Conflictoflaws

Christopher Whytock (Professor of Law and Political Science, UC Irvine) has published a number of interesting papers offering broad perspectives on the conflict of laws.

One is on conflict of laws and global governance and questions how conflict of laws contributes to transnational legal ordering: Whytock, Christopher A., Conflict of Laws, Global Governance, and Transnational Legal Order (March 14, 2018). UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, Vol.1, 2016; UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-16. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3140886

The other is on the interaction between conflict of laws and international law: Whytock, Christopher A., Toward a New Dialogue between Conflict of Laws and International Law (March 21, 2018). American Journal of International Law (AJIL) Unbound, Vol. 110, 2016; UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-22. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3145220.

A revised Preliminary Explanatory Report on the Judgments Project in both English and French is now available via the Hague Conference website.  This Report has been drawn up (and revised) by Professors Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain and Geneviève Saumier, McGill University, Canada.

A track-changes version of the Preliminary Explanatory Report has also been made available. See in particular the amendments contained in paragraphs 201-224 in relation to intellectual property rights, which is a subject that has been somewhat controversial. Other important additions are the declarations with respect to judgments pertaining to governments (see paragraphs 344-352) and the declarations with respect to common courts (such as regional courts, see paragraphs 353-360).

A Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments will be held on 24-29 May 2018 in The Hague, the Netherlands. The agenda is available here. It is envisaged that a Diplomatic Session (i.e. a high-level negotiation with a view to adopting a final text) will be held in mid-2019.

Please note that the meetings above-mentioned are open only to delegates or experts designated by the Members of the Hague Conference, invited non-Member States and International Organisations that have been granted observer status.

(This Report is provided by Dr. Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales Faculty of Law)

The recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, concerns what weight should be given to the Chinese government’s submission of Chinese law. On Page 58 of the trial transcript, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg asked how about other countries dealing with formal submissions from the Chinese government. There are two examples.

One is Hong Kong. In TNB Fuel Services SDN BHD v China National Coal Group Corporation ([2017] HKCFI 1016), the issue is whether the defendant, a state-owned enterprise, is protected by Chinese absolute sovereignty immunity under Chinese law. The court deferred to an official letter provided by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Department in Mainland China. The Office answers no absolute sovereignty immunity to Chinese state-owned enterprises carrying out commercial activities. The Court adopted this opinion without second inquiry (para 14 of the judgment). After considering a bunch of other factors, the court ruled against the defendant.

The other is Singapore. In Sanum v. Laos ([2016] SGCA 57), the issue is whether the China-Laos Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) shall be applied to Macao Special Administrative Region. Chinese embassy in Laos and China Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided diplomatic announcements indicating that the BIT shall not be applied to Macao. However, the Court of Appeal of Singapore held that China’s announcements were inadmissible and, even if admitted, they did not change the applicability of the BIT to Macau. This is partly because, before the dispute with Sanum crystalized, no evidence showed that China and Laos had agreed that the BIT should not be applied to Macau. Therefore, the China’s diplomatic announcements should not be retroactively applied to a previous dispute. For a more detailed discussion, please see pages 16-20 of my article.

TNB Fuel Services and Sanum share important similarities with Animal Science Products, because the key issues are all about the proving of Chinese law. In the three cases, Chinese government all provided formal submissions to explain the meaning and the applicability of Chinese law. However, TNB Fuel Services and Sanum can also be distinguished from Animal Science Products, because comity plays no role in the former two cases. TNB Fuel Services concerns sovereign immunity, which is an issue that Hong Kong courts must follow China’s practices. This is established by Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates (FACV Nos. 5, 6 & 7 of 2010). Sanum is a case to set aside an investment arbitration award, so the Court of Appeal of Singapore need not consider comity between Singapore and China. In contrast, in Animal Science Products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit elaborated the importance of comity between the U.S. and China. Therefore, Animal Science Products should not be considered as a technical case of proving foreign laws. The U.S. Supreme Court may consider deferring to the submissions of Chinese government to a certain extent but allows judges to decide whether the Chinese government’s submission is temporally consistent with its position on the relevant issue of Chinese law.

France is a state. France.com, by contrast, is a domain name, and it was, until recently, owned not by the French state but instead by a Californian company, France.com, Inc. That conflict is now being litigated in a fascinating dispute  reminiscent of the early days of the internet.

In those early days, in 1994 to be precise, a French-born individual living in the United States, Jean-Noël Frydman, registered the domain name France.com. The domain name is now held by a Californian company, France.com Inc, which Frydman set up. The website, at first dedicated to general information for Francophiles around the world, was later expanded to operate as a travel site. But France.com, Inc, did not, it appears, own trademarks in Europe. This enabled a Dutch company, Traveland Resorts, to register French and European word and graphic marks for France.com in 2010. In 2014, France.com, Inc brought suit in France against Traveland for fraudulent filings of trademarks and achieved a settlement under which Traveland transferred the trademarks.

