Conflictoflaws

Following an earlier post, here’s a reminder of the First Edition of the Milan Investment Arbitration Pre-Moot.

Albert Henke prepared for this reason the following announcement:

On February, 14 and 15, 2020 will take place in Milan the First Edition of the Milan Investment Arbitration Pre-Moot, an event jointly organized by the Law Firm DLA Piper, Milan, Università degli Studi of Milan and the European Court of Arbitration (Italian section). The Pre-Moot will be a chance for ten University teams from all around the world to test their advocacy skills in moot arbitration hearings, in preparation for the Frankfurt International Arbitration Moot Competition, the oldest and most prestigious student competition in the area of investment protection law, scheduled for the beginning of March 2020 in Frankfurt (https://www.investmentmoot.org/news-2-2/). The Pre-Moot will be introduced by a Conference hosted by Università degli Studi on the topic: “Outstanding issues and recent developments in international investment arbitration”. All the information in the attached flyer. 

For the fourth consecutive year, the Annual Conference of the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) will feature a section dedicated to Conflict of Laws. This year’s iteration of the conference will take place from 1 to 4 September 2020 at the University of Exeter (more information here). The conveners of the Conflict of Laws section, Andrew Dickinson and Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, have kindly provided the following Call for Papers.

SLS Conflict of Laws Section: Call for Papers and Panels for 2020 SLS Annual Conference at the University of Exeter

This is a call for papers and panels for the Conflict of Laws section of the 2020 SLS Annual Conference to be held at the University of Exeter from Tuesday 1st  September – Friday 4th September. 

This marks the fourth year of the Conflict of Laws section, and we are hoping to build on the successful meetings in past years, most recently at the 2019 Conference in Preston. We would like to thank all those who have supported the section since its inception.

The Conflict of Laws section will meet in the second half of the conference on Thursday 3rd and Friday 4th September.

We intend that the section will comprise four sessions of 90 minutes, with 3 or more papers being presented in each session, followed by discussion. At least three of the sessions will be organised by theme. We hope, if submissions allow, to be able to set aside the fourth session for papers by early career researchers (within 5-years of PhD or equivalent). We also hope to organise a Conflict of Laws social event on the Thursday evening.

We welcome proposals from scholars in the field for papers or panels on any aspect of the Conflict of Laws (private international law). We welcome proposals representing a full range of intellectual perspectives in the subject section, and from those at all stages of their careers.

If you are interested in delivering a paper, we ask you to submit a proposed title and abstract of around 300 words. If you wish to propose a panel, please submit an outline of the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate), together with their proposed titles and abstracts.

Please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Tuesday 24th March 2020.  All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed using the following link – https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/1763/submitter – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant Subject Section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same e-mail address this year if that address remains current. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many speakers with good quality papers as possible are able to present, we discourage speakers from presenting more than one paper at the conference.  With this in mind, when you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts, you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections. 

The SLS offers a Best Paper Prize which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel.  The Prize carries a £250 monetary award and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, be published in Legal Studies.  To be eligible:

• speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS;
• papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word);
• papers must be uploaded to the paperbank (via Oxford Abstracts) by 11.59pm UK time on Monday 24th August; and
• papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication.

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by Tuesday 16th June in order to secure their place within the programme. Please do let me/us know if this is likely to pose any problems for you. For further information, please see the conference website (https://www.slsconference.com/).

We note also that prospective speakers do not need to be members of the SLS or already signed up as members of a section to propose a paper.

We look forward to seeing you, as a speaker or delegate, at the Conflict of Laws session in Exeter.

With best wishes,

Professor Andrew Dickinson, St Catherine’s College, University of Oxford Dr Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, University College Dublin (Conveners)

Maria Caterina Baruffi (University of Verona) and Matteo Ortino (University of Verona) have edited the book «Trending topics in international and EU law: legal and economic perspectives». It collects the proceedings of the conference «#TILT Young Academic Colloquium», held in Verona on 23-24 May 2019 and organized by the Law Department of the University of Verona in collaboration with the Ph.D. School of Legal and Economic Studies and the European Documentation Centre.

