Flux des sites DIP

On 18 September 2024, the UK Supreme Court finally gave the reasons for its unanimous judgment (Lord Leggatt, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Burrows and Lady Rose agreed), announced on 23 April 2024, in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30. It upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal ([2024] […]

As announced, the Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) will be holding its annual XLVII Seminar entitled “The teaching, research and promotion of private international law in Mexico” (La enseñanza, investigación y difusión del Derecho Internacional Privado en México) from 23 to 25 October 2024. The final program is now available here. The deadline for early bird registration is 23 September 2024, click here.

In addition, AMEDIP is organising a webinar on Thursday 26 September 2024 at 15:00 (Mexico City time). The topic of the webinar is international civil judicial cooperation & new technologies and will be presented by Prof. Pablo Enrique de Rosas (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88653189527?pwd=3R3n0Wy7W1KjQbs0YaBp0dRJZXaoEd.1

Meeting ID: 886 5318 9527

Password: AMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

The United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) is organising a seminar online on the children’s right to be heard (incl. in cases of international child abduction) on 25 September 2024 from 14:00 to 16:00 CEST.

Participation is free of charge. For more information and access details, click here.

The programme is as follows:

14:00  Opening remarks
Marieke Hopman (Maastricht University)

14:05  Institutionalized adolescents and their right to be heard
Julieta Marotta (UNU-MERIT) & Laura Lora (Universidad de Buenos Aires)

14:25  Children in post-conflict peacebuilding and their right to be heard 
Lucy Opoka (Leiden University)

14:45  Internationally abducted children & their right to be heard 
Mayela Celis Aguilar (Maastricht University)

15:05  Family judges and the visibility of children in court
Alicia Taliercio (former Family Judge Prov. Buenos Aires)

15:25  Directors and the right of children to be heard
Natalia V. González García Cuerva (director of Hogar También son Nuestros)

15:45  Open dialogue
Moderator: Julieta Marotta (UNU-MERIT)

UNU-MERIT is a research and training institute of the United Nations University (UNU – headquarters in Tokyo and 13 institutes) which collaborates closely with Maastricht University.

Since its foundation in 1926, the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg (or its predecessor) has continuously published the collection of PIL decisions by German courts. ‘Die deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des Internationalen Privatrechts’, or short ‘IPRspr’, offers the complete and systematic documentation of German case law on private international law, including procedural law and foreign law. The decisions are boiled down to their private international law aspects and categorized according to subject matter. Depending on the case, the headnotes are reformulated or completely rewritten.

Even though both academics and practitioners have always regarded the IPRspr as an important source of information, its practical value was somewhat diminished by the time lag between the reporting period and the publication, as well as by the limited search options. In order to realize its full potential, it was therefore decided in 2019 to convert the IPRspr into a freely accessible database. After several years of planning, programming and updating, this project has now been successfully concluded under the direction of the Centre for the Application of Foreign Law, headed by Jan Peter Schmidt.

On 1 October 2024 at 11:00, the editorial team will officially present the ‘IPRspr 2.0’, as part of the series ‘Current Research in Private International Law’ (registration at <https://events.mpipriv.de/vorstellungderiprspr>; in line with the language of publication, the event will be in German). The database can already be accessed at <iprspr.de>.

The new IPRspr not only offers free and easy access to the PIL decisions of German courts, but also a wide range of search and retrieval functions. The database currently contains around 6,500 decisions dating back to 2004. New decisions are continually being incorporated. Next to the “Hamburg Guidelines for Ascertaining and Applying Foreign Law in German Litigation”, which will soon be published in their English translation, the IPRspr thus forms another building block for the successful dealing with cross-border cases.

As a book publication, however, the IPRspr will be discontinued. The volume published in 2022 with the decisions from 2019 was therefore the last edition of IPRspr as a printed work after almost a hundred years of existence.

The editorial team encourages the PIL community to cite decisions in parallel with the IPRspr number in future and to submit or communicate new decisions. And it looks forward to any other kind of feedback (iprspr@mpipriv.de).