But that was a Pyrrhic victory. The French state and its own travel development agency, Atout,  intervened in the litigation, claiming the trademarks for itself instead. Atout had been running, since 2010, its own information site, france.fr. French state and Atout were successful, first before the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris , and then, partly, on  appeal before the Cour’ d’appel de Paris (English translation, note by Alison Bouakel)  As a consequence, web.com transferred the domain in 2018. Now, France.com immediately directs to France.fr.

So far, the conflict is mostly a French affair. But Frydman is taking the litigation to the United States. France.com, Inc has brought suit in Federal Court in Virginia against the French State, Atout, and against Verisign, the authoritative domain registry of all .com addresses.  The suit alleges cybersquatting, reverse domain hijacking, expropriating, trademark infringement, and federal unfair competition. US courts and WIPO panels have so far not looked favorably at foreign government’s claims for their own .com domain name; examples include PuertoRico.com, NewZealand.com, and Barcelona.com. Will the French State be more successful, given the French judgment in its favor?

Although neither the French courts nor the complaint in the United States address conflict of laws issues, the case is, of course, full of those. Are the French state and its travel agency protected by sovereign immunity? The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act contains an exception for commercial activities and is limited to sovereign acts: Does ownership of a domain name constitute commercial activity? Surely, many of the activities of Atout do. Or is it linked to sovereignty? After all, France is the name of the country (though not, ironically, the official name.) The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit left the question open in 2002 (Virtual Countries, Inc. v. South Africa, 300 F.3d 230).

Must the federal court recognize the French judgment? That question is  reminiscent of the Yahoo litigation. Then, a French court ordered that Yahoo.com could not offer Nazi paraphernalia on its auction website. Yahoo brought a declaratory action in federal court against recognizability of the judgment in the United States. The affair created a lively debate on the limits of territorial reach in internet-related litigation, a debate that is still not fully resolved.

Relatedly, did the French state engage in illegal expropriation without compensation? Such acts of expropriation are in principle limited to the territory of the acting state, which could mean that the French state’s actions, if so qualified, would be without legal effect in the United States.

To what extent is US law applicable to a French trademark? By contrast, to what extent can the French trademark determine ownership of the domain? Trademarks are a perennially difficult topic in private international law, given their territorial limitations; they conflict in particular with the ubiquity of the internet.

Is the top level domain name – .com, as opposed to .fr – a relevant connecting factor in any of these matters? That was once considered a promising tool. But even if .fr could in some way link to France as owner, it is not clear that .com links to the United States, given that it has long been, effectively, a global top level domain. On the other hand, most governments do not own their own .com domain. And US courts have, in other cases (most famously concerning barcelona.com) not doubted applicability of US law.

A timeline with links to documents can be found at Frydman’s blog site.

Soterios Loizou at King’s College London has uploaded an interesting article on ssrn entitled “Revisiting the ‘Content-of-Laws’ Enquiry in International Arbitration”. The abstract is:

Establishing the content of the applicable law is one of the most important, albeit seldom examined, topics in the theory and practice of international arbitration. Setting as point of departure the regulatory vacuum in nearly all national laws on international arbitration, this study examines in depth this “content-of-laws” enquiry in an attempt to foster doctrinal integrity, legal certainty and predictability in arbitral proceedings. Specifically, this study encompasses a three level analysis of the topic. Firstly, it explores the theoretical underpinnings and the various approaches articulated in legal theory to the establishment of the content of the applicable law in international litigation and arbitration. Secondly, on the basis of an elaborate comparative review of the various legal regimes and jurisprudence in the most frequently selected venues of arbitration, namely England & Wales, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, the state of New York (USA), and Sweden, as well as in leading investment arbitration fora, it challenges conventional wisdom by showcasing the emerging trend towards the application of a “facultative” jura novit arbiter principle in international arbitral proceedings. Thirdly, it delineates a clear modus operandi for arbitral tribunals, and national courts reviewing arbitral awards in annulment proceedings, and offers model clauses, arbitration rules, and national law provisions on the content-of-laws enquiry. The study concludes with some final remarks and observations that amplify the importance of continuous governing law related consultations between the parties and the arbitrators throughout the arbitral proceedings, and, certainly, before the tribunal has rendered its final award.

The full article can be accessed here.

The new issue of “Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht – The Rabels Journal of Comparative and International Private Law” (RabelsZ) has just been released. It contains the following articles:

Holger Fleischer, Kautelarpraxis und Privatrecht: Grundfragen und gesellschaftsrechtliche Illustrationen (Contractual Practice and Private Law: Basic Questions and Illustrations Taken from Company Law)

This paper highlights the importance of contractual practice for the development of modern private law. It outlines the trajectories of such practice from its early origins in Roman law to our time. Special attention is given to practitioners’ achievements and legal innovations in company law, ranging from shareholder agreements and enterprise agreements to the single-member company. Finally, the diffusion process of these innovations is analysed more closely, followed by observations on the relationship between leading practitioners on the one hand and judges, legislators and professors on the other.

