, in collaboration with Frederick University of the Republic of Cyprus.
The conference was chaired by Professor Panagiotis Degleris of the co-organizing University, within the framework of which the following presentations of the invited speakers were delivered: Theodoros Galanis, PhD, ‘The Digital Markets Act: Brief Overview and Implementation Challenges’; Efrosyni Siougle, PhD, Head of Advisory and Compliance at the Data Protection Authority, ‘The interaction of the GDPR with recent EU legislative developments (DSA, DMA, DGA, DA, AIA)’, Ioannis Revolidis, Lecturer in Media, Communication & Technology Law, Law School, University of Malta, ‘The Strengthened 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation: Continuities and Innovations in EU Digital Regulation’; Anastasia Kalantzi, PhD, Lawyer, ‘The General Data Protection Regulation as court evidence in the digital age’, Maria Stylianidou, Assistant Professor, Law School, Frederick University,
‘The Protection of Whistleblowers in the Digital Age / The Contemporary Face of Governance’.

As the Praefatio of the first issue of the year, we have the great honor of presenting the speech-reflection of an unrivaled scientific career and academic ethos of the world-renowned international law Professor, Mr. Symeon Symeonides at the scientific symposium organized in his honor as an academic farewell by the Willamette University School of Law, in collaboration with the ‘Association of American Law Schools Section on Conflict of Laws’, in May 2024, on the topic of “Reflections from Fifty Years in the Conflicts Vineyard: An Immigrant’s Story”.

In the case-law section, we present (a) The CJEU, 27.2.2025, Società Italiana Lastre/Agora, on asymmetrical choice of court agreements (commented by Prof. D. Stamatiadis), (b) the domestic rulings: Piraeus Court of Appeal 398/2024, on service to a company with a registered office in Singapore (commented by A. Anthimos), Athens Court of First Instance cases 3150/2024 and 269/2025, on recognition of a final (non-appealable) divorce judgment issued by a Swiss court (connected with the legal opinion by Ass. Prof. K. Rokas), and Athens Court of First Instance 244/2025, on recognition of the res judicata effect of foreign court orders issued by a U.S. court placing a legally incapacitated adult under guardianship and appointing a conservator of the adult’s estate (commented by Ass. Prof. G.-A. Georgiades), and (c) the foreign National Court Caselaw, Cour de Cassation, 2.4.2025, Pourvoi n. 23-11.456, on submission of a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU regarding whether a claim for damages arising from the abrupt termination of a commercial relationship is contractual or non-contractual in nature. (commented by E. Tsikrika), and Cassazione Civile, 10.7.2024, ??. 18445/2024, on determination of the child’s ‘habitual residence’ in cases of international child abduction involving a child of tender age. (commented by Judge I. Valmantonis).

The scientific section includes a study by Prof. Efie Kinini (Univeristy of Athens) on “The limitation period for a damages claim in cases of infringement of competition rules. Reflections prompted by the CJEU judgment in Heureka and the Opinion of Advocate General Medina in Nissan” and a legal opinion of Ass. Prof. K. Rokas (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), on ‘Recognition of a foreign divorce judgment from a third country: the requirement concerning the applicable law under Article 780 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure’. It also features the thoughts of Dr. Apostolos Anthimos, on ‘UK Third party costs orders enforceable in Greece’, as well as the particularly important in enforcement of foreign judgements proceedings Certificate of enforceability under Article 53 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, edited by Judje A. Kargopoulos.. The issue concludes with the regular quarterly review of the CJEU’s case-law, covering the period January-March 2025, by Dr. A. Anthimos.

Lex&Forum renews its scientific appointment with its readers for the next 18th issue, with the central topic of ‘The EU Accession to the ECHR – Procedural Hurdles and Prospects Before the ECtHR -‘.

Prof. Paris Arvanitakis

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

LEX & FORUM VOLUME I /2025

Mon, 11/17/2025 - 10:57

Prof. Paris Arvanitakis

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Tatlici v. Tatlici on Appeal: Defendant Wins as Public Policy Confronts the Financialization of Cross-Border Defamation Award

Sun, 11/16/2025 - 10:33

Written by Fikri Soral, Independant Lawyer, Turkey; and LL.M. student, Galatasaray University, Turkey

The Tatlici litigation continues to unfold as one of the most noteworthy examples of how national courts in Europe are responding to transnational defamation judgments obtained in the United States. The previous commentary examined Malta’s First Hall Civil Court judgment refusing to enforce the U.S. default award of US$740 million.[1] The Malta Court of Appeal’s judgment of 14 October 2025 builds upon that foundation by upholding non-enforcement while clarifying the legal reasoning behind it.[2] The Malta Court of Appeal’s judgment came as the second major development, following an earlier first-round enforcement attempt in Turkey that had already failed on venue.[3]

The Malta Court of Appeal upheld the First Hall Civil Court’s rejection of enforcement but replaced procedural formalism with a more principled proportionality analysis grounded in ordre public. The judges, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Hon. Judge Robert G. Mangion and Hon. Judge Grazio Mercieca, held that the magnitude and moral nature of the award—being damages for defamation—“manifestly” offended Maltese public policy.[4] Such “astronomic” damages, the court reasoned, would have a chilling effect on free expression and thereby upset Malta’s constitutional balance between protecting reputation and safeguarding democratic speech.[5]

The court also noted that the absence of a reasoned Florida judgment hindered the court’s ability to test the applicant’s belated claim that the award represented “real” rather than moral damages.[6]

It is against this backdrop that the Maltese decision must be read alongside the unfolding NEKO 2018 A, LLC receivership before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which is a case that exposes how litigation finance now shapes both litigation conduct and judgment enforcement across borders.[7] The Florida proceedings, captioned Mehmet Tatlici and Craig Downs v. Ugur Tatlici—as cited in the Malta Court of Appeal’s judgment, directly link the plaintiff, Mehmet Tatlici, with his Florida attorney, Craig Downs, who appeared as co-plaintiff in the U.S. default judgment awarding US$740 million in damages.

Although litigation funding was not part of the Maltese court’s formal reasoning, the Tatlici dispute shows how financial mechanisms behind litigation are beginning to shape the transnational life of judgments. This connection matters for private international law because recognition and enforcement today concern not only the validity of foreign judgments but also the economic structures that propel those judgments across jurisdictions.

Litigation Funding as a Governance Warning

As Cassandra Burke Robertson observes, third-party funding externalises litigation risk and encourages high-variance, high-quantum claims that might otherwise settle early.[8] Funders’ capital increases the number of transnational lawsuits filed, raises settlement values, and spreads litigation across more jurisdictions.[9] This tendency is especially visible in defamation and other reputation-based torts, where damages are inherently subjective and national legal systems diverge sharply on what counts as a proportionate remedy.

Maya Steinitz’s governance theory underlines a concern that once funders gain control over budgets and strategic decisions, they develop portfolio-level incentives to pursue outsized awards that maximise aggregate returns—even when enforcement remains uncertain.[10] This creates a structural tension that private international law cannot ignore because enforcement courts are ultimately asked to enforce judgments whose underlying dynamics are driven as much by capital as by legal merit.

The NEKO receivership makes these abstract concerns tangible. In October 2025, NEKO 2018 A, LLC, a litigation funder with an investor’s interest, secured a collateral receivership over its funded law firm, the Downs Law Group, the same firm involved in Tatlici.[11] The receivership order placed all accounts, rights to payment, proceeds, substitutes, and records under the control of a court-appointed receiver and suspended pre-trial deadlines to “preserve resources … without the burden of potential protracted litigation.”[12] This effectively turned litigation receivables into tradable assets by allowing the funder to monetise pending claims and future enforcement proceeds.