This post is authored by Antonio Leandro, Professor of Public and Private International Law at the University of Bari. On 19 September 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in case C-501/23 DL v Land Berlin, which deals with the functioning of the COMI in Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (‘EIR’). The Court […]

As announced on this blog, Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam and Utrecht University) and Laura Carballo Piñeiro (University of Vigo) edited Research Methods in Private International Law – A Handbook on Regulation, Research and Teaching. Following the previous online book launch, an additional one is scheduled for 23 September 2024, from 10am to 11:30am CEST. Similar […]

On 8 October 2024, Jeremy Heymann and Marylou Françoise (both Université jean Moulin Lyon 3) will be hosting a conference on ‘International Commercial Courts, State Model(s) of Specialised (Domestic) Courts ?’ in Lyon. The conference constitutes the inaugural event of a series of conferences on ‘International Disputes and Specialised Courts’ and features practical and academic perspectives from numerous jurisdictions. It will be held both in Lyon and online.

The programme can be found here; the registration form can be found here.

Yesterday (18-09-2024), Switzerland acceded to the HCCH Choice of Court Convention and filed a declaration under Article 22 with respect to non-exclusive choice of court agreements. This is particularly noteworthy because this is the first time a declaration under Article 22 of the Choice of Court Convention has been filed. The Choice of Court Convention will enter into force for Switzerland on 1 January 2025.

Unlike the European Union and other Contracting States, Switzerland did not file a declaration under Article 21 of this Convention (declarations with respect to specific matters, e.g. insurance contracts).

The Swiss declaration indicates the following:

Switzerland

18-09-2024

In accordance with Article 22, paragraph 1, Switzerland declares that its courts will recognise and enforce judgments given by courts of other Contracting States designated in a choice of court agreement concluded by two or more parties that meets the requirements of Article 3, paragraph c), and designates, for the purpose of deciding disputes which have arisen or may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, a court or courts of one or more Contracting States (a non-exclusive choice of court agreement).

While this is a significant development, Article 22 of the Choice of Court Convention only applies in a reciprocal manner and only with regard to the provisions of Chapter III (Arts. 8-15). In other words, and as indicated in the Explanatory Report written by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi: “For Article 22 to operate, the State of origin and the State in which recognition or enforcement is sought must both be Contracting States and they must both have made a declaration under Article 22” (paragraph 241). The Explanatory Report also specifies that “[b]oth declarations must be in force when recognition is sought; otherwise there is no reciprocity” (paragraph 255).

Moreover, and in addition to reciprocity, Article 22(2) of this Convention sets out a series of conditions that the non-exclusive choice of court agreements must satisfy.

The seminal book of Ronald A. Brand and Paul M. Herrup further clarifies “A choice of court agreement will be a ‘non-exclusive choice of court agreement’ for purposes of recognition and enforcement under Article 22 if it designates ‘a court or courts of one or more Contracting States’. This definition contrasts with the final element of exclusivity in Article 3(a) […]” (see, The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: Commentary and documents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 154).

Unless another Contracting State files a declaration under Article 22, the recognition and enforcement of non-exclusive choice of court agreements under this article will sadly not yet see the light of day. In any case, this is very interesting development, which may perhaps influence other existing or future Contracting States to do the same.

The HCCH news item is available here.

On 8 October 2024, Jeremy Heymann and Marylou Françoise will host a conference on International Commercial Courts, State Model(s) of Specialised (Domestic) Courts? at the University of Lyon 3. A first panel will give the perspective of judges sitting on three international commercial courts (French, German, Dutch). A second panel will give an academic perspective […]

The 2024 Asia-Pacific Colloquium of the Journal of Private International Law (JPIL) will be held on 5-6 December 2024 at the Melbourne Law School of the University of Melbourne in Australia.

The format will be similar to previous colloquia where participants are requested to submit a paper for distribution in advance to other attendees. The colloquium will then take the form of a short presentation of each paper by each participant followed by a roundtable discussion. As with previous colloquia, the aim is to assist participants in preparing their papers for submission to the JPIL.

The theme of the 2024 Colloquium is ‘Private International Law: Domestic Law or International Law?’ While private international law forms part of a country’s domestic legal system, it has also been influenced by international developments, such as foreign decisions, scholarly writings, conventions and other transnational instruments. Participants are encouraged to consider topics in private international law that address this theme: for example, some areas have remained wholly domestic in nature while others reveal clear evidence of cross- border harmonisation. Is ‘internationalisation’ of private international law always achievable or desirable?