Jochen Vetter, Kautelarpraxis und M&A-Verträge (Contractual Practice and M&A Transactions)

The article describes the role of M&A lawyers in, and the limited influence of national legislators, judges and professors on, private M&A transactions. The practical work of M&A lawyers entails far more than simply drafting the relevant M&A contracts; they provide the legal framework for the whole sale process. Neither the applicable law nor the legislator is of particular importance for M&A contracts or for the process of structuring a deal. This is primarily due to the variety of market participants and the breadth of M&A practice, which make efforts of a national legislator to provide a suitable legal framework seem futile. The creation of legal certainty, legal harmonization and the development of legislative interpretation by judges has no practical relevance in M&A. Besides the general benefits of arbitral jurisdiction (professional expertise, confidentiality, timing), another advantage is seen in minimizing any risk that the results of the negotiations will subsequently be subject to judicial review on account of mandatory law. Academic research yields only limited input as to legal questions regarding details. Contractual drafting, deal structure and, in particular, techniques to overcome conflicts of interest are subject to legal research only in exceptional cases. The law applied to M&A contracts is therefore not developed by the legislator, state courts or academic research, but by those working on M&A in practice. M&A lawyers play an important role in contributing to that development. As engineers of party autonomy, it is their duty to set out the results of negotiations in a legal, reliable and practical way so as to ensure that their client’s key points are regulated by the contract and, furthermore, to support the parties in finding creative solutions to any conflicts of interest. In doing this, M&A lawyers use reference works providing templates or legal explanations as tools far less than they utilize their experience from a great number of different transactions, knowledge of international deals and active collaboration with colleagues and consultants, in particular investment bankers and M&A advisers. In return, M&A practice has almost no influence on legislation or the development of the law by the judiciary.

Manfred Wenckstern, Kautelarpraxis und Erbrecht (Designing Last Wills and Inheritance Contracts)

The article describes in its first part the work of a German lawyer in the field of last wills and inheritance contracts. The practitioner’s work starts with a detailed determination of the legal, economic and social situation of the client as the point of departure. The second step consists in determining the aims of the client. Does he want to deviate from the rules of intestate succession? If yes, the lawyer has the task of translating these aims into legal concepts, i.e. legal clauses and terms of the last will. For guidance and help, a huge mass of German legal literature is available. Afterwards, the lawyer has, among other obligations, the task of explaining the chosen legal terms to the client using colloquial language.

In the second part the article deals with the creation of legal clauses and terms in four cases: The first case concerns the limitation of the binding effects of spouses’ interdependent joint wills. The second case treats the compulsory portion of children in the context of spouses’ joint wills: How can it be avoided that a child asks for his compulsory portion after the death of his first parent? The third case concerns the structure of a last will of parents whose child is physically and / or mentally disabled and therefore dependent on social welfare. These parents often have the aim of furthering their child on beyond the existing social welfare schemes. The social welfare authorities long tried to secure the estate as a compensation for their expenditures. However, the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof ) has in three judgments ruled that a carefully drafted and quite complicated last will in favour of a disabled child is not against public policy and therefore is to be accepted by the public authorities. The fourth case concerns the European Regulation on Inheritance Law. As early as two years before its entry into force, German authors published proposals suggesting new legal clauses.

Caroline S. Rupp, Gestaltungsspielraum für die Kautelarpraxis im Sachenrecht? – Beispiele aus dem Wohnungseigentumsrecht (Contractual Practice in Property Law –Examples from Condominium Law)

Property law is not an area of law commonly associated with party autonomy but rather with strict legal categorizations. Nevertheless, in some fields there is explicit permission or even a demand for the parties to determine and shape the property law aspects of their relationship. An example of this is condominium law: as a part of land law, it is ruled by the core property law principles – but the large diversity of practical needs and relationships within the community demand a high degree of individual contract design. After an overview of the basic concepts and structures of condominium law, this article explores the possibilities and limits of party autonomy regarding the basic property law notions of “ownership” and “things” in condominium law. The analysis of the various use rights shows that the options originally offered by positive law have been creatively developed and supplemented by contractual practice. Comparing the approaches of German and Swiss law, the legal treatment of parking spaces – a notorious issue in condominium law – is used to illustrate the points raised.

Wolfgang Wurmnest, Kautelarpraxis und Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen (Contractual Practice and Standard Contract Terms)

The article examines how standard contract terms as used in contractual practice have influenced the development of the law. It is structured in two parts. The first part summarises the function of general contract terms in today’s world and highlights the role of contract lawyers for the advancement of private and commercial law. The second part analyses in comparative perspective the interplay between contractual practice and the traditional forces shaping the law (legislators, courts and professors). It is demonstrated that, on the one hand, the legislature embraced some of the standards established by contractual practice, as for example newly developed types of contracts were later codified. On the other hand, the legislature had to react to eliminate unfair contract terms. It therefore first enacted isolated mandatory rules before establishing a set of general rules for identifying and prohibiting unfair contract terms. Within Europe, there are still significant differences as to the scope of these general rules, mainly with regard to the mechanism for the control of unfair terms in contracts between businesses. Once a full-fledged general set of rules is enacted by the legislature, the legal framework remains rather stable, as it is based to a large part on general clauses. These clauses must be applied and interpreted by the courts. Shaping the law of unfair contract terms by interpreting general clauses is the main task of judges today. Historically, however, it fell to the judges to advance the law of unfair contract terms as a reaction to standard clauses developed by contract lawyers. Many rules today enshrined in statutory form were developed by private law adjudication. Finally, the relationship of contractual practice and the academic world is discussed. Scholars mainly focus on the case law addressing unfair contractual terms. They advance the law by shaping the (European) foundations of unfair contract terms law, by systemising the case law and by diagnosing reforms to be effected by the courts or by the legislature.