Scholars such as John Gotanda and Ronald Brand warn that this financialisation of litigation detaches judgments from substantive justice and proportionality, compelling enforcement courts—like Malta’s—to reimpose those limits through ordre public review.[13] Seen from a private international law perspective, this convergence between capital markets and cross-border enforcement exposes a governance gap: Article 2(1)(k) of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 explicitly excludes defamation from its scope, while the Convention remains entirely silent on litigation funding. This dual absence, of both defamation and funded claims, leaves national courts to fill that regulatory void case by case, relying on domestic ordre public standards to assess the enforceability of judgments shaped by third-party capital.

Funding Under Scrutiny for Potential Fraud on Court

The relationship between litigation funding and the manner in which a judgment is obtained deserves careful attention. While the Maltese appellate court did not address the issue of fraud, ongoing criminal proceedings in Turkey—where judicial and prosecutorial authorities are examining how the Florida judgment was obtained—illustrate how difficult it can be to distinguish legitimate litigation conduct from actions that are not merely procedural but go to the integrity of the adjudicative process.

In highly financed, cross-border cases, the line between assertive advocacy and excessive pressure can become blurred. When litigation outcomes are closely tied to the financial expectations of external funders, there is a risk that commercial considerations may influence legal strategy or procedural choices. As Steinitz’s governance analysis suggests, such dynamics can create “agency costs,” where professional judgment becomes constrained by the funder’s return-driven objectives.[14] These constraints indicate that there must be increased protection and openness in recognition and enforcement actions to guarantee that financing efficiency does not compromise procedural integrity in the judicial process. In extreme cases, these forces can blur the line between zealous advocacy and alleged fraudulent conduct, which has been a tension made visible in the Tatlici litigation.

Conclusion

The Tatlici litigation illustrates how the ordre public exception has evolved into a constitutional safeguard within the global enforcement of judgments. The Malta Court of Appeal’s 2025 decision affirming the refusal to enforce a US $740 million Florida defamation award and treating “astronomic” moral damages as incompatible with freedom of expression, the court used ordre public as an active tool of constitutional governance. This aligns with the argument advanced by Symeon C. Symeonides, who conceptualises the public policy exception as a constitutional checkpoint ensuring that foreign judgments do not erode the forum’s fundamental rights.[15]

At the same time, Tatlici exposes enduring tensions between litigation finance, procedural integrity, and the enforceability of transnational awards. The claimant’s connection to the US federal receivership shows how financial structures can shape litigation strategy and the formation of judgments, while the ongoing Turkish criminal inquiry into the alleged fraudulent procurement of the Florida judgment illustrates the risks that arise when capital-backed claims intersect with procedural fragility.

The case exemplifies a wider paradox in which a claimant secures an extraordinary foreign award yet lacks attachable assets in the rendering state and faces recognition refusals abroad, so the judgment’s practical value collapses despite its formal validity. The defendant in the US$740 million action now occupies a jurisdictional and enforcement limbo, subject to a judgment that can neither be executed in foro domestico nor circulate transnationally through recognition or exequatur.

Tatlici confirms that public policy, founded on proportionality and constitutional values, still marks the outer boundary of the transnational movement of judgments in a system increasingly exposed to the financialisation of litigation.

[1] Fikri Soral, ‘Tatlici?v?Tatlici: Malta Rejects?$740?Million U.S. Defamation Judgment as Turkish Case Looms’ (Conflict?of?Laws, 28?April?2025) https://conflictoflaws.net/2025/tatlici-v-tatlici-malta-rejects-740-million-u-s-defamation-judgment-as-turkish-case-looms/

accessed 4?November?2025.

[2] Tatlici v Tatlici (Court of Appeal, Malta, 14 October 2025) App ?iv 719/20/1. (“Appellate Judgement”)

[3] Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 4th Civil Chamber, Decision No 2025/3701, File No 2025/2327, 13 October 2025,

[4] Appellate Judgement (n 2) para. 53

[5] ibid. para 47-52

[6] ibid. para. 50.

[7] NEKO 2018 A, LLC v Downs Law Group, P.A. (US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No 1:25-cv-24580, filed 6 October 2025) https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2025cv24580/698527

[8] Cassandra Burke Robertson, ‘The Impact of Third-Party Financing on Transnational Litigation’ (2011) 44 Case W Res J Intl L 159.

[9] ibid at 164

[10] Maya Steinitz, ‘Whose Claim Is This Anyway? Third Party Litigation Funding’ (2011) 95 Minnesota Law Review 1268, 1318–25 (discussing funders’ portfolio-level incentives and the resulting agency-cost problems in litigation governance).

[11] NEKO 2018 A v Downs Law Group (n 7).

[12] ibid

[13] See Ronald A Brand, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments’ (2013) 74 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 491, 520–28; John Y Gotanda, ‘Punitive Damages: A Comparative Analysis’ (2004) 42 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 391. Both scholars argue that disproportionate awards, exacerbated by the financialisation of litigation, require recognition courts to restore proportionality through the ordre public exception.

[14] Steinitz (n 10) 1304, 1315.

[15] Symeon C Symeonides, ‘The Public Policy Exception in Choice of Law: The American Version’ (2025) Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) (forthcoming, also to appear in Emory Journal of International Law).

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Special Issue: Proceedings of the Bremen Conference on Informed Consent to Dispute Resolution Agreements

Wed, 11/12/2025 - 21:12

The German Law Journal has published a Special Issue featuring the proceedings of the international conference on Informed Consent to Dispute Resolution Agreements, held in Bremen on 20–21 June 2024 (see our earlier announcement here).

Edited by Gralf-Peter Calliess and Nicholas Mouttotos of the University of Bremen, the special issue brings together contributions from leading scholars in private international law, international civil procedure, and international arbitration. Contributors include: Symeon C. Symeonides, Nancy S. Kim, Gralf-Peter Calliess, Frederick Rieländer, Peter McColgan, Laura E. Little, Kermit Roosevelt III, Sören Segger-Piening, John F. Coyle, Hannah L. Buxbaum, Marta Pertegás Sender, Stephen Ware, Stefan F. Thönissen and Nicholas Mouttotos.

The collection addresses a central tension in modern dispute resolution: how to reconcile party autonomy in forum and choice-of-law agreements with the requirement of consent, and how informed should consent be, particularly where such agreements are embedded in standard-form contracts affecting weaker parties such as consumers and employees.

The issue encompasses perspectives from both the United States and the European Union, examining questions of constitutional fairness, access to justice, and the legitimacy of contractual self-determination. Contributions trace the historical development of party autonomy, critique the adequacy of existing consent models, examine their outward abandonment while also exploring comparative regulatory approaches to protecting vulnerable contracting parties.

The special issue is available in the German Law Journal, Volume 26, Special Issue 5, and the editorial can be found here. The German Law Journal is a pioneering (Gold) open-access, peer-reviewed forum for scholarship and commentary on comparative, European, and international law, offering free and unrestricted online access to its publications since 1999.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 4/2025

Tue, 11/11/2025 - 09:56

A new issue of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht is now available and includes contributions on EU private law, comparative law and legal history, legal unification, private international law, and individual European private law regimes. The full table of content can be accessed here: https://rsw.beck.de/zeitschriften/zeup.

