Droit international général

This submission written by Celeste Hall, JD Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Global Legal Scholar.

The legal news has been awash lately in the recognition and enforcement of investment arbitration awards by U.S. courts. Most of the press is on the long-running and still-unfolding saga regarding Spain (see here and here). And a new decision recognizing an award against Zimbabwe was just issue at the end of December, as well. Here, however, we would like to add to the news with the recent decision recognizing an investment arbitration award against Mexico in United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated.

Like most investment arbitrations, the decision tells a sordid tale. Lion Mexico Consolidated (LMC) is a Canadian company which provided financing to a Mexican businessman, Mr. Hector Cardenas Curiel, to develop real estate projects in Nayarit and Jalisco, Mexico. Cardenas’ company failed to pay on the loans, and LMC tried for years to obtain payment, all to no avail. Cardenas then began what was described as a “complex judicial fraud” to avoid payment, including a forgery and a subsequent lawsuit in a Jalisco court to cancel the loans. LMC was never informed of the suit and therefore, never appeared. The Jalisco Court issued a default judgment discharging the loans and ordering LMC to cancel the mortgages; Cardenas then arranged for an attorney to act fraudulently on LMC’s behalf to file and then purposefully abandon the appeal. LMC only learned of the entire scheme when they attempted to file their own constitutional challenge and were rejected. The Mexican Courts refused to allow LMC to submit evidence of the forgeries, so LMC brought a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration against Mexico for its failure to accord Lion’s investments protection under Article 1105(1) of NAFTA.

In the arbitration, Mexico argued that Article 1105(1)(b) only applies to investments, and because LMC is an investor, it could not seek relief under Article 1105(1). The arbitral tribunal disagreed and awarded LMC over US$ 47 million in damages. In the U.S. courts, Mexico petitioned to vacate the Award, and LMC cross-petitioned to affirm it.

Mexico conceded that the DC Circuit’s power to vacate an arbitral award is limited: as long as the tribunal “interpreted” 1105(1) the Court must confirm the award even if serious interpretive error was committed. Mexico attempted to skirt this issue by claiming that the Tribunal did not “interpret” anything. Instead, in Mexico’s view, they simply ignored the literal meaning of investments of investors by granting relief to Lion.

The Court was not impressed by this argument. It held that “[t]he Tribunal addressed Mexico’s interpretation of Article 1105(1) head on, employed common interpretative tools to reach a different conclusion, cited authorities in support of its reading, and explained its reasoning. By any definition of the word, the Tribunal interpreted Article 1105(1). Because the Court can’t second-guess that interpretation, the Court DENIED Mexico’s Petition to Vacate the Arbitral Award, and GRANTED LMC’s Cross- Petition for Confirmation, Recognition, and Enforcement of the Arbitral Award.”

Additionally, the Court denied a motion to intervene filed Hector Cardenas Curiel. Cardenas knew that the arbitral case hinged upon his fraud but did not pursue intervention at the arbitral stage. The Court found that Cardenas’ attempt to intervene at this stage was “too little too late”, and Cardenas did not meet the requirements for intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or 24(b).

This decision is important because it follows a long line of cases giving deference to arbitrators in investment treaty cases; when they interpret the governing treaty and decide cases thereunder, their decisions will not be second-guessed by U.S. courts later.

As posted earlier here, the conference organizers and editors of the JPIL are welcoming submissions for the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law, to be held in London 11–13 September 2025.

Proposals including an abstract of up to 500 words can be send to JPrivIL25@ucl.ac.uk until 17 January 2025.

More information can also be found here.

The University of Edinburgh is seeking a full-time permanent Lecturer in Global Law for its School of Law. Further details can be found here. As mentioned in the full job description, expertise in private international law will be appreciated. The closing date for applications is 20 January 2025.

An ERA online seminar on Migrants in European Family Law will take place on 6-7 February 2025. For more information, click here. The programme is available here.

As stated by the organisers:

“This online seminar addresses complex, practical legal issues at the interface between European family and migration law. It will address issues related to the portability of the personal status of migrants, in particular the recognition of marriage and divorce.

We will discuss the protection of migrant children in Europe, care and guardianship of unaccompanied minors, the frictions between family law and migration law in the case of child abduction and the structuring of return procedures.

The seminar will also present the recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on family and migration law, including the right to family reunification.”

Early bird registration ends on 13 January 2025.