ERA Summer course on cross-border insolvency proceedings

Trier, 11-13 June 2018

This intensive course on insolvency law will introduce lawyers to practical aspects of cross-border insolvency proceedings: different national insolvency laws, EU legislation and major CJEU case law will be presented.

The course will focus on the recast EU Regulation No 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings, including the following key topics:

• Centre of main interest (COMI) and forum shopping
• Coordination of proceedings
• Insolvency, cross-border security and rights in rem

Following an introduction to different insolvency law systems within the EU, participants will discuss the recent proposal for a Directive on insolvency and post-Brexit implications for insolvency and restructuring. Participants will be able to deepen their knowledge through case studies and workshops.

Cross-border civil litigation: summer course

Trier, 2-6 July 2018

“How do I recover money owed to me by my business partner residing abroad?” This is a problem that many companies and individuals are facing nowadays. The ERA summer course will provide you with answers. Get to know Brussels Ia, Rome I, Rome II, the European Account Preservation Order, the European Enforcement Order, the European Payment Order, the Small Claims Regulation, the Regulation on service of documents and taking of evidence, and the EU framework on mediation, ADR & ODR – and find out which path best to take!

You will learn:

• …which court is competent to hear your case
• …how to serve a judicial document
• …how to take evidence abroad
• …to advice on how to enforce a judgment abroad
• …to apply the recent CJEU case law in the field
• …which way to choose to recover money owed to your client
• …to provide guidance on how to efficiently freeze monies in foreign bank accounts
• …how to best apply the Rome I & II Regulations
• …what is the added value of ADR & mediation

This course will provide you with hands-on experience on cross-border civil litigation cases and the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. All relevant EU instruments will be presented and analysed, both by way of lectures and case studies. You will profit from daily workshops where active participation is encouraged.

The Societas – Central and Eastern European Company Law Research Network organised a comparative law conference on October 20, 2017 on the interesting and complex issue of arbitrability in company law disputes (see our previous post here). The geographical area covered was Central and Eastern Europe. The conference, part of a broader research project, was hosted by the Law Department of the Sapientia University, in the multicultural city of Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár, Klausenburg), Romania. At the conference, comparative and national reports were presented, which reflect very different attitudes towards arbitrability in the context of company law litigation. Now, the conference volume has just been released: Arbitrability of Company Law Disputes in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. by Em?d Veress; Cluj-Napoca, Forum Iuris, 2018; ISBN 978-606-94372-3-0. In addition, Professor Csongor István Nagy from the University of Szeged (Hungary) has published the introductory chapter authored by him on SSRN here.

A new book considering the private international law aspects of China’s One Belt One Road Initiative will be out in early June. The publisher’s blurb is below.

China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law will soon be released by Routledge. It is available for pre-ordering now at https://www.routledge.com/Chinas-One-Belt-One-Road-Initiative-and-Private-International-Law/Sooksripaisarnkit-Garimella/p/book/9781138563827

Edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit, of the Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, and Dr Sai Ramani Garimella, of the South Asian University, the book explores possible challenges to the success of the OBOR arising from the situational interface of diversity of laws, with the focus primarily on issues associated with private international law. It shows the latest state of knowledge on the topic and will be of interest to researchers, academics, policymakers, and students interested in private international law issues pertaining to the OBOR routes as well as private international law in general, Asian studies, and politics of international trade.

Contributors include:

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit – Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania
Yujun Guo and Pengyuan Fu – Wuhan University
Man Yip – Singapore Management University
Sai Ramani Garimella – South Asian University
Ivana Kunda – University of Rijeka
Zhengxin Huo – China University of Political Science and Law
Bruno Zeller – University of Western Australia
Kittiwat Chunchaemsai – Thammasat University
Thomas John – Hague Conference on Private International Law
Rishi Gulati – Victorian Bar, Australia
King Fung Tsang – The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Beligh Elbati – Osaka University
Banu Bozkurt – Akdeniz University

On 10 July 2018, a seminar on the establishment of international business courts in five Member States. will be held in Rotterdam. It is jointly organized by Erasmus, the MPI Luxembourg and Utrecht University, will be held in Rotterdam We will discuss these initiatives, in particular the novelties in the court administration and the procedural rules, exchange views on the possible impact on international commercial and complex litigation, and reflect on the challenges ahead. Eminent speakers from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Belgium will shed their light on these new courts and existing practices. The seminar will bring together practitioners, academics, business representatives and policy makers from different countries.