The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:

Mathias Reimann: The Elusive Goal of Private Law Unification – The Creation, Implementation, and Effect of Uniform Laws in the United States and Potential as a Model for Europe
Mathias Reimann on The Elusive Goal of Private Law Unification – The Creation, Implementation, and Effect of Uniform Laws in the United States and Potential as a Model for Europe as an examination of how, in the United States, the core of private law is left to the individual states and thus often, and at times highly, diverse. A prominent vehicle for achieving greater uniformity has been the drafting and adoption of uniform and model laws, mainly under the auspices of the National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now more commonly called the Uniform Law Commission (ULC). Since its foundation in 1892, this institution has produced hundreds of such laws and presented them to the state legislatures for enactment. While some have been (almost) universally adopted, most notoriously the Uniform Commercial Code, such success is far more the exception than the rule – the majority of uniform laws have been enacted by, at best, a small minority of states and, thus, failed significantly to enhance legal uniformity. Even where a statute’s text has been widely adopted, it is unclear how much uniformity that has created in terms of actual practical outcomes. On the whole, the uniform law movement has somewhat diminished, but it has not broadly overcome, the diversity of American private law. Its mediocre track record suggests that the uniform law approach would scarcely be a suitable model for the unification of private law in Europe; this is especially true since the conditions for producing, adopting, and uniformly interpreting such laws are much less favorable here than in the United States.
Stefan Thönissen: Die Kommunikation der obersten Gerichte
Stefan Thönissen on Die Kommunikation der obersten Gerichte as an exploration of how the relevance of supreme courts’ communication of their decisions is closely connected with the purpose of contributing to legal development and unification. Although this purpose is – to different degrees – common to all supreme courts, the way they communicate through their decisions significantly differs. In recent years, there have been substantial developments. However, these developments have not necessarily led to a convergence.
Matteo Bruno Fontana: Die verjährungshemmende Wirkung europäischer Kollektivklagen nach Umsetzung der Verbandsrichtlinie
Matteo Bruno Fontana on Die verjährungshemmende Wirkung europäischer Kollektivklagen nach Umsetzung der Verbandsrichtlinie as an analysis of how the new Consumer Rights Enforcement Act (VDuG) empowers consumer associations to bring representative redress actions (Sec. 14 et seq. VDuG). While the suspension of the limitation period by representative actions brought before a domestic German court is addressed in detail in Sec. 204a (1) German Civil Code (BGB), the suspensory effect of a foreign collective action is only partially governed by Sec. 204a (2) BGB. Against the backdrop of the discussion on the suspensory effect of individual actions brought in a foreign forum, this article lays out why foreign collective redress actions should be deemed to have a suspensory effect on the limitation period under German substantive law.

The volume also features to book reviews related to private international law:

Alan Brown reviews Jens M. Scherpe/Stephen Gilmore (eds): Family Matters: Essays in Honour of John Eekelaar (Intersentia 2022)
Tobias Lutzi reviews Eva Jueptner: A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments. Why did the Judgments Project (1992–2001) Fail? (Intersentia 2024)

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Decoding the Language of Law in the post-Migration Crisis Period: the Informalisation of Migration

Tue, 11/11/2025 - 09:47

The Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the EU and in Türkiye and Bilkent University Faculty of Law cordially invite you for the next Migration Talk by Professor Paul James Cardwell (King’s College London) on “Decoding the Language of Law in the post-Migration Crisis Period: the Informalisation of Migration”.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading as choice of law under Rome I – the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines

Mon, 11/10/2025 - 20:07

In Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines (7/11/2025 ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1665), the Supreme Court of the Netherlands considered the interpretation of a so-called ‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading. Such clauses commonly signpost which rules govern the international carriage of goods by sea. The Court addressed such clause as a choice of law and held that article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude the parties from agreeing on such clause.

Facts

The dispute concerned liability for fire damage that occurred during the discharge of dangerous goods (refrigerated liquid ethylene in containers) transported by sea from the USA to Angola under a bill of lading.

The conditions of the bill of lading provided for jurisdiction of the Dutch courts; this is how the parties Airgas USA (Radnor, Pennsylvania, US) and Universal Africa Lines (Limassol, Cyprus) came to litigate in the Netherlands.

These conditions also included a so-called ‘Paramount clause’. Such clauses have been used in contracts for the international carriage of goods by sea, primarily to designate which uniform substantive law convention on the carriage of goods by sea applies. The clause in this case provided that Dutch law governed the contract and declared that if the goods were carried by sea from or to a port in the United States, the 1936 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States (COGSA) applied. The COGSA is the U.S. implementation of the 1924 Hague Rules.

Dispute

As the regimes of liability diverge across the conventions containing uniform law, and across national laws, this dispute revolved around the choice of law. The cassation claim advanced various arguments against the application of COGSA (and in favour of the mandatory application of Dutch law which implied a different limitation of liability).

The main arguments were that COGSA is not a ‘law of a country’ that may be chosen within the meaning of the Rome I Regulation, that even if the GOGSA applied, its application should not set aside those provisions of Dutch law that may not be modified by contract, and that the lower courts applied the COGSA incorrectly (requiring the Court to review this application, arguing that the COGSA’s content was identical to the Hague-Visby Rules and to Dutch law).

Decision

In its decision, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands referred to article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation. First, it held that, according to this provision, the parties are free to choose the law governing their contract. They may choose either the law applicable to the entire contract or the law applicable to a specific part of the contract. This part of the contract is then governed by the chosen rules of law, which replace national law in its entirety, including those rules of national private law which cannot be modified by contract (at [3.1.2]).

Second, the Court held that article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude the parties from designating a part of a national legal system — and not that system in its entirety — as the applicable law. In this case, the parties had the right to choose COGSA as applicable law, while for matters not regulated in the COGSA the parties should fall back on Dutch law (at [3.1.3]).

Finally, the Court reminded that the question of whether lower courts correctly applied foreign law cannot, in principle, lead to a claim in cassation under Dutch civil procedure laws. Only if the lower courts had compared the rules of the legal systems potentially applicable and held that the outcome was identical to Dutch law could an exception be made; this was not the case in this dispute (at [3.2.1] e.v.).

Comment

The decision in Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines sheds light on the exact effects, in Dutch courts, of a contract clause widely used in contracts for the international carriage of goods by sea. This enhances legal certainty. At the same time, one inevitably runs into various questions cognate to this decision. For example, should the Court’s considerations on partial choice of law be understood as confined to ‘Paramount clauses,’ or do they have broader implications? In this regard, does it matter that rules such as COGSA implement an international treaty (the Hague Rules)? Or is the ‘partial’ character of the choice of law related only to carriage to or from U.S. ports? These and undoubtedly other questions are themes for further reflection.

For inspiration: the clause that gave rise to the dispute in this case as quoted by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands at [2.1] is this:

‘The law of The Netherlands, in which the Hague-Visby Rules are incorporated, shall apply. Nevertheless if the law of any other country would be compulsorily applicable, the Hague-Visby Rules as laid down in the Treaty of Brussels of 25th August 1924 and amended in the Protocol of Brussels of 23rd February 1968 shall apply, save where the Hamburg Rules of the UN Convention of the Carriage of Goods by Sea of 1978 would apply compulsorily, in which case the Hamburg Rules shall apply. If any stipulation, exception and condition of these conditions would be found inconsistent with The Hague-Visby Rules or Hamburg Rules, or any compulsory law, only such stipulation, exception and condition or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be invalid. In case of carriage by sea from or to a port of the USA, this Bill of Lading shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States, approved 16th April 1936, which shall be deemed to be incorporated herein, and nothing herein contained shall be deemed a surrender by the carrier of any of its rights or immunities or an increase of any of its responsibilities or liabilities under said Act. The provisions stated in said Act shall, except as maybe otherwise specifically provided herein, govern before the goods are loaded on and after they are discharged from the ship and throughout the entire time the goods are in custody of the carrier. The carrier shall not be liable in any capacity whatsoever for any delay, non-delivery or mis-delivery, or loss of or damage to the goods occurring while the goods are not in the actual custody of the carrier.’