 

 

This post has been written by Delphine Porcheron, Maître de conférences HDR, University of Strasbourg. On 14 November 2024, the Administrative Court of Paris dismissed a lawsuit filed by Rwandan citizens and associations seeking to hold the French State accountable for its role in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, a massacre that […]

 

 

The 26th Volume of the Japanese Yearbook of Private International Law (Kokusai Shiho Nenpo) published by the Private International Law Association of Japan (Kokusai Shiho Gakkai) (hereinafter “PILAJ”)has recently been released.

This new volume features the following table of content (all links direct to the papers’ English abstracts)

 

Part 1 – The Status and Development of Private International Law from a Global Perspective

Corporate Climate Liability in Private International Law (in English)

Marc-Philippe WELLER and Madeleine Petersen WEINER

 

The Case for a Special Conflicts Rule in the European Union for Cross-Border Trade Secret Disputes (in English)

Onur Can SAATCIOGLU

 

Trends in Australian Private International Law (in English)

Mary KEYES

 

Part II – International Transactions and Dispute Resolution through Arbitration and Mediation

The Application of Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration (in Japanese)

Tatsuya NAKAMURA

 

Due Process and Efficiency in Arbitral Proceedings —From a Swiss Perspective (in Japanese)

Kazuaki NISHIOKA

 

Part III – Academic Conference Presentations

On the Relationship between lex rei sitae and the Immutability of Law of Creation —From the Perspective of Temporal and Factual Division of the Applicable Law (in Japanese)

Yoshiaki NOMURA

 

Conflict of Laws and Corporate Environmental Irresponsibility in the Developing World —Remedying Choice of Law Rule for Environmental Damage (in English)

Thu Thuy NGUYEN

 

Arb./Med.Arb. as Multi-layered Dispute Resolution in Practice —Including Practice in Asian Countries and Concrete Mediation Techniques (in Japanese)

Yoshihiro TAKATORI

 

Arrest of Ships and International Private Law (in Japanese)

Fumiko MASUDA

 

The contents of all volumes are available here.

Papers included in volumes 1 (1999) to 23 (2023) are freely available on the PILAJ’s website.

English abstracts of the papers published in Japanese are also available from volume 18 (2016).

The current and past volumes of JYPIL can be ordered from the publisher’s website (Shinzansha).

 

The International Law Association Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has issued a Call for Papers for a conference scheduled for 7 April 2025 titled ‘Shaping Appropriate ADR in International Law’. Further information is available here. The deadline for submissions is 5 February 2025.

If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact info@ila-hq.org

By Harddit Bedi* and Akansha Tripathy**

Introduction

It is beyond dispute that The Convention of International Sales of Goods, 1980 (CISG) has facilitated international trade disputes. However, Courts and tribunals continue to apply their minds in adjudicating the applicability of CISG before advancing into substantive issues. This exercise is not very prolific as it prolongs proceedings. Chapter 1 of the convention lays down the scope and extent of the CISG. Amongst other things, the CISG application does not apply to contracts formed by, inter-alia, auctions under Art. 2(b) of CISG.  The word auction itself is nowhere defined in the convention.

This led to ambiguity. Courts of different jurisdictions had to adjudicate the definition of the word auction, Take, for instance, the Electronic electricity meter case. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court had to determine if the bidding process in a tender contract was the same as an auction. The similarities between a bidding process and an auction cannot be understated. However, unlike an auction, in a tender contract, it is the sellers that bid, not the buyers. Hence, a tender contract may be construed as a reverse auction, not an auction. This leads to the issue: Are tender Contracts—by them being reverse auctions— barred by the CISG under Article 2(b)?

 

The Exclusion of Auctions in CISG—but Why?

Article 2(b) explicitly reads that the CISG exempts sales by auction. In an auction, sellers invite buyers to bid on goods, with the highest bidder securing the purchase. The process ensures competition among buyers, with the help of the seller or an intermediary, and ends with the auctioneer declaring the winning bid. The reason for this exclusion in the convention is not well-founded but speculated. First, it is excluded because auctions are often subject to special rules under the applicable national law, and it is best to not harmonize them. Second, there was no need to include an auction since auctions universally, at that time, did not take place across borders in any case. Third, in an auction, the seller may not know the details about the buyer, including but not limited to, domicile, nationality, and place of operations. That is why, the applicability of the CISG would be uncertain due to Article 2(b) of the CISG since the aforesaid information determines whether the contract is an international one. These reasons justify exclusion, however, defining the term auction would have abated vagueness and ambiguity. Since, in the present context, The exclusion of “sales by auction” can be narrowly interpreted to apply only to traditional auctions, where sellers solicit bids from buyers. However, alternatively, it can be broadly construed to include any competitive bidding process, including reverse auctions.