The organizers warmly invite you to attend! Please find the link to the full outline, the program, and registration here. We look forward to welcoming you in Rotterdam and to exchange views with you.

The seminar is organised by Erasmus School of Law under the ERC project ‘Building EU Civil Justice’ (Erasmus University Rotterdam), the Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law Luxembourg (Burkhard Hess), and the Montaigne Centre for Rule of Law and Administration of Justice of Utrecht University (Eddy Bauw).

Bastian Brunk, research assistant and doctoral student at the Institute for Comparative and Private International Law at the University of Freiburg (Germany), has provided us with the following summary of the eagerly awaited decision in Jesner v Arab Bank.

On April 24, the Supreme Court of the United States released its decision in Jesner v Arab Bank (available here; see also the pre-decision analysis by Hannah Dittmers linked here and first thoughts after the decision of Amy Howe here) and, in a 5:4 majority vote, shut the door that it had left ajar in its Kiobel decision. Both cases are concerned with the question whether private corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). In Kiobel, the Court rejected the application of the ATS to so-called foreign-cubed cases (cases in which a foreign plaintiff sues a foreign defendant for acts committed outside the territory of the US), but left the door open for cases that touch and concern the territory of the US (see also the early analysis of Kiobel by Trey Childress here). In Jesner v. Arab Bank, the majority now held that – in any case – “foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the ATS” (p. 27).

The respondent in the present case, Arab Bank, PLC, a Jordanian financial institution, was accused of facilitating acts of terrorism by maintaining bank accounts for jihadist groups in the Middle East and allowing the accounts to be used to compensate the families of suicide bombers. The petitioners further alleged that Arab Bank used its New York branch to clear its dollar-transactions via the so-called Clearing House Interbank Payment System (CHIPS) and that some of these transactions could have benefited terrorists. Finally, the petitioners accused Arab Bank of laundering money for a US-based charity foundation that is said to be affiliated with Hamas.

As in Kiobel, the facts of the case barely touch and concern the territory of the United States. The Court therefore held that “in this case, the activities of the defendant corporation and the alleged actions of its employees have insufficient connections to the United States to subject it to jurisdiction under the ATS” (p. 11). However, in order to overcome the divided opinions between the Courts of Appeals and to provide for legal certainty, the Supreme Court decided to answer the question of corporate liability under the ATS, but limited its answer to the applicability of the ATS to foreign corporations only. Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the majority vote, therefore based his reasoning on a cascade of three major arguments that rely on the precedents in Sosa and Kiobel.

First, the Court referred to the historic objective of the ATS, which was enacted “to avoid foreign entanglements by ensuring the availability of a federal forum where the failure to provide one might cause another nation to hold the United States responsible for an injury to a foreign citizen” (p. 8 f.). Thus, the goal of the Statute’s adoption was to avoid disturbances in foreign relations and not to create them by alienating other countries. This was the main concern with the present case “that already ha[d] caused significant diplomatic tensions with Jordan for more than a decade” (p. 11).

Second, the Court emphasized the “strictly jurisdictional” character of the ATS and asked for a proper cause of action to impose liability on corporations in accordance with the test established in the Sosa-decision. The Sosa-test allows for the recognition of a cause of action for claims based on international law (p. 10), but requires the international legal provision to be “specific, universal and obligatory” (p. 11 f.). The majority concluded that it could not recognize such a norm as almost every relevant international law statute (e.g. the Rome Statute and the statutes of the ICTY and the ICTR) excludes corporations from its jurisdictional reach and, accordingly, limits its scope of application to individuals.

Thirdly, even if there was a legal provision justifying corporate liability in international law, the Supreme Court found that US courts should refrain from applying it without any explicit authorization from Congress. In this way, the Supreme Court upheld the separation-of-powers doctrine stating that it is the task of the legislature, not the judiciary, to create new private rights of action, especially when these pose a threat to foreign relations. From this reasoning, courts are required to “exercise ‘great caution’ before recognizing new forms of liability under the ATS” (p. 19). In doing so, courts should not create causes of action out of thin air but by analogous application of existing (and therefore Congress-approved) laws. However, neither the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) nor the Anti-Terrorism Act (as the most analogous statutes) are applicable because the former limits liability to individuals whereas the latter provides a cause of actions to US-citizens only (thus being irreconcilable with the ATS, which is available only for claims brought by “an alien”; see p. 20-22).

Justice Sotomayor, who wrote a 34-page dissent, criticized the majority for absolving “corporations from responsibility under the ATS for conscience-shocking behavior” and argues that “[t]he text, history, and purpose of the ATS, as well as the long and consistent history of corporate liability in tort, confirm that tort claims for law-of-nations violations may be brought against corporations under the ATS” (Sotomayor, p. 1). However, the dissenting opinion could not prevail over the conservative majority.