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Rethinking Family Law Through a European Human Rights Lens: A New Collective Volume

Sun, 11/09/2025 - 20:13

What does it mean to respect family life in modern Europe? With families increasingly diverse and cross-border by nature, the concept of family law is undergoing profound legal, cultural, and institutional changes. A newly published academic volume — El Derecho de Familia a la Luz del Derecho Fundamental Europeo al Respeto a la Vida Familiar — offers a rich and timely exploration of this transformation.

Edited by María Victoria Cuartero Rubio and José Manuel Velasco Retamosa, this book brings together leading voices in European family law, private international law, and human rights to examine how the fundamental right to respect for family life (Article 8 ECHR, Article 7 EU Charter) is reshaping family law across jurisdictions.

This collective volume is notable for its interdisciplinary scope and comparative approach. Contributors address legal challenges that sit at the intersection of: Family Law (marriage, parenthood, equality, succession); Private International Law (cross-border family relations, recognition of status); Fundamental Rights Law (interpretation of Article 8 ECHR); European Union Law (Brussels II ter Regulation, work-life balance directive); Family Policy & Socio-Legal Perspectives (gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, surrogacy).

The book features contributions from a distinguished panel of legal scholars and practitioners, including: Rafael Arenas García (UAB); Katarina Trimmings (University of Aberdeen); Margherita Salvadori (University of Turin); Amélie Benoistel (Paris); Afonso Patrão (University of Coimbra), alongside a wide range of Spanish and international legal academics.

The volume is divided into four thematic parts, each exploring a key area of contemporary family law from a fundamental rights perspective:

1. Evolving Family Models (How are legal systems adapting to non-traditional families, cohabitation, reconstituted households, and gender dynamics within family law?)

2. Equality, Non-Discrimination & Diversity (Topics include discrimination in inheritance, recognition of same-sex parenthood, and the intersection of sexual/gender identity and private life under the ECHR)

3. Identity, Parenthood & Cross-Border Legal Status (Chapters address the legal recognition of parentage, surrogacy, nationality, and the right to personal identity — all within the context of European mobility)

4. European and International Cooperation (Focus on Brussels II ter, forum non conveniens, judicial cooperation, and the cross-border recognition of family rights in an EU context).

While the majority of the chapters are written in Spanish, the volume also includes important contributions in English and French, reflecting the book’s comparative and international character. For example, Katarina Trimmings contributes a chapter in English on Article 8 ECHR and children’s identity rights; Margherita Salvadori writes in English on the Italian ban on surrogacy and its cross-border effects; Amélie Benoistel contributes a chapter in French on reserved heirship and the ECHR.

This volume is more than a scholarly collection — it’s a map of the evolving European legal landscape on family life. Its strength lies in combining legal theory with practical analysis, using the right to family life as a unifying framework across jurisdictions.

For those working i.a. on cross-border custody or parental rights cases, legal recognition of same-sex or surrogate families, harmonisation of family law within the EU, or human rights protections in private family disputes, the book provides important insights.

Full text available here:
https://ruidera.uclm.es/server/api/core/bitstreams/7cd3dc93-51aa-4c8f-9df1-142fdd00ede3/content

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2025/3

Sat, 11/08/2025 - 15:49

Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)

The third issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé of 2025 has been released last month. It gathers four articles, six case notes and seven book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).

The issue opens with Prof. Thibaut Fleury Graff’s (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas) and Dr. Inès Giauffret’s (Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ) survey of Le droit des étrangers et ses temporalités. Retours choisis sur la jurisprudence 2024 en matière de migrations (Immigration law and its temporalities. Selected reviews of 2024 case law on migration). A valuable addition to the dossier that the Revue critique recently devoted to the reform of French immigration law, its abstract reads as follows:

The adoption of the Law of 26 January 2024 “on controlling immigration and improving integration” marked the beginning of 2024 in the field of migration. Supplemented by its implementing decrees, the law has already given rise to initial litigation, discussed in this paper, alongside the more traditional case law interpreting the rules governing the rights and status of foreigners in France, as well as the conditions of their detention. These rulings reflect the current period, caught between legislative facilitation of detention and removal on the one hand, and judicial protection of the rights and freedoms of non-nationals on the other.

In the second article, Prof. Étienne Farnoux (Université de Strasbourg) elucidates the subtle connections between Les droits fondamentaux, l’exception d’ordre public et la prohibition de la révision au fond dans le système de Bruxelles I (Fundamental rights, public policy exception and the prohibition of review on the merits in the Brussels I system) from the Real Madrid case. At the crossroads of private international law and European integration, the contribution answers fundamental questions raised by this now notorious judicial saga. Its abstract reads as follows:

The case, which arose when recognition was sought in France of a Spanish court’s ruling against a French newspaper ordering it to pay heavy damages, highlights the conflict between the European objective of mutual trust and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of the press. In a decision dated October 4, 2024, the Court of Justice (on a preliminary reference by the Cour de cassation) outlined the general methodology for controlling the proportionality of a financial penalty imposed abroad, on the basis of international public policy, a mechanism strongly influenced by European law. This control, which was subsequently implemented by the Court de cassation in a ruling dated May 28, 2025, is severely limited by the European principle of prohibition of the review on the merits.

In the third article, Prof. Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ) points out Les non-dits du droit européen du numérique en matière de droit international privé : l’exemple du règlement sur les services numériques (DSA) (The unspoken private international law aspects of European digital law: the example of the Digital Services Act (DSA)). In light of cyberspace’s peculiarity, the study paves the way for a clearly articulated policy of private international law in the digital sphere. Its abstract reads as follows:

The Digital Services Act (DSA) addresses issues of private international law in a very limited way. It mainly defines its territorial scope using a unilateral rule : it applies to any intermediary service provider that targets users in the European Union, regardless of its place of establishment. It is largely silent on other aspects of the private international law, such as determining the law applicable to illegal content or to actions for injunctions and damages. In terms of jurisdiction, it refers to the Brussels I bis Regulation, whose provisions are poorly adapted to the specificities of the digital world. The preference that the DSA seems to give to public enforcement rather than private enforcement cannot justify its silence on most questions of PIL, which are essential if we are to ensure effective protection of rights in the digital environment, which is almost always cross-border.

The doctrinal part wraps up with Dr. Marcel Zernikow (Université d’Orléans) study of Le renouvellement des méthodes de la coopération judiciaire au service du droit au procès équitable : l’instrument du certificat et la numérisation (Renewing judicial cooperation methods to uphold the right to a fair trial: the instrument of the certificate and digitalisation). The growing importance of international cooperation in cross-border proceedings indeed requires a modernized approach, which the author proposes to pursue as follows:

Judicial cooperation is an object of study in private international law that is justified by the need to make the State’s jurisdictional activity effective in a foreign territory. Since it describes the connection between State or judicial authorities of two different States, it is governed by their respective territorial procedural laws. This field is nevertheless undergoing a renewal of its methods, which will be studied through the prism of the introduction of a new instrument: the certificate. The latter is gradually being used to accompany public documents or judicial decisions or for evidentiary purposes. How has this development become the basis for digitalization, which relies on the interconnection of legal systems and individuals via the internet? The renewal of methods is universal insofar as it is based on the guarantee of the right to a fair trial in international civil proceedings.