Please note that participants will be responsible for their travel to and accommodation in Melbourne for the colloquium. Lunch will be provided across the two days of the colloquium, together with a dinner on 5 December.

More information can be found here.

According to Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (the Recast Service Regulation), the addressee may refuse service if the document is not written in, or is not accompanied by a translation into, “a language which the addressee understands”. The […]

The second edition of the HAIL Advanced Courses in Hong Kong, organised in cooperation with with the Asian Academy of International Law and (AAIL) and the Hong Kong Department of Justice, will take place on 2-6 December 2024 with a focus on one of the key features of Private International Law, namely Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, in particular the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.

For this Advanced Course, the Secretary-General of The Hague Academy of International Law (Professor Jean-Marc Thouvenin) has invited leading academics and practitioners from around the world to Hong Kong, including Teresa Cheng (AAIL), Giuditta Cordero-Moss (University of Oslo),  Pietro Franzina (Cahtolic University of Milan), Judge Shen Hongyu (Supreme People’s Court, China), Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna) and Matthias Weller (University of Bonn), who will deliver eight expert lectures on:

Lecture 1: ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions: General Presentation’ (Teresa Cheng)
Lecture 2: ‘Contemporary Approaches to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: A Comparative Overview’ (Pietro Franzina)
Lecture 3: ‘Public Policy as a Limit to Enforcement and Recognition’ (Giuditta Cordero-Moss)
Lecture 4: , ‘Unfolding the 2019 Hague Convention: Genesis, Ratifications, Scope, Key Provisions, and China’s Perspective on International Recognition and Enforcement’ (Judge Shen Hongyu)
Lecture 5: ‘Jurisdictional Filters I: General Concept; Residence and Choice of Court’ (Matthias Weller)
Lecture 6: ‘Judgments that Ruled on Preliminary Questions Outside the Scope of the Convention and Judgments that Consist of Severable Parts’ (Pietro Franzina)
Lecture 7: ‘Jurisdictional Filters II: Contract, Tort, forum rei sitae’ (Matthias Weller)
Lecture 8: ‘Arts. 22 and 25 of the HCCH Judgment Convention’ (Teresa Cheng)

In addition, Matthias Lehmann will deliver expert lectures on ‘Crypto Currency and International Law’ in the afternoon. He will also offer an Introduction to ‘International Comparative Law’ as a separate one-day event on 30 November 2024 (separate registration and fee required; see here).

The registration fee of HK$ 10,000 includes daily lunch and refreshments. Full attendance is mandatory. Interested candidates are invited to complete the online application form by 18 October 2024. All applications are subject to review. Succesful applicants will receive email confirmation by 11 November 2024. Registered participants will have pre-course access to the HAIL e-learning platform that provides reading materials prepared by the lecturers. A certificate of attendance will be awarded to participant with a perfect attendance record.

For further information provided by the organisers, please refer to the attached eFlyer and the AAIL Event Webpage. There you will also find all the necessary information regarding the separate Comparative Law Short-Course.

Oxford University Press has recently published The 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT Conventions on Stolen or Illegally Transferred Cultural Property – A Commentary, edited by Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, Andrzej Jakubowski and Alessandro Chechi. The 900-page long book is part of the Commentaries on International Cultural Heritage Law series. The UNESCO Convention of 14 November 1970 […]

The latest issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) has been published. The following abstracts have been kindly provided by the editor of the journal. Th. Klink, The Commercial Court according to the Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz (Legal Venue Strengthening Act) – a model project for cross-border court proceedings The Legal Venue Strengthening Act allows […]

By Birgit van Houtert, Assistant Professor of Private International Law at Maastricht University