Thus, for now, Jesner v Arab Bank has rendered human rights litigation against foreign corporations before US courts impossible. However, in contrast to this post’s title, the decision is not necessarily the end of the US human rights litigation. The ATS is still applicable if the defending corporation has its seat in the territory of the US. Moreover, the Court emphatically calls upon Congress to provide for legislative guidance. “If Congress and the Executive were to determine that corporations should be liable for violations of international law, that decision would have special power and force because it would be made by the branches most immediately responsive to, and accountable to, the electorate” (p. 27 f.). It remains to be seen whether Congress answers this call.

By the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)

DIPLOMAT LAWYER ((FIRST) SECRETARY) with the following qualifications:

• Outstanding academic record and expertise in private international law (PIL);
• Common-law trained, with good comparative law background, including in the field of PIL
• Good knowledge of Hague Conventions (and other Hague instruments), including in the areas of Family Law and related Hague Children’s Conventions
• Good knowledge of public international law including the law of treaties; experience in international negotiations is desirable;
• Excellent drafting capabilities (dissertation and / or Ph.D., law review or other publication experience will be taken into account);
• 13-15 years of relevant post-qualification experience in academia, law practice, domestic administration, and/or in an intergovernmental organisation;
• Complete fluency both spoken and written, in at least one of the working languages of the Conference (French or English), with preference given to candidates who also have a strong working knowledge of the other official language;
• Applications from qualified female candidates are particularly welcomed;
• Candidates from outside Europe are especially encouraged to apply.

The selected candidate will reinforce the team at the Permanent Bureau; his or her portfolio will include several Conventions and may include ongoing legislative projects. He or she will be part of the senior management team and assure a good, co-operative working atmosphere, conducive to team work and efficient communications, both within the Permanent Bureau and in relations with representatives of States and Organisations (respect of the Permanent Bureau’s core values is essential). The selected candidate will represent the HCCH in dealings with Members as well as other stakeholders and interested parties. He or she will also be expected to assist with the administration of the Permanent Bureau.

The position requires frequent travel to both neighbouring and distant countries.

Type of appointment and duration: three-year contract (with a one-year probationary period), possibility for renewal (medical clearance required).

Grade (Co-ordinated Organisations scale for the Netherlands): +/- A4/A5 subject to relevant experience. Secretarial status granted according to the Statute of the Hague Conference and Diplomatic status, with the relevant privileges and immunities, according to the agreements of the Hague Conference with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Deadline for applications: 26 May 2018

Anticipated starting date: September/October 2018

Applications: written applications should be sent by e-mail, with Curriculum Vitae, letter of motivation and contact information for at least two references, to be addressed to the Secretary General, e-mail: applications@hcch.nl.

In view of the terms of the Statute of the HCCH according to which diversity of geographic representation and of legal expertise shall be taken into account, candidates should preferably not have (exclusively) Swiss, Canadian or Portuguese nationality.

The short-listed candidates whose applications are retained will be invited to an interview with a Selection Committee which will include the Chairman of the Netherlands Standing Government Committee, the Chairman of the Council on General Affairs and Policy, and Members of the Permanent Bureau. They may also be invited to take part in an external professional assessment.

The Permanent Bureau reserves the right not to make any appointment to this vacancy, to make an appointment at a lower grade, or to make an appointment with a modified job description.

Two recent judgments of European courts have highlighted the difficulty in finding the right balance between the cultural assimilation of Muslim immigrants demanded by national laws on citizenship and the necessary degree of tolerance towards foreign laws and customs. In a widely reported decision of 11 April 2018, the French Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) ruled that a naturalisation of an Algerian-born woman could be revoked because she had refused to shake hands with a male public servant during the naturalisation ceremony. The Council evaluated her behaviour as proof that she was obviously not sufficiently assimilated to French culture in order to become a French citizen. In sharp contrast to this restrictive attitude, the High Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (Germany), in an earlier decision of 25 April 2017, allowed the naturalisation of a Syrian-born man to be upheld although it turned out that he had lied to German authorities about the fact that he had entered into a polygamous marriage abroad. The court argued that the appellant’s polygamous marriage as such did not amount to a violation of German public policy, which, in the context of naturalisation, is a rather narrowly phrased concept that presupposes a lack of loyalty to the German constitutional order. From a traditional choice of law point of view, however, there are rather convincing arguments for assuming a violation of German public policy: the husband’s first wife was a German national, and both spouses had their habitual residence in Germany, thus creating a very strong connection with the German legal order and its constitutional values on equality of the sexes. The case is now pending before the German Supreme Administrative Court in Leipzig.

The Foundation of Choice of Law: Choice and Equality by Dr Sagi Peari has been published by OUP recently. Please find the abstract below:

This book focuses on the subject of choice of law as a whole and provides an analysis of its various rules, principles, doctrines and concepts. It offers a conceptual account of choice of law, called “choice equality foundation” (CEF), which aims to flesh out the normative basis of the subject. The author reveals that, despite the multiplicity of titles and labels within the myriad choice of law rules and practices of the U.S., Canadian, European, Australian, and other systems, many of them effectively confirm and crystallize CEF’s vision of the subject. This alignment signifies the necessarily intimate relationship between theory and practice by which the normative underpinnings of CEF are deeply embedded and reflected in actual practical reality. 