The full table of contents is available here.

Previous issues of the Revue critique (from 2010 to 2024) are available on Cairn.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

RabelsZ 89 (2025): Issue 3

Thu, 11/06/2025 - 09:19

The latest issue of RabelsZ has just been released. It contains the contributions to the symposium in honor of Jürgen Basedow that was held in Hamburg in November 2024. The table of contents is available here. All content is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 and more articles are available Online First.

Eva-Maria Kieninger, Konrad Duden and Ralf Michaels, Preface to the Symposium Issue, pp. 409–410, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0046

Hannah L. Buxbaum, The New Unilateralism in EU Cross-Border Regulation: Objectives, Methods, Institution, oo. 411–431, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0043

For years, Europe was a site of resistance to regulatory unilateralism, particularly as practiced by the United States. Today, though, there are signs of a robust unilateralism at work in EU regulatory practices. To some extent it simply mirrors practices adopted in the United States and elsewhere: Like other lawmakers, the EU has begun to act unilaterally where necessary to achieve effective regulation of its own markets and to protect local interests. In other respects, though, the new unilateralism in the EU presents quite differently. First, the EU increasingly uses its own legislation not to advance purely local regulatory interests, but rather to achieve international or global goals – classically a more multilateral objective. Second, under EU law individual regulations in particular substantive areas are embedded in a larger framework of norms and values that claim universal appeal. In both of these regards, the EU version of unilateralism appears more benign than purely »self-interested« unilateralism. It nevertheless raises important questions about the way that local laws and institutions are used to project regulatory power in the international arena. The goal of this article is to explore these questions. It begins by describing the characteristics of this new unilateralism, in terms of both its doctrinal foundations and its regulatory objectives. It then focuses on one particular mechanism: the adequacy regime established under EU data protection law.

Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Einheitsrecht – prinzipiell oder sektoral? [Uniform Law – a Principle- or Sector-based Approach?], pp. 432–450, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0040

The purpose of this article is to shed some light on the possible future of uniform law. Notwithstanding the possible hinderances and difficulties faced by unification activities, especially a possible lack of interest in such activities, the article considers the question of which actors are and will be involved in legal unification and what types of uniform law can be expected. The growing involvement of private actors (the so-called commercial approach) and the concentration on different kinds of soft law promise an increasing degree of sectoral projects featuring a functional approach. However, it is essential to continue work on general principles that have applicability in specific areas of law; such principles are needed as interpretative aids and serve an important gap-filling function. Jürgen Basedow recommended keeping general principles in mind already at the stage of formulating a sectoral project. Thus, it can be expected that both the concept of principles and a sectoral approach will play an important role also in the future.

Christian Kohler, Zur Außenprivatrechtspolitik der Europäischen Union, [On the External Policy of the European Union in the Field of Private Law], pp 451–482, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0041

The policy of the European Union in the field of private law is primarily aimed at shaping the internal market, but it also affects relations with non-EU states in a variety of ways as regards both regulatory private law and the conflict of laws. The EU’s underlying »external private law policy« is pursued in two ways. First, legal instruments include unilateral scope rules which bring persons or events in third states within the scope of the measure and which should promote the regulatory objectives at issue. Second, agreements on private law matters are concluded by or on behalf of the EU with third states. However, institutional weaknesses and the Union’s notorious lack of competence make it difficult to develop a coherent external private law policy. In the field of conflict of laws, the conclusion of multilateral agreements makes the unilateral extension of EU rules to situations involving third states not redundant. There is no discernible political will to extend the Union’s powers in the field of private law and thereby change the conditions under which the EU’s external private law policy is currently formed.

Matteo Fornasier, Modelle europäischer Privatrechtsharmonisierung. Die prozedurale Harmonisierung als neue Form der Rechtsvereinheitlichung in der EU? [Harmonization of Private Law in Europe. Procedural Harmonization as a New Path Towards the Approximation of National Laws in the EU?], pp. 483–505, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0042

The article offers an overview on the variety of regulatory approaches towards the harmonization of private law in Europe, covering both negative and positive harmonization, including full, minimum, and optional harmonization. Particular attention is devoted to what appears to be a new model of harmonization, which is referred to in this article as procedural harmonization. Procedural harmonization occurs where the EU legislature or, in some cases, the EU Court of Justice confines itself to setting common European procedural standards for the protection of certain individual rights, without harmonizing the substance of those rights. The article draws on a number of examples from EU employment law, which is an important element of the system of EU private law, though it is often marginalized in European private law discourse.

Herbert Kronke, Weil Wissenschaft Wissen schafft: Zu Jürgen Basedows »Uniform Law« [Because Scholarship Generates Knowledge: On Jürgen Basedow’s »Uniform Law«], pp 506–521, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsZ-2025-0045

The article highlights the innovative nature of Basedow’s third major monograph relative to other »modern classics« on uniform law, noting in particular its combination of (almost) encyclopaedic coverage, systematic structure, and critical analysis, incorporating well-known central topics along with commentary on numerous uniform legal instruments. In addition, there are new and surprising elements awaiting comparative commercial law scholars, such as the topic of »negative harmonization«. The author of the article also discusses hypotheses, arguments, and conclusions in regards to perpetual themes of transnational law, such as the choice between a classic international treaty or the now frequent alternative of a soft law instrument, the dynamic of mutual influence between uniform law and non-uniform national law, and the relationship of uniform law and private international law. Finally, the article looks at institutional, cultural, and economic framework conditions and – politically determined – obstacles to the development of modern uniform law, as felt by the institutions, as well as experts involved in their work.

The issue also contains several reviews of literature in the fields of comparative private and private international law and on related topics (pp. 522–610).

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Launch of the Bahrain International Commercial Court

Thu, 11/06/2025 - 05:22

The Bahrain International Commercial Court (BICC) was launched on 5 November 2025. It joins the long established Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts and Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre in the Middle East as a specialist court devoted to resolving international commercial disputes and operating under special procedural rules.

The BICC was developed in partnership with the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). It shares many key features with the SICC such as a multinational bench, foreign counsel representation and use of the English language in proceedings. Of particular note is the appeal mechanism for BICC judgments; as discussed previously here, appeals from the BICC will be heard by the International Committee of the SICC.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

“Without Regard to Principles of Conflict of Laws”

Wed, 11/05/2025 - 20:12

It is common to see some variation of the phrase “without regard to conflict of laws principles” appear at the end of a choice-of-law clause. Here are some examples:

“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China, without regard to its principles concerning conflicts of laws.”

“This Agreement and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law.”

“This Note is being delivered in and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws provisions thereof.”

Although this phrase is common, its purpose and origin are poorly understood. In 2020, I published an article, A Short History of the Choice of Law Clause, that attempted to demystify these issues.

The original purpose of this language, as best I can tell, was to signal disapproval of decisions such as Duskin v. Pennsylvania-Central Airlines Corporation, a 1948 case in which a U.S. court interpreted a clause choosing Pennsylvania law to select the whole law of Pennsylvania (including its conflicts rules). The court then applied Pennsylvania conflicts rules to conclude that the agreement was, in fact, governed by the law of Alabama. Needless to say, it seems highly unlikely that this is what the parties intended.