A Case for CISG Applicability vis-à-vis Tender Contracts

Tender contracts, despite being formed after an auction, do not come under the ambit of Art.2(b). First, just because tender contracts are formed through a bidding process does not make it an auction. It is advanced that tender contracts differ from an auction but may be similar to reverse auctions. In a reverse auction, it is the buyer who invites multiple sellers to bid, to secure goods or services at the lowest possible price. This process is common in procurement, particularly in government tenders and large-scale corporate sourcing. Similarly, since primarily, a tender involves a buyer inviting potential sellers to submit bids for goods or services; the process can be closely equated with a reverse auction in its characteristics—not auctions. Also, the procurer can also consider several other factors and have the discretion to determine to award the contract. This is unlike how an auction functions. In an auction, the seller typically does not have the discretion to consider other factors besides the highest price quoted. Ulrich G. Schroeter, a member of the CISG advisory council, (2022 paper) advances that CISG is applicable in Tender contracts. He states, “The CISG furthermore also applies to international sales contracts concluded with a seller which has been selected by way of a call for tender (invitation to tender, call for bids).” The aforementioned arguments suggest that at the very least it would not be correct to construe tender contracts as auctions. The question that then follows is whether reverse auctions can also be presumed to be included in the ambit of auction mentioned in Art.2(b); which is answered in the subsequent point.

Second, the absence of explicit exclusion extends to implied inclusion. The UNCITRAL Commentary of Art 2 of the convention advances that all international sale of goods contracts can be governed by CISG besides the following. Art 2 does not refer to contracts formed by bidding process or reverse auctions but just auctions. In addition to this, the World Bank standard tender rules also do not explicitly exclude the application of CISG. From these, there is a reasonable inference that reserving an auction or just contracts formed via bidding are not explicitly included. On the contrary, if anything, the CISG application was included in the New Zealand government as guidance for foreign bidders, although it was later changed to “Common Law of contracts.” Such an inclusion is also present in an international purchase of equipment, by a Brazilian nuclear power state-owned entity. With this argument in mind, a counter-argument may be taken to advance that a court/tribunal can extend the interpretation of an auction to also include a reverse auction. However, that would be a way too broad interpretation and no coherent argument exists to make such a broad interpretation.

Third, precedents have historically not exempted CISG application in tender contracts. In 2019, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dealt with the issue of tender contracts in CISG. It established that contracts initiated through public tenders do not fall under the ambit of Art. 2(b). The test laid is whether or not one party is foreign or not to the tender contract. So long as that element is present in the transaction, tender contracts are just as valid as any other contract with respect to Art 2(b). In another Swiss precedent, while not directly addressing the issue at hand, the tribunal held that an invitation to a tender is a form of invitation to a contract. Hence, a contract formed through just a process of bidding, though not an auction, can be governed by CISG as it so was in the said precedent. Additionally, as stated above, government procurement is done through mostly reverse auctions/Tender contracts/bidding. Such government procurement when faced with an international element has invoked the application of CISG.

 

Conclusion

This question at hand is pertinent since CISG has proven to be a successful framework, hence, its scope and applicability should not be restricted. Especially with relation to tender contracts since they form a substantial method of procurement of big entities and governments. Not to mention, no valid reason exists for the exclusion. The economic reasons are present and not even touched upon since the article strictly restricted itself to legal arguments. To summarize, the applicability of CISG to tender contracts is ambiguous due to Article 2(b), which excludes “sales by auction” from its ambit. Auctions are usually seller-driven competitive bidding. Whereas, Tender contracts are where buyers ask for bids from sellers. By virtue of this, Tender contracts are different from auctions in certain aspects such as control, procedural formalities, and evaluation criteria which are considered factors beyond price. Since it is a form of reverse auction, it would be incorrect to include reverse auctions as an auction under Art.2(b). More importantly, previously, courts and tribunals have not given the word auction such a broad interpretation. It has allowed CISG to govern the contract. Hence, in conclusion, tender contracts do not come under the ambit of “auction” of Art 2(b) CISG.

*Harddit Bedi is a student of Law at BML Munjal University India, and alumnus of the Hague Academy of International Law (2024). **Akansha Tripathy is a student of Law at BML Munjal University, India.