Among other things, this book provides a justification of the nature and limits of such popular principles as party autonomy, most significant relationship, and closest connection. It also discusses such topics as the actual operation of public policy doctrine in domestic courts, and the relation between the notion of international human rights and international commercial dealings, and makes some suggestions about the ability of traditional rules to cope with the advancing challenges of the digital age and the Internet.

Please click to download the Flyer.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Office of the Children’s Lawyer v Balev (available here), has evolved the law in Canada on the meaning of a child’s habitual residence under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.  The Convention deals with the return of children wrongfully removed from the jurisdiction of their habitual residence.

A majority of the court identifies [paras 4 and 39ff] three possible approaches to habitual residence: the parental intention approach, the child-centred approach, and the hybrid approach.  The parental intention approach determines the habitual residence of a child by the intention of the parents with the right to determine where the child lives.  This approach has been the dominant one in Canada.  In contrast, the hybrid approach, instead of focusing primarily on either parental intention or the child’s acclimatization, looks to all relevant considerations arising from the facts of the case.  A majority of the court, led by the (now retired) Chief Justice, holds that the law in Canada should be the hybrid approach [paras 5 and 48].  One of the main reasons for the change is that the hybrid approach is used in many other Hague Convention countries [paras 49-50].

The dissent (three of the nine judges) would maintain the parental intention approach [para 110].  One of its central concerns is the flexibility and ambiguity of the hybrid approach [para 111], which the judges worry will lead to less clarity and more litigation.  Wrongful removal cases will become harder to resolve in a timely manner [paras 151-153].

The majority did not apply the law to the facts of the underlying case, it having become moot during the process of the litigation [para 6].  The court rendered its decision to provide guidance going forward.  The dissent would have denied the appeal on the basis that the child’s habitual residence was in Germany (as the lower courts had held).

The court briefly addresses the exception to Article 3 in what is commonly known as “Article 13(2)” (since it is not numbered as such) – a child’s objection to return – setting out its understanding of how to apply it [paras 75-81 and 157-160].

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently adopted the practice of preparing summaries of its decisions (available here for this decision) to make them more accessible to the media and the public.  These are called “Cases in Brief”.

In 2018, the Australian Branch of the International Law Association (ILA) will be hosting the biennial ILA conference. The conference, which is being held in Sydney, Australia, from 19-24 August 2018, is a major international event that will bring together hundreds of judges, academics, practitioners and officials of governments and international organisations from all around the globe. To register please follow this link. Please note that he early bird rate is available until 31 May 2018. The draft conference programme is now available on the ILA website here.

The German branch of the ILA will hold its annual meeting on 22 June, 2018, in Frankfurt (Main). This year’s topic is „International Dispute Resolution in Times of Crisis”. The list of distinguished speakers will include the Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights, Professor Dr. Angelika Nußberger (Strasbourg/Cologne), Professor Dr. Giesela Rühl (University of Jena), and Professor Dr. Stephan Schill (University of Amsterdam). You may find the full programme and further information here.

The ILA was founded in Brussels in 1873. Its objectives, under its Constitution, are “the study, clarification and development of international law, both public and private, and the furtherance of international understanding and respect for international law”. The ILA has consultative status, as an international non-governmental organisation, with a number of the United Nations specialised agencies. For further information and a welcome address from ILA chairman Lord Mance, please click here.

The European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs will hold a public hearing on «The Hague Judgments Convention» in Brussels, on 24 April 2018, from 15.00-16.30. The hearing is aimed at bringing together Members of the European Parliament, Commission representatives, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference and stakeholders with a view to discussing the ongoing negotiations on a world-wide Convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Since the recognition and enforcement of judgments is a matter of EU exclusive competence, the Commission represents all Member States (except Denmark) on the basis of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council in 2016. A third Special Commission was held in November 2017, which focused on intellectual property matters and general and final clauses, whereas the fourth and final Special Commission Meeting will take place in May 2018. This hearing will therefore provide the opportunity to get up to speed with the results of the three meetings of the Special Commission as well as with the next steps and future stages of the project.

Announcement: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/events-hearings.html?id=20180403CHE03681

Draft Programme: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/141460/juri-committee-hearing-hague-judgments-project.pdf

April 2018 JURI Study: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604954/IPOL_STU(2018)604954_EN.pdf

On 17 May, the Centre de droit comparé, européen et international of the University of Lausanne will host a joint conference with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on ‘The UK, Switzerland, Norway and the EU: Cross-border Business Relations after Brexit’. The flyer can be found here. The conference, organised by Professor Eva Lein, intends to provide a forum to discuss the legal uncertainties arising from Brexit with regard to cross-border commercial relations between British, EU, Norwegian and Swiss companies companies.