The event fell within the activities of the research project «Trending International Law Topics – #TILT» supervised by Maria Caterina Baruffi and funded by the programme «Ricerca di base 2015» promoted by the University of Verona. It was specifically targeted to Ph.D. students and early career scholars, selected through a Call for Papers. The book publishes the results of their research with the aim of fostering the scientific debate on trending topics in international and EU law and their impact on domestic legal systems. 

The volume is divided into four parts, respectively devoted to public international law, including papers on human rights, international criminal law and investment law; private international law; EU law, addressing both general aspects and policies; and law and economics.

With specific regard to private international law (Part II of the volume), contributions deal with family, civil and commercial matters. For the former aspect, the volume collects papers on topics such as the EU Regulations on property relationships of international couples, recognition of adoptions, free movement of same-sex registered partners and cross-border surrogacy; for the latter, the volume includes contributions on topics such as choice-of-court agreements in the EU in the light of Brexit, insolvency, service of process and counter-claims in the Brussels regime.

More information about the book and the complete table of contents are available here.

Qisheng He, Professor of International Law at the Peking University Law School, and Director of the Peking University International Economical Law Institute, has published a survey on the Chinese practice in Private International Law in 2018. The full title of the article is the following: The Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2018.

The article has been published by the Chinese Journal of International Law, a journal published by Oxford University Press.  This is the 6th survey published by Prof. He on the topic.

 

Prof. He has prepared an abstract of his article, which goes as follows:

This survey contains materials reflecting the practice of Chinese private international law in 2018. First, the statistics of the foreign-related civil or commercial cases accepted and decided by Chinese courts is extracted from theReport on the Work of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in 2018. Second, some relevant SPC judicial interpretations including the SPC Provisions on Several Issues Regarding the Establishment of the International Commercial Court are introduced. The SPC Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Handling of Cases on the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards by the People’s Courts are translated, and the Provisions reflect a pro-arbitration tendency in Chinese courts. Third, regarding jurisdiction, a case involving the binding force of a choice of court clause under the transfer of contract is selected. Fourth, three typical cases, relating to the conflict of laws rules, are examined and deal with the matters such as personal injury on the high seas, visitation rights, as well as uncontested divorces. The case regarding personal injury on the high seas discusses the “extension of territory” theory, but its choice of law approach deviate from Chinese law. Fifth, two cases involving foreign judgments are cited: one analyses the probative force of a Japanese judgment as evidence used by the SPC, and the other recognises the judgment of a French commercial court. Sixth, the creation of a “one-stop” international commercial dispute resolution mechanism is discussed. This new dispute resolution mode efficiently coordinates mediation, arbitration and litigation. One mediation agreement approved by Chinese courts is selected to reflect this development. Finally, the paper also covers six representative decisions regarding the parties’ status, the presumption of the parties’ intention as to choice of law, and the validity of arbitration agreements.

This note addresses the question whether there is a common law basis for the recognition of foreign declarations of parentage. It appears that this issue has not received much attention in common law jurisdictions, but it was the subject of a relatively recent Privy Council decision (C v C [2019] UKPC 40).

The issue arises where a foreign court or judicial authority has previously determined that a person is, or is not, a child’s parent, and the question of parentage then resurfaces in the forum (for example, in the context of parentage proceedings or maintenance proceedings). If there is no basis for recognition of the foreign declaration, the forum court will have to consider the issue de novo (usually by applying the law of the forum: see, eg, Status of Children Act 1969 (NZ)). This would increase the risk of “limping” parent-child relationships (that is, relationships that are recognised in some countries but not in others) – a risk that is especially problematic in the context of children born by way of surrogacy or assisted human reproduction technology.