UN/CEFACT would like to invite you to attend: Workshop on Addressing Conflict of Laws and Facilitating Digital Product Passports: Traceability and Transparency of Critical Raw Material Value Chains, Tuesday, 21 January 2025 (AEST)

Agenda

10:00 am – 11:00 am AEST: The UN/CEFACT working group on ‘conflict of laws in the critical raw material (CRM) value chains’ meeting: Introduction and discussion of the UN/CEFACT White Paper draft outline

Moderator: Associate Professor Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Sydney University School of Law.

This is a hybrid event. Please contact jeanne.huang@sydney.edu.au for zoom details.

 

11:00 am – 12:00 pm AEST: Research interview with Dr. David Brown who is a researcher with Mighty Earth and has done a lot of research on deforestation in CRM value chains in Indonesia.  For his recent publication, “From Forests to EVs,” which he co-authored with Mighty Earth.  Kindly refer to https://mightyearth.org/article/from-forests-to-electric-vehicles/. (The interview is not open to the public due to the research ethics requirement)

 

12:00 pm – 13:00 pm AEST: Lunch

 

13:00 pm- 14:00 pm AEST: Professor Philip M. Nichols keynote:

Does Compliance with the Global Anticorruption Regime Require the Use of Artificial Intelligence?: The Case of Managing Global Critical Raw Material Value Chains

Background

Business firms constantly hear that artificial intelligence has changed the world and that they must either utilize artificial intelligence or fall behind. By extension, this would be true of regulatory compliance as well as operations. This article challenges the mantra of artificial intelligence as a ubiquitous agent of change. It does so through the lens of the global anticorruption regime, a transnational web of laws, regulations and norms that work together to reign in corruption. As this article demonstrates, the global anticorruption regime imposes on business firms a requirement to implement effective and up-to-date antibribery programs. Given the prevailing conception of artificial intelligence as the newly-critical tool for business, it would be easy to interpret “effective” and “up-to-date” as requiring the use of artificial intelligence. To determine whether in fact the global anticorruption regime does, this article undertakes two analyses. First, it carefully determines the systems requirements of the type of artificial intelligence most applicable to antibribery programs – systems that can distinguish between honest and corrupt actors and transactions – and determines the regulatory constraints on the use of artificial intelligence in that way. This article then asks specifically what tasks artificial intelligence would be asked to do as part of an antibribery program, and evaluates the capacity of artificial intelligence to perform those tasks given the already determined system requirements and constraints. These analyses yield a surprising conclusion: in some instances the use of artificial intelligence would be helpful, but for most business firms, particularly for smaller firms or firms that have not experienced bribery, the use of artificial intelligence would not be helpful and could be harmful. Regulators and legal scholars must not think of artificial intelligence as a panacea; its potential use must be analyzed in the context of objectives and the capacities, needs, and limits of artificial intelligence.

 

Dr. Philip M. Nichols is the Joseph S. Kolodny Professor of Social Responsibility in Business and Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He was Co-Chair, UN/CEFACT Law Group (United Nations experts committee on electronic commerce and trade facilitation), 1998 to 2005.

Event page: https://law-events.sydney.edu.au/event/globalanticorruptionregime_ai/

Registration: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/does-compliance-with-the-global-anticorruption-regime-require-the-use-of-ai-tickets-1143595548069?aff=oddtdtcreator UN/CEFACT would also like to call for participation:

White Paper on Addressing Conflict of Laws and Facilitating Digital Product Passports in Cross-border Value Chains 

Help draft the white paper on Addressing Conflict of Laws and Facilitating Digital Product Passports (DPPs) in Cross-border Value Chains to achieve legal coordination and establish traceability in global trade law. Aligned with regional and global initiatives, the White Paper seeks to address conflicts of law and foster the legal harmonization essential for the DPPs implementation across borders. The white paper will also ensure that DPPs comply with international standards, promoting interoperability and supporting a globally consistent approach. It will focus on the critical raw materials-the EV batteries value chain but will have broad implications for other industries.

 

The proposed White Paper will (1) present the status quo of conflict of laws in existing national and international laws relating to the implementation of DPPs, and (2) propose solutions for legal coordination and facilitate trade, especially:

1. Analyzing initial uptake of DPPs by industry stakeholders and anticipated impact;
2. Coordinating diversified national laws for cross-border data transfer involved in DPPs;
3. Obtaining mutual recognition of ESG certificates whose data are required by DPPs;
4. Promoting Interoperability between different DPPs; and
5. Incorporating UNTP and other UN/CEFACT industry standards/good practices into international and national trade laws to address legal conflicts in the adoption of DPPs.