From 29 July till 16 Augustus 2024, the Summer Courses on Private International Law (PIL) were held at the 93rd session of the summer courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. The PIL courses were followed by 250 onsite attendees and remotely 61 attendees from 74 different countries. The inaugural lecture was presented by Lord Lawrence Collins of Mapesbury (Former Justice at the United Kingdom Supreme Court) on the “Use and Abuse of Comity in International Litigation”. In the next three weeks, the general course was given by Charalambos Pamboukis (Professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) titled “The Metamorphoses of Private International Law”. During these three weeks, six special courses were given by Alessandra Zanobetti (Professor at the University of Bologna) on “The Effects of Economic Sanctions and Counter-Measures on Private Legal Relationships”; Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma (Director at the Attorney-General’s Chambers of Singapore) on “The Singapore Convention and the International Law of Mediation”; Carlos Esplugues Mota (Professor at the University of Valencia) on “New Dimensions in the Application of Foreign Law by Courts (and Arbitrators) and Non-judicial Authorities”; Jack Coe (Professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law) on “Non-ICSID Convention Investor-State Awards in Domestic Courts”; Eva Lein (Professor at the University of Lausanne) on “Breathing Space in International Commercial Litigation”; Andrew Dickinson (Professor at the University of Oxford) on “Natural Justice in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements”. These PIL experts provided very interesting and valuable insights, including future (desirable) directions on PIL that can guide and inspire students, researchers, legal practitioners, courts, and legislators. The courses will be published by Brill in the series Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law / Recueil des cours de l’Académie de La Haye. The fact that the courses commonly focused on PIL globally, by including national, regional and international PIL, is particularly laudable in view of our interconnected world. This blog aims to describe common threads of the 2024 Online Summer Courses on PIL that may encourage you to read the Hague Academy Collected Courses and inspire further research.[1]

The interaction between public international law and PIL

All lectures showed that there cannot be drawn a sharp distinction between public international law and PIL.[2] Several lecturers have illustrated the current interaction between these two fields of law. On the basis of case law in England and the U.S. involving private parties, Collins argued that the principle of comity has often been misused in favour of the interests of the forum state. For instance, in a case involving a request for evidence from French airplane manufacturing companies by victims of an airplane crash, instead of a first resort to the Hague Evidence Convention, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that comity requires an assessment of the interests of the foreign nation involved and the requesting nation.[3] Collins argued that in practice, U.S. and English courts do not give effect to foreign blocking statutes, like the French Blocking Statute, but have ruled in favor of disclosure of documents and information. As the main abuse of comity, Collins pointed out that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York has rejected the enforcement of arbitral awards for reasons of forum non conveniens. With respect to the grant of anti-suit injunctions, courts nonetheless ruled that comity requires caution as these injunctions involve an indirect interference with proceedings of foreign courts unless the injunction aims to prevent a breach of a choice of court agreement or arbitration agreement.[4] Another illustration on the interplay between public and private international law can be drawn from the Zanobetti’s lectures who argued that economic sanctions may set aside the lex contractus by means of the public policy exception in PIL. In the context of investor-state arbitration, Coe and Morris-Sharma have referred to the intersection between PIL and public international law. Coe in particular demonstrated the common features between business-to-business arbitration and non-ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) arbitration, both types of arbitration result in awards to which the New York Convention applies. Morris-Sharma has argued that although the investor-state dispute settlement regime mainly concerns state-to-state obligations, a foreign (private) investor may bring a claim directly against the state. While Morris-Sharma gave her lectures on the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, adopted in 2018, (the Singapore Convention on Mediation, SCM), she noted that whereas this treaty concerns a public international law instrument, it has as subject matter the regulation of private relationships and therefore concerns issues of PIL. In view of current global issues, Morris-Sharma emphasised the importance of “continuing conversations” between public and private international law to bring order into global governance. In addition to research, Maastricht University shows that education could also be a tool to foster these type of conversations as students of the European Law School are taught PIL integrated into courses of European and international law.[5]

The global governance role of PIL[6]