When the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws was published, it criticized the holding in Duskin. The drafters of the Restatement took the position that choice-of-law clauses should not be interpreted to select the conflicts rules of the chosen jurisdiction. The prominence assigned to the topic in the section of the new Restatement dealing with choice-of-law clauses (Section 187(3)) prompted contract drafters across the United States to think seriously about the issue for the first time. So far as I can determine, the language quoted above did not appear in a single U.S. choice-of-law clause drafted before the late 1960s. In the years that followed the publication of the Restatement (Second) in 1971, the number of contracts containing this language exploded.

The irony is that the holding in Duskin was widely ignored by U.S. courts. In the decades since that case was decided, these courts have consistently interpreted choice-of-law clauses to exclude the conflicts rules of the chosen jurisdiction even when they omit the phrase “without regard to principles of conflict of laws.” Nevertheless, this language continues to be written into thousands upon thousands of choice-of-law clauses each year.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Court-to-court referrals and reciprocity between Chinese and Singapore courts

Tue, 11/04/2025 - 03:54

By Catherine Shen, Asian Business Law Institute

In 2023 Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 dated March 14, 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province in China (Suzhou Court) recognized and enforced civil judgment HC/S194/2022 under file number HC/JUD47/2023 by the Supreme Court of Singapore (Singapore Judgment). The judgment by the Suzhou Court (Suzhou Judgment) was announced in September 2025 by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) as among the fifth batch of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) model cases.

Background

The applicant, Company Golden Barley International Pte Ltd (legal representative Wu), requested the Suzhou Court to recognize and enforce the Singapore Judgment, including the obligations imposed on the respondent Xiao to make payment.

The applicant claimed, among others, that Xiao, a director of Company Ba, colluded with other defendants of the case and procured Company Golden Barley into signing contracts with Company Ba and another company and making prepayment, without delivering to Company Golden Barley the goods agreed under those contracts. The Singapore Judgement, among others, ordered Xiao to pay over $6.6 million plus interest to Company Golden Barley. The applicant based its application on China’s Civil Procedure Law, the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law to Interest Accrued on Debt during the Period of Delayed Performance during Enforcement and the Memorandum of Guidance between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases (MOG).

The respondent Xiao, on her part, made several counterclaims. Among others, she contended that service of the Singapore documents was defective as service was forwarded by the International Cooperation Bureau of the SPC rather than the Ministry of Justice which is the competent authority designated by China to transmit foreign judicial documents under the 1965 HCCH Service Convention, and that the documents served on her were copies in the English language. Xiao also pointed out that the MOG is non-binding and that the treaty between China and Singapore on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters does not cover judgments recognition and enforcement. Further, the respondent argued that the Singapore Judgment was not final and binding because it was pending appeal among some other defendants, making it ineligible for recognition and enforcement.

Decision

The Suzhou Court noted that courts in China and Singapore have recognized and enforced each other’s civil and commercial judgments since the MOG was signed in August 2018. Reciprocity therefore exists between the two jurisdictions which is required under Chinese law for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in the absence of any international treaty on judgments recognition and enforcement signed by or acceded to by the jurisdictions concerned.

The Suzhou Court also found that service of the Singapore documents on Xiao was not defective. The Chinese embassy in Singapore had entrusted the International Cooperation Bureau of the SPC to assist with service for case HC/S194/2022 in July 2022. One month later, the Zhangjiagang People’s Court in Jiangsu Province (Zhangjiagang Court) served those documents on Xiao who acknowledged receipt. Xiao then declined to take delivery of the originals of those documents when contacted again by the Zhangjiagang Court after the originals were subsequently forwarded by the Chinese embassy in Singapore.

Further, the Suzhou Court found that the Singapore Judgment is final and binding. Specifically, the Suzhou Court had requested the SPC to submit a Request for Assistance in Ascertaining Relevant Laws of Singapore to the Supreme Court of Singapore. In its reply issued in December 2024, the Supreme Court of Singapore explained the scope of application of Singapore’s Rules of Court and the provisions therein on default judgments, which helped the Suzhou Court reach its conclusion.

The Suzhou Court accordingly recognized and enforced the Singapore Judgment.

Commentary

With this decision, the Suzhou Court continues the favorable momentum of the courts of China and Singapore recognizing each other’s civil and commercial judgments and affirms the importance and practical application of the MOG despite its non-binding nature.

Further, according to the SPC, this is the first time that a Chinese court has activated the procedure for seeking assistance from a Singapore court to provide clarifications on relevant Singapore law. Article 19 of the MOG says Singapore courts may seek assistance from the SPC to obtain certification that the Chinese judgment for which enforcement is sought is final and conclusive. This “right” is not provided in the MOG for Chinese courts. According to the SPC, the Suzhou Court sought assistance from the Supreme Court of Singapore based on a separate instrument titled the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore on Information on Foreign Law (MOU). This MOU provides a route for referrals between the courts of the two jurisdictions to seek information or clarifications on each other’s relevant laws. Under the MOU, if it is necessary for courts in China or Singapore to apply the law of the other jurisdiction in adjudicating international civil and commercial cases, a request may be made to the relevant court in the other jurisdiction to provide information and opinions on its domestic law and judicial practice in civil and commercial matters, or matters relating thereto. The Supreme Court of Singapore and the SPC are the courts designated for transmitting, and for receiving and responding to, such requests in Singapore and China, respectively. Any request should be responded to as soon as possible, with notice to be given to the requesting court if the receiving court is unable to furnish a reply within 60 days. Further requests can also be made for more clarifications.

In Singapore domestic law, Order 29A of the Rules of Court 2021 empowers the Supreme Court of Singapore, on the application of a party or its own motion, to transmit to a specified court in a specific foreign country a request for an opinion on any question relating to the law of that foreign country or to the application of such law in proceedings before it. So far, China and the SPC are the only specified foreign country and specified court under Order 29A. Essentially, Order 29A has formalized the procedures under the MOU for Singapore.

This is different from Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2021 which currently lists New South Wales in Australia, Dubai of the United Arab Emirates and Bermuda as “specified foreign countries” and their relevant courts as “specified courts”. Under Order 29, where in any proceedings before the Supreme Court of Singapore there arises any question relating to the law of any of those specified foreign countries or to the application of such law, the Supreme Court of Singapore may, on a party’s application or its own motion, order that proceedings be commenced in a specified court in that specified foreign country seeking a determination of such question. The Supreme Court of Singapore has in place memoranda of understanding on references of questions of law with the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the Supreme Court of Bermuda and the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. These memoranda of understanding all “direct” parties to take steps to have the contested issue of law determined by the foreign court.

This may explain why Order 29 is titled referrals on issues of law while Order 29A is titled requests for opinions on questions of foreign law. It should be noted that equivalent provisions are in place for referrals involving the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) (SICC Rules, Order 15 and Order 15A).

Finally, it may also be interesting to explain SPC’s lists of model cases. As a civil law jurisdiction, China does not practice Stare Decisis. Nor does it formally recognize the binding effects of precedents. However, the SPC does publish different lists of judgments which it deems of guiding value from time to time. Those judgments can be “guiding cases” which, loosely speaking, are of the highest “precedent value” and are subject to the most stringent selection criteria. They can be “model cases” which are of significant importance but are subject to less stringent selection criteria. They may also be “gazetted cases” which are judgments published on the official SPC newsletter for wider reference (but not guidance). Model cases may also be released for specific subject matter areas, such as intellectual property, financial fraud, etc. The Suzhou Judgment here is among the BRI model cases which mostly concern commercial disputes involving jurisdictions along the route of China’s BRI program.