It will feature the following panels:

Welcome: Eva Lein (UNIL / BIICL)

Panel 1: Trade and Services
Chair: Spyros Maniatis (BIICL / Queen Mary University of London)

• Andreas Ziegler (UNIL)
• Thomas Sebastian (Monckton Chambers)
• Kaja Sandvig (DLA Piper, Oslo)
• Federico Ortino (King’s College London / Clifford Chance)

Panel 2: Company Law and Insolvencies
Chair: Adam Johnson QC (Herbert Smith Freehills)

• Stefania Bariatti (University of Milan)
• Rodrigo Rodriguez (University of Lucerne)
• John Whiteoak (Herbert Smith Freehills, London)
• Kern Alexander (University of Zurich)

Panel 3: Dispute Resolution
Chair: Andrea Bonomi (UNIL)

• Diana Wallis (former vice-President of the European Parliament / ELI)
• Trevor Hartley (London School of Economics)
• Benoît Arthur Mauron (Lalive)
• Peter Arnt Nielsen (Copenhagen Business School)
• Eva Lein (UNIL / BIICL)

University of Glasgow has announced a PhD scholarship opportunity for the project entitled “The Europeanisation of International Private Law: Implications of Brexit for Children and Families in Scotland” supervised by Professor Janeen Carruthers. The project shall commence in Oct 2018 and will provide (1) a stipend at the RCUK rate (2018-19 rate is £14,777 Full-Time); (2) 100 % tuition fee waiver; (3) access to the Research Training Support Grant. UK/EU and International applicants are eligible to apply.

For more information, please visit the university website, or follow this link:  The Europeanisation of International Private Law – Implications of Brexi….

It has not been yet noted on this blog that the CJEU has recently settled a classic problem of characterisation that has plagued German courts and academics for decades (CJEU, 1 March 2018 – C-558/16, Mahnkopf, ECLI:EU:C:2018:138). The German statutory regime of matrimonial property is a community of accrued gains, i.e. that each spouse keeps its own property, but gains that have been made during the marriage are equalised when the marriage ends, i.e. by a divorce or by the death of one spouse. According to § 1371(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB), the equalisation of the accrued gains shall be effected by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate on intestacy by one quarter of the estate if the property regime is ended by the death of a spouse; it is irrelevant in this regard whether the spouses have made accrued gains in the individual case. How is this claim to be characterised? In the course of the German discussion, all solutions had been on the table: some have advocated to classify the issue as a part of succession law only, others have argued for characterising the issuse as belonging to the field of matrimonial property law, and a minority opinion has developed a so-called “double characterisation”, i.e accepting the spouse’s share in the estate only if both the applicable succession and matrimonial property law would countenance such a solution. In 2015, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH), ruling on former autonomous choice of law rules, had settled the issue in favour of applying the German conflicts rules on matrimonial property, mainly arguing that § 1371(1) BGB determines what is left to the estate after the gains accrued during the marriage have been equalised (BGHZ 205, 289). The Court argued that, for practical reasons, the means that the provision deploys to allocate the gains are found in succession law, but its function is to deal with the dissolution of a marriage because of the death of one of the spouses. If frictions arose between the law applicable to matrimonial property and the rules governing succession – e.g. a widow receiving nothing although the succession law and the matrimonial property regime would grant her a share if applied in isolation –, such problems would have to be solved by the technique of adaptation.

In light of the Europeanisation of private international law, however, it had become doubtful whether this approach would remain valid within the context of the Succession Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012). A pertinent question was referred to the CJEU by the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court Berlin). Following the conclusions by AG Szpunar, the CJEU now has decided the case in diametrical opposition to the earlier judgment of the BGH, by adopting a purely succession-oriented characterisation. The CJEU argues that “Paragraph 1371(1) of the BGB concerns not the division of assets between spouses but the issue of the rights of the surviving spouse in relation to assets already counted as part of the estate. Accordingly, that provision does not appear to have as its main purpose the allocation of assets or liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, but rather determination of the size of the share of the estate to be allocated to the surviving spouse as against the other heirs. Such a provision therefore principally concerns succession to the estate of the deceased spouse and not the matrimonial property regime. Consequently, a rule of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings relates to the matter of succession for the purposes of Regulation No 650/2012” (para. 40). The main reason, however, is to ensure that the European Certificate of Succession remains workable in practice by giving a true and comprehensive picture of the surviving spouse’s share in the estate, no matter whether domestic law achieves this result by inheritance law alone or rather by a combination of matrimonial property and succession law (see in particular paras. 42 et seq.). It remains to be seen how much scope this approach will leave to an application of the European Matrimonial Property Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 2016/1103), which also covers the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime as a result of the death of one of the spouses. Whereas the law applicable to matrimonial property is, in principle, stabilised at the first common habitual domicile of the spouses, the applicable succession law is changed much more easily – it suffices that the deceased spouse had acquired a new habitual residence before his or her death. Thus, an extension of the Succession Regulation to the detriment of the Matrimonial Property Regulation may disappoint legitimate expectations of the surviving spouse concerning the allocation of accrued gains. The CJEU, however, does not seem to worry too much about this aspect, which was not problematic in the case at hand (para. 41). Future cases may be more enlightening in this regard.