Agrégateur de flux

Written by Matthew S. Erie, Associate Professor of Modern Chinese Studies and Fellow at St. Cross College, University of Oxford

On April 2, 2019, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) and the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China” (“Supreme People’s Court”) signed an Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the HKSAR (hereinafter, “the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance,” see English translation here). This is a momentous development in the growth of international commercial arbitration in both mainland China (also, the “PRC”) and Hong Kong as it is the first time that such a mechanism has been put in place to allow Chinese courts to render interim relief to support arbitrations seated outside of the PRC.

Historically, non-Chinese parties have been concerned about doing business with Chinese parties given the lack of the ability to ensure that the status quo of the assets of the Chinese party in question is not altered pending the outcome of the arbitration and the tribunal’s issuance of the final award.  As a result of the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance, foreign parties will have more comfort in entering into such agreements with Chinese parties; further, the attractiveness of both Hong Kong as a seat of arbitration and the PRC will be enhanced. More generally, the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance demonstrates the close cooperation between legal, judicial, and arbitral authorities in the PRC and Hong Kong. The Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance builds on such soft law sources as the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the HKSAR Pursuant to the Choice of Court Agreements Between Parties Concerned, signed on July 14, 2006, and the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and the HKSAR, signed on June 21, 1999.  These sources of soft law position Hong Kong as a major legal hub for Chinese companies investing outside of mainland China. This is particularly so in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative, a multi-trillion dollar project affecting some two-thirds of the world’s population, announced by PRC President Xi Jinping in 2013, to connect mainland China’s economy with those of states throughout Eurasia.

Mainland China’s soft law agreements with Hong Kong are not surprising given that Hong Kong is a “special administrative region” of the PRC, a relationship often summarized as “one country two systems.” Nor is it surprising that Hong Kong should function as a legal hub for Chinese companies. Yet Hong Kong is just one of many such hubs emerging throughout a number of jurisdictions across the Eurasian landmass that are jockeying to provide legal services, and particularly dispute resolution services, to not just Chinese companies but also Japanese, Indian, and those of GCC and ASEAN states. The diversity of parties notwithstanding, with some of the largest multi-national companies in the world backed by strong central government support, China is the dominant economy of the region. China is not only creating soft law with other jurisdictions but also onshoring disputes by building its own NLHs in Shanghai and Shenzhen. As a consequence, emergent economies in Asia are accounting for an ever-larger number of cross-border commercial disputes, and jurisdictions in Asia are building capacity to handle those disputes. Soft law, international arbitration houses, international commercial courts, business mediation, transplanted English common law procedural rules, English language, and lawtech—these are all constitutive elements of what I call “new legal hubs” (“NLHs”), one-stop shops for cross-border commercial dispute resolution, in financial centers, promoted as an official policy by nondemocratic or hybrid regimes.

Over the course of two years, I conducted ethnographic fieldwork on six NLHs in four countries, including in Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, Kazakhstan, and China. The result of my research, “The New Legal Hubs: The Emergent Landscape of International Commercial Dispute Resolution” (see here), is forthcoming in the Virginia Journal of International Law. The article analyses NLHs at two levels: their impact on the host states in which they are embedded and interhub connections as a form of transnational ordering. This article finds that, first, legal hubs are engines of doctrinal, procedural, and technological experimentation, but they have had limited impact on the reform of the wider jurisdictions within which they are embedded. Second, through relationships of competition and complementarity, legal hubs function to enhance normative settlement. However, many of the innovations (e.g., intrahub cross-institutional mechanisms between courts and arbitration institutions and interhub soft law such as memoranda of understanding) are untested, vulnerable to state politics, or even unlawful. Consequently, NLHs demonstrate the potential and fragility of “rule of law” in nondemocratic states that promote globalization against trends in the West.

The article begins with an introduction that defines NLHs, identifies their significance as jurisdictional carve-outs to otherwise weak legal systems of host states, and proposes an anthropology of legal hubs. Part I sets the analysis of NLHs against the backdrop of a partially deglobalizing Euro-American liberal legal order and a globalizing “Inter-Asian” one. Part II describes the methodology of “para-ethnography.” Part III provides a theory of NLHs. Part IV builds on this theory to generate a continuum of NLHs. Part V assesses how NLHs and their host states affect each other, including hubs’ positive spillover effects and host state pushback. Part VI examines the possibilities for interhub ordering.

On 7 June 2019, the School of Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and the School of Law at Middlesex University organise a conference on the topic of “Access to Justice and Arbitration”. The conference is hosted at Royal Holloway.

The aim of the conference is to initiate a focused debate about access to justice in arbitration that would enable a larger public discussion about the specific role of access to justice in arbitration.

The full programme will be published shortly. For further information and registration see here and here.