The following example illustrates the problem. A baby is born in a surrogacy-friendly country to a surrogate mother domiciled and resident in that country, as the result of a surrogacy arrangement entered into with intending parents who are habitually resident in New Zealand. The courts of the foreign country declare that the intending parents are the legal parents of the child. Under New Zealand law, however, the surrogacy arrangement would have no legal effect, and the surrogate mother and her partner would be treated as the child’s legal parents upon the child’s birth. Unless the foreign judgment is capable of recognition in New Zealand, the only way for the intending parents to become the child’s legal parents in New Zealand is to apply for adoption (see, eg, Re Cobain [2015] NZFC 4072, Re Clifford [2016] NZFC 1666, Re Henwood [2015] NZFC 1541, Re Reynard [2014] NZFC 7652, Re Kennedy [2014] NZFLR 367, Re W [2019] NZFC 2482, Re C [2019] NZFC 1629).

So what is the relevance of a foreign declaration on parentage in common law courts? In C v C [2019] UKPC 40, [2019] WLR(D) 622, the Privy Council decided that there was a basis in the common law for recognising such declarations, pursuant to the so-called Travers v Holley principle. This principle, which has traditionally been applied in the context of divorce and adoption, calls for recognition of foreign judgments on the basis of “jurisdictional reciprocity” (at [44]). The Privy Council applied the principle to recognise a declaration of parentage made in Latvia, in relation to a child domiciled and habitually resident in Latvia, for the purposes of maintenance proceedings in the forum court of Jersey. Lord Wilson emphasised that, although foreign judgments may, in some cases, be refused on grounds of public policy, recognition will not be refused lightly: “a court’s recognition of a foreign order under private international law does not depend on any arrogant attempt on that court’s part to mark the foreign court’s homework” (at [58]).

As a matter of policy, my first impression is that the Privy Council’s decision is to be welcomed. Common law jurisdictions have traditionally taken a conservative, relatively “closed” approach to the recognition of foreign laws and judgments on parentage (see Hague Conference on Private International Law A Study of Legal Parentage and the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements (Prelim Doc No 3C, 2014)). Such an approach has become increasingly indefensible in a world that is witnessing unprecedented levels of cross-border mobility and migration. The conflict of laws should, as a matter of priority, avoid limping parent-child relationships: for example, a child who was declared by the courts of their place of birth to be the child of the intending parents, but who is nevertheless treated as the surrogate mother’s child under New Zealand law. The ability to recognise foreign judgments on parentage may not amount to much progress, given that it can apply only where the foreign court has, in fact, made a declaration of parentage: it would have no application where the relevant parent-child relationship simply arises by operation of law or through an administrative act (such as entry of the intending parents in the birth register). There is no doubt that an international solution must be found to the problem as a whole. But it is surely better than nothing.

Another question is what to make of the Privy Council’s reliance on the Travers v Holley principle. Based on the decision in Travers v Holley [1953] P 246 (CA), the principle enables recognition of foreign judgments by virtue of reciprocity: the forum court will recognise a foreign judgment if the forum court itself would have had jurisdiction to grant the judgment had the facts been reversed (ie had the forum court been faced with the equivalent situation as the foreign court). In the context of divorce, the principle has since been subsumed within a wider principle of “real and substantial connection” (Indyka v Indyka [1969] 1 AC 33 (HL)). In the context of adoption, the principle has been applied to recognise “the status of adoption duly constituted … in another country in similar circumstances as we claim for ourselves” (Re Valentine’s Settlement [1965] Ch 831 (CA) at 842).