Several courses have demonstrated the increasing role that contemporary PIL plays regarding global goals, varying from the protection of human rights, such as to guarantee the right of a fair hearing in the context of the recognition of foreign judgements as indicated by Dickinson and Lein, to trans-human goals like the protection of the environment as pointed out by Pamboukis. Pamboukis also emphasised the importance of the ‘peacemaking’ role of contemporary PIL, in the sense of the pacification of different values, which facilitates pluralism and the acceptance of the ‘otherness’.[7] However, Pamboukis argued that the trend of anti-globalisation may lead to other metamorphoses of PIL. Esplugues Mota pointed out that there already exist a trend of “nationalisation of transnational situations” fostered by PIL. For instance, as a result of the anti-immigration trend in western countries, the connecting factor of the nationality has increasingly been changed into the ‘habitual residence’ to nationalise situations. Nonetheless, in view of the current global problems, such as climate crises, war and economic sanctions, Jean-Marc Thouvenin (Secretary-General of The Hague Academy of International Law, Professor at the University Paris Nanterre) made in his welcome speech of the 2024 Summer Course the bold statement that “private international law is faring better these days than public international law”. The lectures given by Lein showed that PIL can indeed be a valuable global governance tool in this era of “polycrises”[8] as it facilitates international trade by providing “breathing space” mechanisms to international contractual parties. For instance, parties can generally make a choice for a national contract law that enables them to renegotiate or adapt their contract in case unforeseen circumstances impede the performance of contractual obligations.

Justice as objective of PIL

The courses showed that PIL is increasingly providing justice and PIL should also aim to serve justice. Yet, as mentioned by Pamboukis, the notion of justice is broad.[9] According to Pamboukis, justice is fairness, which includes equality. In the context of PIL, he illustrated that equality is, inter alia, visible by the multilateral character of conflict-of-laws rules and rules that protect weaker parties. Based on natural justice, Dickinson also referred to the importance of the principle of equality for the law that includes both substantive and procedural aspects. To safeguard this principle, he pointed out the public policy exception regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

As the meta-metamorphosis of the traditional, Von Savigny-based, conflict-of-laws rule, Pamboukis pointed out the change of its purpose from conflictual justice, i.e. justice based on geographically closest connection, to substantive justice in the sense of a just, fair result by means of a more flexible conflict-of-laws rule and methods. Pamboukis advocated the increasing important role of the method of recognition, in particular with respect to acquired rights and personal status. He also referred to adaptation and a more flexible application of conflit mobile to achieve a just result in concreto. Furthermore, Pamboukis argued to apply in PIL the principle of proportionality as balancing the concrete interests involved should lead to a fair result. The decision of the French Supreme Court on 17 November 2021, which opened up the possibility of recognising a foreign bigamous marriage in a particular case,[10] seems to be in line with the direction of PIL as advocated by Pamboukis.

With respect to the interpretation of justice in PIL, human rights are also increasingly playing an important role. As indicated by Dickinson and Lein, fair trail rights in human right treaties, like the right to be heard, have influenced the interpretation of the public policy exception in the context of the recognition of foreign judgements. Esplugues Mota nonetheless pointed out the “human rights discourse” regarding the recognition of personal situations abroad as a factor militating against the application of foreign law.[11] The recent Anti-SLAPPs (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’) Directive (EU) 2024/1069 could also be seen as an expression of the human rights impact on PIL that influences the concept of justice in the PIL.[12]

Several lecturers highlighted the importance of justice at procedural level. Zanobetti called for further research on the issue whether the ‘no-claim’ clause related to economic sanctions is contrary to the right to have access to courts. Lein argued that PIL provides various tools that facilitate access to justice in times of crises, such as the change of a choice of court clause that can easily be done according to various PIL instruments[13]. Dickinson advocated to pursue natural justice by recognising and enforcing foreign judgements unless they are unjust or inconsistent with the core values of the requested state. Furthermore, the procedure that resulted into the foreign judgement should have complied with procedural principles of natural justice such as due process, and the competence of the court of origin should be in accordance with these principles such as jurisdiction based on the parties’ consent. Dickinson illustrated that several national legal systems and treaties reflect natural right-based principles with respect to the recognition of foreign judgements.[14] On the basis of natural law, Dickinson also advocated that states and courts should pursue multi-dimensional justice when developing rules of recognition and enforcement, which requires an assessment on different levels of relational perspectives, including the parties to the dispute, states, and other human beings. Morris-Sharma argued that access to justice is also facilitated by alternative dispute resolution mechanism. However, Esplugues Mota pointed out that the risk of “second class justice” is high in case arbitrators apply foreign law wrongly, as this application is generally even not subject to control.