This write-up is adaptation of an earlier post by the Asian Business Law Institute which can be found here.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

ASADIP Conference Rio 2025 (report) and San Salvador 2026 date (20-23 October)

Mon, 10/27/2025 - 15:49

The ASADIP conference is an annual highlight of the discipline. The reports from the 2025 conference in Rio de Janeiro are now available, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, here

And the location and date for the 2026 have been set for San Salvador, El Salvador, 20-23 October. See you there.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Short report: Conference on Sustainable Global Value Chains and Private International Law

Mon, 10/27/2025 - 12:28

On 17 October 2025, the EBS Law School in Oestrich-Winkel, Germany, hosted a conference Sustainable Global Value Chains and Private International Law. The conference was organised by Professors Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh Law School) and Michael Nietsch (EBS Law School) as part of the Law Schools Global League Sustainable Global Value Chains Project (see also here).

The conference brought together a number of scholars specialised in private international law, company law, and contract law to discuss the role of private law and private international law in social, economic, and environmental sustainability within global value chains.

Keynote

Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany) delivered the keynote lecture entitled “European Law for Global Value Chains – Human Rights Advancement or European Imperialism?” Professor Michaels addressed this question from a historical perspective. He related the historical roots of existing sourcing practices to contemporary supply chains, drawing on a wealth of theoretical insights. He further reflected on the conceptualisations that remain necessary for the legal discipline to contribute to addressing economic inequalities in contemporary global sourcing practices facilitated by interconnected chains of contracts.

After the keynote, several scholars provided insights into their current research, which resonated with various aspects of the keynote lecture.

Other contributions

Ren Yatsunami (Kyushu University, Japan) addressed the ‘Governance Gaps on Global Value Chains from the Perspective of Private International Law’. Professor Yatsunami sketched, inter alia, a situation in which an act taking place in Japan triggered the application of French law on the duty of vigilance. He discussed this situation from the perspective of Japanese courts and Japanese private international law, including the question of overriding mandatory rules, to illustrate the intricacies of applying the sets of rules involved.

Carlos Vázquez (Georgetown University, Washington D.C., United States) elaborated on the ‘Choice of Law in Transnational Business and Human Rights Litigation’. Professor Vázquez discussed the conflict-of-law approaches in both the United States and the European Union, distinguishing between two ways of framing litigation — as a breach of international law and as a breach of national law, primarily tort law — and examined the peculiarities of each. Relying on historical and theoretical insights into both ways of framing litigation, the contribution offered a reflection on possible ways forward.

The discussion then turned to contract law, namely the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Felix M. Wilke (EBS Law School, Oestrich-Winkel, Germany) titled his contribution ‘’Tainted by Harm but Fit for Sale? Human Rights and the Concept of Non-Conformity under the CISG’. Professor Wilke focused on the connection between supply chain regulation and the CISG’s provisions on the quality and conformity of goods and remedies.

Thereafter, Sara Sánchez (IE University, Madrid, Spain) connected the contract law framework with procedural law and EU law. In her contribution ‘Access To Justice in CS3D-Related Claims’, Professor Sánchez discussed the absence of jurisdictional rules in the regulation of due diligence in supply chains (see also posts by Michaels & Sommerfeld here and by Silva de Freitas & Kramer here). Professor Sánchez proposed an EU law-based solution to address this gap.

Irene-Marie Esser (University of Glasgow, Scotland UK) and Christopher Riley (University of Durham) then turned to ‘The Interplay between Reporting Requirements and Group Liability for Supply Chain Misconduct – Transnational Business Corporations’. They addressed the existing case law, normative considerations, and avenues for the further development of company law aspects of liability related to acts and omissions involving groups of companies in supply chains.

Simone Lamont-Black (University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK) and Catherine Pédamon (University of Westminster, UK) took a broad look at the agricultural business and food supplies. Departing from the premise that contractual clauses are not sufficient to provide food security and sustainability in global food supply chains, these scholars elaborated on other possible solutions.

The last panel drew conclusions and discussed emerging themes for further research. The discussants were Nevena Jevremovic (University of Aberdeen, UK), Matthias Goldmann (EBS Law School), Klaas Hendrik Eller (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Ekaterina Pannebakker (Leiden University, the Netherlands).

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Virtual Workshop (in English) on November 4, 2025: Caroline Sophie Rapatz on “Fly Me to the Moon and Let Me Play Among the Laws?”

Mon, 10/27/2025 - 09:37

On Tuesday, November 4, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (CEST). Professor Caroline Sophie Rapatz (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Fly Me to the Moon and Let Me Play Among the Laws?”

With the increasing privatisation and economisation of space activities, the need for private space law becomes urgent: Responsible exploration and exploitation necessitates suitable and reliable rules on jurisdiction and applicable law in Outer Space as well as substantive private law adapted specifically to space scenarios. The presentation will explore the options for developing a comprehensive body of such private (international) law rules within the framework established by the existing public international law treaties on space law. It will outline possible approaches to such an undertaking, using property law questions as the main example.

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Inaugural event European Civil Justice Centre

Thu, 10/23/2025 - 01:28

In 2025, the European Civil Justice Centre (ECJC) was established at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam. This Centre was set up to facilitate the collaboration of scholars and other stakeholders across Europe and beyond in conducting research and related activities with a view to promoting access to justice. The Centre consolidates extensive work spearheaded by Erasmus School of Law civil justice scholars over the past fifteen years (see www.euciviljustice.eu), benefits in particular from support by the KU Leuven, and builds on collaborations with academics, practitioners and policy-makers around the globe.

The European Civil Justice Centre will hold its inaugural event, The Future of Civil Justice in Europe: Enhancing Access and Innovation, on 27 November 2025. More information and the program is available here. To register for in-person attendance click here, and for online participation here. Introductory speeches will be given by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus School of Law), Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven) and Anna Nylund (Bergen University). A thought-provoking keynote speech will be given by Alan Uzelac (Zagreb University) on the state of civil justice in Europe, focusing on empirical insights, access to justice, and the need for innovation across systems. This will be followed by a panel presenting Academic perspectives ‘Rethinking Civil Justice: Comparative, Empirical, and Technological Dimensions’ and a panel on Policy, Practice & Innovation ‘Delivering Justice: Challenges and Opportunities in Practice’.

The European Civil Justice Centre promotes research, policy-making and related training activities in support of the further development of European civil justice, with the aim of strengthening tailor-made access to justice for businesses and citizens. Key areas of interest include, but are not limited to, research activities on (1) collective actions and public interest litigation, promoting legal mobilization with the aim to enforce rights for the public good and/or (disadvantaged) groups; (2) legal aid and assistance, and third-party litigation funding; (3) digitalisation of civil justice, including AI; (4) ADR and ODR; and (5) anti-SLAPPS (strategic litigation against public participation). The Centre is dedicated to capacity-building for joint research projects, including and policy-oriented research, strengthening societal outreach and impact, and creating opportunities for early career researchers. More information on opportunities to become a fellow and further activities will become available soon.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Crossroads in Private International Law Webinar with on ‘The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law’ at the University of Aberdeen

Wed, 10/22/2025 - 21:49

The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is continuing its Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series with a talk by Kirsten Henckel (Groningen University) titled ‘The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law’:

Over the past two decades, our daily lives have become ever more digital. This digitization has fundamentally reshaped the nature of property and inheritance. Digital assets ranging from social media accounts, emails and cloud-based archives to cryptocurrencies, NFTs and digital subscriptions now form an integral part of modern estates. These assets frequently lack clear legal classification and existing laws, largely designed for tangible property, struggle to accommodate their unique characteristics.