Please provide your name/position/associations/email contacts;

Please indicate your expertise;

Please choose the ways to participate (multiple choice):

1. Participate as an active contributor in the working group to draft the White Paper (The group will typically have a one-hour meeting every two weeks from January to May 2025),
2. Participate as an observer in the working group to draft the White Paper,
3. Participate in research interviews, and
4. Any other ways that you think you can contribute.

Deadline to express your EOI is Friday 17 January 2025. Please contact the project lead Dr. Jie (Jeanne) Huang (Jeanne.huang@sydney.edu.au) and forward your email to her research assistant Raven Yang (raven.yang@sydney.edu.au).

 

Co-edited by Ben Köhler, Rishi Gulati and Thomas John, the Elgar Companion to UNCITRAL is now out. This is the third and final in the trilogy of books on the three key international institutions mandated to work on private international and international private law. The Elgar Companions to the HCCH and to UNCITRAL have already been published in 2020 and 2023 respectively.

The Elgar Companion to UNIDROIT brings together a diverse selection of contributors from a variety of legal backgrounds to present the past, present and future prospects of UNIDROIT’s instruments (for more information: link).

The book will be virtually launched by the President of UNIDROIT, Professor Dr. Maria Chiara Malaguti, on 17 January 2025 at 13:00 CET. The launch event will also include a presentation by Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Dr. h.c. Herbert Kronke, who will speak on the topic of “UNIDROIT and the EU”. The event will be held via zoom.

To register, please send an email to ben.koehler@uni-bayreuth.de

The Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) has recently updated its rules of procedure. The updated version has come into force on January 1, 2025.

The update might interest litigation lawyers, and could be relevant to this blog’s readers who follow the developments in regulatory competition, in particular the establishment and work of international commercial courts, including several posts on this blog (see inter alia here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).

The full title of the NCC rules of procedure is ‘Rules of Procedure for the International Commercial Chambers of the Amsterdam District Court (NCC District Court) and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (NCC Court of Appeal) NCC Rules / NCCR’. The document summarizes the amendments as follows:

‘This fourth version of the Rules is occasioned by the various changes to the laws of evidence in the Code of Civil Procedure that come into force on 1 January 2025 (Article 194 ff). Additionally, there are amendments in – amongst others – the following rules:

– 2.1.3 (notification of interested parties)

– 2.2 and explanatory notes (language and third parties)

– 3.2.1 (communication by email)

– 3.2.9 (maximum size of documents in appeal)

– 3.4.2 (extension of a time limit)

– 5.2 (default)

– 6.3.2 (summary proceedings)

– 7.1.4 (scheduling)

– 7.2 (invitation to the hearing)

– 7.7.2 (audio and video recordings)

– 8.4 (right to information and confidentiality)

– 8.4.8 (prejudgment attachment to protect evidence)

– 8.8 (preparatory evidence events)

– explanatory notes 1.3.2 (jurisdiction to deal with prejudgment attachments).’

Several updates thus have practical character; other amendments follow the development of the EU and national civil procedural law (for instance, in relation to the right to information and confidentiality).

On 1 January 2025, Poland assumed the presidency of the Council of the European Union, marking the start of a new trio of presidencies that also involves Denmark and Cyprus. The Polish presidency’s programme for the semester ending on 30 June deals with a broad range of topics, including judicial cooperation in civil matters. In this […]

The Child Support forum is pleased to invite every interested stakeholder to a new open meeting on the issue of “International Maintenance Recovery on the Basis of Authentic Instruments”.

The payment of child maintenance is not always ordered by a court. Maintenance debtors may commit themselves to make these payments in an enforceable deed, also called “authentic instrument”. The enforceable deeds are usually established by public notaries or public authorities. They should not be confused with administrative orders, as they are based on a voluntary declaration by the maintenance debtor. In case of non-payment, enforcement can be carried out in the State of origin, in the same way as a court decision.

Regarding cross-border cases, the recognition and enforcement of child maintenance claims on the basis of authentic instruments is mentioned in certain provisions. However, the lack of international awareness as regards their nature leads to difficulties when it comes to their implementation. The meeting aims to provide information on these two topics and to allow an exchange between the stakeholders involved on both levels, the establishment and the enforcement of authentic instruments.

To register, click here.