The changed state-based approach in PIL

While in international civil disputes, PIL traditionally indicates in which state, or states, the court is competent and the law of which country, or countries, applies, most of the lecturers addressed the growing role of arbitrators with respect to the application of foreign law, including non-state law. Nonetheless, Dickinson’s lectures on the principle of peaceful dispute resolution derived from natural law pointed out the importance of access to an independent and impartial judge who provides binding solutions and the possibility of appeal. As mentioned earlier, Esplugues Mota emphasised the risk of “second class justice” in case of alternative dispute resolution. Several lecturers referred to the use of AI technologies in dispute resolution, including AI courts. However, as indicated by Lein, judgements based on the use of AI technologies run the risk of not being recognised on the basis of the public policy exception. This risk seems high considering the fact that AI technologies are not (yet) accurate and fully impartial as they are based on human biases, like gender bias.

Several courses showed that the application of non-state law is playing an increasing role with respect to cross-border disputes between private parties.[15] As explained by Esplugues Mota, the application of non-state law may entail difficulties as regards its meaning, content, characterisation, and level of certainty. Esplugues Mota nonetheless asserted that certain non-state rules, namely the law of the societas mercatorium,[16] religious law,[17] and indigenous law,[18] are increasingly taken into account, or even applied by non-state and state authorities. In this way, PIL facilitates legal pluralism.

Concluding remarks

As argued by Pamboukis, PIL generally became more open, flexible. The courses indicated the need for PIL to remain open to the influence of human rights, pluralism, non-state law, including the law of nature, and the ‘otherness’. Fingers crossed that this openness of PIL continuous to grow in spite of the upcoming movement of anti-globalization, nationalism, including right-wing extremism. Therefore, international cooperation in PIL remains highly important.

[1] As I followed the courses online, this blog does not concern the seminars or elective courses that were given onsite at the Hague Academy of International Law. The assignment for writing this blog was given by Maastricht University, which made it possible for me to attend these courses.

[2] The scholar Alex Mills has frequently published on the blurry distinction between public international law and private international law.

[3] See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court 482 US 522 (1987).

[4] Collins referred to the Laker Airways litigation, inter alia, Laker Airways Ltd v Sabena Belgian World Airways, 731 F. 2d 909 (DC Cir 1984).

[5] On the combination of teaching of public and private international law, see also Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dharmita Prasad, “Private International Law and Public International Law-Increasing Convergence or Divergence as Usual?”, in: Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dharmita Prasad (eds.), Blurry boundaries of public and private international law: towards convergence or divergent still?, Singapore: Springer 2022.

[6] Robert Wai and Horatia Muir-Watt are among the scholars who frequently published on the role of global governance role of PIL.

[7] With respect to the concept of pluralism and the ‘otherness’, Pamboukis referred to the scholar Santi Romano. On this interesting topic, see also Horatia Muir Watt who has published her 18th Rabel Lecture in November 2002 on Alterity in the Conflict of Laws-An Onthology of the In-Between.

[8] Lein defined the term ‘polycrises’ as “the simultaneous occurrence of several catastrophic events” such as pandemics, environmental disasters, and armed conflicts. Lein referred in this context to Catherine Kessedjian, “Chapter 12, International Law and Crisis Narratives after the Covid-19 Pandamic”, in: Mbengue, d’Aspremont, Crises Narratives in international Law 2022, pp. 132 ff.

[9] With respect to various views on the concept of justice in PIL, see also Michael S. Green, Ralf Michaels, Roxana Banu (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law, Oxford University Press 2024.

[10] See the EAPIL blog post, on 6 January 2022, “French Supreme Court Opens Door for Recognition of Foreign Bigamous Marriage” by Marion Ho-Dac.

[11] Esplugues Mota referred in this context to the Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg case of 2007 involving the right to have a family on the basis of Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights.

[12] With respect to improvements and challenges of the Anti-SLAPPs Directive (EU) 2024/1069 in the context of PIL, see my forthcoming article in Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht no. 4, 2024.

[13] In this context, Lein referred to, inter alia, Article 25(2) Brussels I Regulation (EU) 1215/2012.

[14] Dickinson referred to, inter alia, the criterion of “fundamental principles of procedural fairness” in Article 7(1)(c) of the 2019 Hague Judgements Convention.