Tribunal de grande instance de Nantes, pôle social, 28 février 2019

Cour d'appel de Papeete, 21 mars 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Versailles, 6 décembre 2018

Tribunal correctionnel de Châlons-en-Champagne, 13 mars 2019

Pourvoi c/ tribunal de police de Saint-Etienne, 1ere à 4eme classe, 20 mars 2019

I fear I do not have the time or opportunity for the moment fully to analyse Saugmandsgaard ØE’s Opinion at the end of January in C-689/17 MSC Flaminia (no EN version available) – hence this post is a flag more than a review. The second Opinion of the AG in the same month (see C-634/16 ReFood) on the waste shipments Regulation.

Readers beware: there are two distinct exemptions for ships-related waste in the waste shipments Regulation: are exempt:

the offloading to shore of waste, including waste water and residues, generated by the normal operation of ships and offshore platforms, provided that such waste is subject to the requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Marpol 73/78), or other binding international instruments; and

waste generated on board vehicles, trains, aeroplanes and ships, until such waste is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of.

In the case at issue: does the latter cover residues from damage to a ship at sea in the form of scrap metal and fire extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues on board the ship?

Geert.

Handbook of EU Waste Law, 2nd ed. 2015, Oxford, OUP, Chapter 3, 3.27 ff.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has announced that the 11th International Forum on the e-APP (electronic Apostille Program) will be held in Fortaleza, Brazil, from 16 to 18 October 2019.

The e-APP promotes the use of technology to further enhance the secure and effective operation of the HCCH Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents Apostille Convention (Apostille Convention).  Among the technologies that will probably be discussed are the use of distributed ledger technologies (such as blockchain) in accordance with the Conclusion & Recommendation No 35 of the HCCH Council.

The working languages of the Forum will be English, Portuguese and Spanish.

Many Contracting Parties have already implemented one or both components of the e-APP. There are already 35 Contracting Parties with an e-Register, many of which are in the Americas. See here.

More information (incl. registration process) will be made available on the Apostille Section of the HCCH website. While the number of participants is limited, registration is free of charge and will be handled on a first come, first served basis.

The HCCH news item is available here. See also the information relating to the 10th e-APP Forum as it compiled all previous Conclusions & Recommendations.

The book titled I Regolamenti europei sui regimi patrimoniali dei coniugi e delle unioni registrate: commento ai Regolamenti (UE) 24 giugno 2016, n.1103 e 1104 applicabili dal 29 gennaio 2019, authored by Paolo Romano, was recently released by the Italian publisher Giuffrè.

The official description (translated from the Italian original) states:

With the adoption of Regulations (EU) Nos. 1103 and 1104 of 2016, applicable from 29 January 2019, the supranational legislator has completed – albeit in the form of enhanced cooperation – the framework of European family law, dictating common rules on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and property effects of registered partnerships. After intervening over the course of a decade in the matrimonial matters and parental responsibility, then in terms of maintenance obligations and succession, the Council of the European Union has therefore provided citizens and professionals with the necessary coordinates to reach a complete definition of the property relationships of spouses and partners (between them and third parties) deriving directly from the creation of the family bond or its dissolution. Retracing the structure of the two legislative acts, as supplemented by the Implementing Regulations (EU) No. 1935 and No. 1990 of 7 and 11 December 2018 which adopted the standard forms attached to them, and commenting on the discipline in the light of the most recent rulings of the European Courts, the author examines their compatibility with the relevant institutes of Italian substantive and procedural law – from the reflections on the discipline of legal communion and applicability to registered partnerships and de facto couples, to exploring their practical implications in terms of circulation of agreements on assisted negotiation – in a constantly evolving regulatory and social context.

This book follows Romano’s former book Le controversie familiari dell’Unione Europea published with the same editor in 2018.

Marta Requejo  has published recently an article on the Procedural Harmonization and Private Enforcement in the Area of Personal Data Protection. The article is featured in the latest edition of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series, and may be retrieved here.

Case C-195/18 B.S. v Prokatura et al held mid-March, is great for the week-end. Serious stuff (excise duties and customs classification), but with a fun twist: does beer under excuse duties and customs regulation require the beverage to be made with malt as an ingredient, or does it also include mixtures of beer with non-alcoholic beverages, as long as it has fermented?  Put differently, may an alcoholic product obtained by fermentation of a wort produced from, inter alia, glucose syrup (yikes! yikes! and yikes again) and a small proportion of malt may be classified as ‘beer made from malt’?

The CJEU touches upon important issues: linguistic interpretation, WCO rules, etc. and finally decides that such a product can come under the ‘beer’ heading only on condition that its objective characteristics and properties correspond to those of beer (adding glucose syrup is not prohibited, other than of course under the only proper standard in this regard which is of course the Rheinheitsgebot (as amended)). In this regard, the court holds, account must be taken more particularly of the organoleptic (meaning ‘involving the use of the sense organs’) characteristics of the product in question, which is an exercise the referring court must undertake. No tasting sessions at Kirchberg therefore.

Have a good week-end.

Geert.

Préjudice d'anxiété lié à l'amiante