This post has been written by Artur Doržinkevič, a PhD candidate and a lecturer at Mykolas Romeris University. On 21 November 2024, the Lithuanian Court of Appeal issued a ruling in civil case No. e2-651-912/2024, which provided further clarification regarding anti-SLAPP procedures as they pertain to lawyers. Although the case concerned domestic anti-SLAPP procedure, the […]

Over the past 19 years, Professor Symeon C. Symeonides (Alex L. Parks Distinguished Professor of Law, Dean Emeritus) has been providing scholars, researchers, practitionners and student with a comprehensive and extensive compliation of Parivate International law bibliogrphy.

The 2024’s compilation (Private International Law Bibliography 2024: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English) includes 58 books and 427 journal articles, covering a wide range of topics within private international law (conflict of laws) and related fields.

The bibliography addresses key areas such as prescriptive jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, federal-state conflicts, and specific aspects of arbitration. It also encompasses legal issues related to foreign relations and international human rights, providing a valuable reference for those studying or working in these domains.

This compilation serves as a significant resource for legal scholars and practitioners, offering a thorough overview of the literature in private international law and its associated fields.

Access to the bibliography is available on Prof. Symeonides’ SSRN page here.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Prof. Symeonides for his unwavering commitment and remarkable contributions. His bibliography continues to be a cornerstone of legal research and a testament to the enduring importance of meticulous scholarship.

A quick note on Playtech Software ea v Games Global Ltd ea [2024] EWHC 3264 (Ch) in which Thompsell J discussed ia Rome II in an application for service out (of the jurisdiction). 

As confirmed by Arnold LJ in Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co Ltd v Celgard, LLC [2020] EWCA Civ 1293 [51]  as a matter of English law, claims for breach of equitable obligations of confidence are not claims in tort: yet that does not rule out that under Rome II, they are non-contractual obligations whose lex causae is determined under that Regulation (see also Autostore).

Thompsell J in casu [100]:

Breach of confidence is a species of unfair competition within Article 6 of the Rome II Regulation and Article 6(2) applies because Playtech’s claims are concerned with alleged acts of unfair competition affecting exclusively the interests of a specific competitor. In these circumstances, Article 6(2) provides that “Article 4 shall apply“. The consequence is that Article 4, which is concerned with the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort, applies to determine the applicable law. This is despite breach of confidence not being a claim in tort for the purposes of English law.

Note that Article 4 Rome II unlike Article 6, contains an overall escape clause. [103] with reference to Celgard, the judge confirms that under Article 4(1) the connecting factor is the direct damage caused by the wrongdoing. Whether the relevant acts also had an effect, and may be regarded as having been carried out, in the United Kingdom, is not the relevant factor.

The judge [106] upholds claimant’s argument that it is facing competition to its business, which it conducts in the UK, in relation to its sales from at least one game developed by defendant, that has a feature that has relied on its confidential information, allegedly spirited away by a former employee of one of Playtech’s sister companies. The direct damage therefore is held to have been suffered in the jurisdiction and the tort gateway (see also UKSC Brownlie) for jurisdiction satisfied.

Geert.

EU private international law, 4th ed 2024, Heading 4.6.2.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1869462089934450944

Sandrine Clavel, Patrick Jacob and Fabienne Jault Seseke (all professors at the University of Versailles St Quentin) are the editors of a new French journal dedicated to international dispute resolution, Perspectives Contentieuses internationales (PCI). The journal, which will be freely available, aims at covering both public and private law aspects of international dispute resolution. It […]

This post was written by Elena Alina Onţanu, Assistant Professor at the University of Tilburg, and Carlos Santaló Goris, Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Luxembourg. The Bulgarfrukt judgment is the latest in a series of cases submitted by national judges to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in which the service […]

This post has been written by Bryan (H.B.) Verheul, PhD Candidate in Private International Law, Leiden University. He attended the Advanced Course in Hong Kong as a participant. Between 2 and 6 December 2024, the second edition of The Hague Academy of International Law’s Advanced Course on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and […]

On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Joseph William Singer (Harvard Law School) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Conflict of Abortion Laws”

 

With the abolition of the constitutional abortion right in the United States come huge differences among the laws of the states, and that leads to questions about which state law applies when a person from an anti-abortion state travels to a pro-choice state to get an abortion. Can anti-abortion states apply their regulatory and tort regimes to their own residents who leave the state to obtain an abortion? Can they empower residents to sue abortion providers in other states to protect what they view as the “unborn child”? Can pro-choice states confer immunity from suit on abortion providers and on people who get abortions from suits filed in anti-abortion states? Does the United States Constitution limit the power of anti-abortion states to apply their laws in an extraterritorial manner, and, if not, how should courts revolve conflicts of law (private international law) questions about abortion?

 

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.