[15] Ralf Michaels has frequently published on non-state law in the context of PIL. See, inter alia, Ralf Michaels, “The Re-State-Ment of Non-State Law: The State, Choice of Law, and the Challenge From Global Legal Pluralism”, 51 Wayne Law Review 1209-1259, 2005.

[16] In this context Esplugues Mota referred, inter alia, to Article 13. III of the Private International Law Act of Uruguay of 2020; Article 3 Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts of 2015.

[17]  Esplugues Mota referred to, inter alia, the decision of the French Cour de cassation on 6 May 1985 that awarded damages to a divorced Jewish woman as she could not remarry within the Jewish faith because her husband did not ‘give the Get’.

[18] In this context Esplugues Mota referred, inter alia, to Article 1(1) of the South African Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 on judicial notice of law of foreign state and of indigenous law.

The 19th Regional Private International Law Conference will take place on 20 September 2024 at the Faculty of Law, University of East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the support of the Deutche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ). The theme of the Conference is Application of General Legal Principles in Contemporary Private International Law.

The opening panel will feature the following topics and speakers:

• Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General, The HCCH and its Ongoing Work, with a Focus on Transnational Litigation, The Hague Conference on Private International Law
• Vesna Lazic, Corporate Sustainability and Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): Relevance for Private International Law, Utrecht University and Asser Institute, The Hague
• Meliha Povlakic and Sevleta Halilovic, The Collision Issues Regarding the Agreement as to Succession in B&H: Cross-Border and Interlocal Conflicts of Law, University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Law
• Toni Deskoski and Vangel Dokovski, Temporal Application Challenges of Private International Law: A Judicial Perspective, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Faculty of Law Iustinianus Primus

The full programme of the conference can be found here.

The working language of the Conference will be English, and it will also be streamed online via Zoom (https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84284962839?pwd=alsUT8OQf9DR0y5shNlG0u12dxnc01.1; Meeting ID: 842 8496 2839; Passcode: 059110).

Conference proceedings will be published next year. Last year’s conference proceedings can be found here.

The International Social Service (ISS) is celebrating its 100th anniversary and to mark this milestone it is organising several events in Geneva from 7 to 10 October 2024. In particular, it will be holding an International Conference entitled “Throughout time, across borders: Navigating child protection and restoring family links” on 9 October 2024 in a hybrid format.

As stated on its website: Confirmed panelists and moderators represent the following organisations: International Social Service Network, Hague Conference on Private International Law, UNICEF, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Government of Switzerland, Government of South Africa, University of Bristol, Maastricht University, NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, and other professionals from partner organisations.

The International Conference is scheduled between 9 am – 6 pm CET. The agenda and the registration form are available at the following link: https://evenium.events/iss-100-conference. There is a fee to participate (reduced fee for students).

As many of you may know, ISS has been a key player in raising awareness, developing and implementing measures for the protection of children on the move and undoubtedly influences Private International Law. Among its publications are:

• Children on the Move
• Kafalah – Preliminary analysis of national and cross-border practices
• Several publications on adoption
• Several publications on International Family Mediation

ISS has also been involved in the development and during the negotiations of HCCH Conventions, for example by submitting the groundbreaking response to a Questionnaire during the preparatory work for the Child Abduction Convention: See, Summary of findings on a Questionnaire studied by the International Social Service, Preliminary Document No 3 of February 1979 – HCCH, Actes et documents de la Quatorzième session (1980) – Child Abduction, tome III, Child Abduction pp.130-143.

Private International Law in Russia, by Anton Asoskov, Daria Levina and Milana Karayanidi, has just been published by Bloomsbury Publishing. The blurb reads: This book provides the first comprehensive introduction to Russian private international law (PIL) for the foreign lawyer. The book carefully examines the applicable conflict of law and jurisdictional rules on the basis […]

The 19th Regional Private International Law Conference will take place on 20 September 2024 at the Faculty of Law, University of East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the support of the Deutche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ). The theme of the Conference is Application of General Legal Principles in Contemporary Private International Law. The opening panel will […]

A dedicated website for the Comparative Procedural Law and Justice (CPLJ) project has been launched. Started in September 2020 by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law led by Burkhard Hess with support from the Luxembourg Research Fund FNR, in January 2024 the CPLJ project and the Institute were transferred to the University of […]