This webinar examines the emerging field of digital succession through the lens of private international law, highlighting issues that arise when digital estates span multiple jurisdictions. Key issues include determining jurisdiction and applicable law as well as enforcing rights across borders.

Additional information and the link to register can be found here.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) No 3/2025: Abstracts

Mon, 10/20/2025 - 16:43

The third issue of 2025 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) will be released shortly. It features:

Cristina Campiglio, Professor at the University of Pavia, Cittadinanza iure sanguinis e nazionalità: riflessioni internazionalprivatistiche [Citizenship by Birthright and Nationality: Private International Law Reflections; in Italian]

The recent amendment to the citizenship law, which restricts transmission by descent to two generations, offers an opportunity to revisit the concept of ius sanguinis from that specific legal perspective outlined in the nineteenth century by Mancini. Mancini linked citizenship (a public law institution) to nationality (a guiding principle of private international law). This connection remains evident today in cases where Italian citizenship is passed down to descendants born abroad. Filiation status must be evaluated according to conflict-of-laws rules (Arts 33 and 35 of Law 31 May 1995 No 218), which refer to the child’s own national law (creating a circular situation) or, if more favourable, to the parent’s national law. The public policy exception (Art 16), particularly in cases of medically assisted procreation, can lead to the denial of filiation recognition, potentially resulting in statelessness. The new citizenship rules’ generational limit ultimately prompts reflection on whether Law No 218 of 1995, rooted in the nineteenth-century principle of nationality, should also be reconsidered.

Costanza Honorati, Professor at the University of Milano-Bicocca, La circolazione di «accordi» in materia di responsabilità genitoriale nel regolamento Bruxelles II-ter: una disciplina destinata ad uno scarso rilievo pratico [The Circulation of ‘‘Agreements’’ on Parental Responsibility in the Brussels IIb Regulation: A Legal Framework of Marginal Practical Significance; in Italian]

Among the most interesting developments in European family law in recent years is the circulation of authentic instruments and agreements. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, also known as Brussels II-ter, introduced specific rules for the circulation of authentic instruments and agreements relating to legal separation and divorce, as well as parental responsibility. While numerous contributions have focused on the circulation of agreements relating to separation or divorce, less attention has been paid to agreements relating to parental responsibility. This contribution, through a detailed analysis of the provisions relating to parental responsibility agreements contained in both the aforementioned Regulation and the internal laws of individual Member States, highlights how, at present, this innovative regulatory framework is likely to have little impact. With the sole exception of what occurs in the French legal system, in fact, the category of “agreements” contemplated by the Brussels II-ter Regulation is currently devoid of its own content, being compressed between the private act which embodies the exchange of wills between the parties but which is irrelevant at the international level, and an increasingly broad notion of “decision”, modeled on a control carried out by any public authority, including an administrative one, which is classified as “on the merits” but which can be limited to compliance with the conditions established by law without implying any real appreciation of the content of the agreement.

Gaetano Vitellino, Researcher at the University Cattaneo LIUC of Castellanza, Misure cautelari e rapporti con Stati terzi in materia civile e commerciale [Provisional Measures and Relations with Third States in Civil and Commercial Matters; in Italian]

This paper examines the issues that arise when provisional or protective relief is granted in cases involving non-EU States. This topic has received limited attention in legal scholarship. The analysis presents three main arguments. First, interim relief may be granted not only by courts with jurisdiction over the merits but also by other courts. In this case, the restrictive conditions set out in Art 35 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, should not apply when no EU courts can hear and decide the dispute. Second, recognition and enforcement of provisional measures ordered by non-EU courts are subject to differing domestic rules across Member States. The analysis shows that in most countries – both within and outside the EU – foreign interim measures are generally not capable of being recognised, mainly due to their provisional nature. Third, the paper explores two key aspects of the free circulation of provisional measures within the EU. Firstly, contrary to the suggestions made by the European Commission in its recent report on the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation, it argues that provisional measures granted by EU courts with jurisdiction over the merits under national law should also freely move. Secondly, in line with the rationale behind Art 35, interim measures issued by courts without jurisdiction over the merits should not be prevented from circulating when no EU court can hear and decide the dispute.

Bartosz Wolodkiewicz, Associate Professor at the University of Warsaw, Erosion of the Lex Fori Processualis Principle: A Comparative Study [in English]

The lex fori processualis principle is one of the fundamental concepts of private international law. It asserts that in civil proceedings, unlike in the sphere of private law relations, it is not necessary to indicate the applicable law, since courts apply their own procedural law. Accepted since the 13th century, this principle became almost a dogma in the 19th century. However, in recent decades, the lex fori processualis principle has been criticised in academic discourse. Additionally, national legal systems have introduced procedural conflict-of-law rules that explicitly permit the application of foreign procedural law. This paradigm shift, and the resulting erosion of the dominant approach to (in)application foreign procedural law, is the focus of this study. The paper explores the contemporary relevance and legitimacy of this principle, as well as the exceptions to its application, in four legal systems: English, French, German, and Polish law. Based on these findings, three levels of erosion of the lex fori processualis principle are identified and discussed.

Paolo Vinciguerra, Master of Laws, Anti-Suit Injunctions, ECHR and the Public Policy Defence [in English]

This article examines a specific injunctive remedy: the anti-suit injunction. This is a discretionary judicial order directed at a private party, intended either to prohibit the initiation of proceedings in another forum or to compel the party to cease any proceedings already commenced in that forum under the threat of financial or personal sanctions. After outlining the key judicial developments that have established the incompatibility of anti-suit injunctions with the European legal order, the analysis shifts to the impact of Brexit and the conflict with Russia on the issuance of such injunctions by courts. Within this framework, the article primarily focuses on the possibility of identifying a new legal basis for restricting the circulation of anti-suit injunctions under the general clause of international public policy.

Finally, the issue features the following book review by Edoardo Benvenuti, Post-Doctoral Researcher at the University of Milan: Xandra KRAMER and Laura CARBALLO PIÑEIRO (eds.), Research Methods in Private International Law. A Handbook on Regulation, Research and Teaching, Cheltenham-Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, p. v-396.

Categories: Droit international général, Flux des sites DIP

You are here

Conflictoflaws

Digital Governance, Regimes Theory and Private International Law. A tech diplomacy perspective

LEX and FORUM VOLUME I /2025

LEX & FORUM VOLUME I /2025

Tatlici v. Tatlici on Appeal: Defendant Wins as Public Policy Confronts the Financialization of Cross-Border Defamation Award

Special Issue: Proceedings of the Bremen Conference on Informed Consent to Dispute Resolution Agreements

ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 4/2025

Decoding the Language of Law in the post-Migration Crisis Period: the Informalisation of Migration

‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading as choice of law under Rome I – the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines

Rethinking Family Law Through a European Human Rights Lens: A New Collective Volume

Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2025/3

RabelsZ 89 (2025): Issue 3

Launch of the Bahrain International Commercial Court

“Without Regard to Principles of Conflict of Laws”

Court-to-court referrals and reciprocity between Chinese and Singapore courts

ASADIP Conference Rio 2025 (report) and San Salvador 2026 date (20-23 October)

Short report: Conference on Sustainable Global Value Chains and Private International Law

Virtual Workshop (in English) on November 4, 2025: Caroline Sophie Rapatz on “Fly Me to the Moon and Let Me Play Among the Laws?”

Inaugural event European Civil Justice Centre

Crossroads in Private International Law Webinar with on ‘The Digital Afterlife: Digital succession and private international law’ at the University of Aberdeen

Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) No 3/2025: Abstracts

Pages

Sites de l’Union Européenne

Partenaires