Perhaps it is not a big step from adoption to parentage more generally. The Privy Council recognised that the latter primarily represents “a conclusion of biological fact”, while adoption “stamps a person with a changed legal effect” (at [39]). But the Privy Council did not seem to consider that this distinction should warrant a different approach in principle. In C v C, the issue of parentage involved a relatively straightforward question of paternity. Had the case involved a question of surrogacy or human assisted reproduction, the answer might well have been different. There is an argument that a parent-child relationship created under foreign law can only be recognised in the forum if the foreign law is substantially similar to forum law. Thus, in the context of adoption, it has been asked whether the concept of adoption in the foreign country “substantially conform[s] to the English concept” (Re T & M (Adoption) [2010] EWHC 964, [2011] 1 FLR 1487 at [13]). This requirement might not be made out where, for example, the law of the forum does not recognise parentage by way of surrogacy (as is the case in New Zealand).

The Privy Council cautioned that the Board did not receive full argument on the issue and that the reader “must bear the lack of it in mind” (at [34]). It seems especially important, then, for conflict of laws scholars to give the issue further consideration. This note may serve as a careful first step – I would be interested to hear other views. Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the Board’s reasoning, in my mind, is its openness to recognition. The Board’s starting point was that the declaration could be recognised. Arguably, this was because counsel seemed to have largely conceded the point. But to the extent that it cuts through an assumption that questions of parentage are generally left to the law of the forum, it nevertheless strikes me as significant – even more so since the UK Supreme Court’s previous refusal to extend the Travers v Holley principle beyond the sphere of family law (Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, [2012] 3 WLR 1019 at [110], [127]).

Can a foreign marriage be recognised in the UK if the State where it was celebrated is not recognised as a State? This was the question which the High Court of Justice (Family Division) had to answer in MM v NA: [2020] EWHC 93 (Fam).

The Court distilled two questions: was the marriage validly celebrated and if so, can it be recognised in the UK? If the answers to both questions were affirmative, the court could give a declaratory order; if one of them were negative, the parties could celebrate a new marriage in the UK.

In assessing the first question, the court considered issues of formal and essential validity. It took account of the various systems of law in Somaliland: formal law (including the Somali civil code, which is still in force in Somaliland on the basis of its continuation under the Somaliland constitution), customary law and Islamic law. In matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance, the latter applies. On the basis of the facts, the Court came to the conclusion that the parties were validly married according to the law of Somaliland.

Although this would normaly be the end of the matter, the Court had to consider what to do with a valid marriage emanating from a State not recognised by the UK (the second question). The Court referred to the one-voice principle, implying that the judiciary cannot recognise acts by a State while the executive branch of the UK refuses to recognise the State. It then considered exceptions and referred to cases concerning the post-civil war US, post-World War II Eastern Germany, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Ciskei (one of the ‘States’ created by Apartheid-era South Africa), and Southern Rhodesia.

It also referred to the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 on the continued presence of South Africa in Namiba, particularly its §125, which states:

“while official acts performed by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal and invalid, this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory.”

The Court found that an exception to the one-voice doctrine is acceptable in matters of private rights. The Court also explained that it had conferred with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the UK Government, who would not object to the recognition of a Somaliland marriage even though that State is not recognised.

It thus gave the declaration of recognition of the marriage.

(Thanks to Prakash Shah for the tip.)

After Chukwuma Okoli’s, recent post, on this blog, on African Private International Law, Lise Theunissen, who is currently a legal intern at the Hague Conference, now has a blogpost at afronomicslaw on the harmonization of Private International Law in the African Union. Add to that Justin Monsepwo’s recent articles on legal unification at OHADA  and on the impact of the Hague Principles of Choice of Law on OHADA, and you start gaining the impression that interest in African private international law is growing – a good thing, undoubtedly.

The annual governance meeting of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) will take place from 3 to 6 March 2020. The list of documents that have been submitted to the HCCH governance body (i.e. the Council on General Affairs and Policy) is available here.

Recent documents that have not yet been mentioned in this blog that are worthy of note are the following:

• Recommended Form under the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Prel. Doc. 4 of December 2019 –for approval) –  drafted by the Permanent Bureau (PB) of the HCCH which “was in constant consultation with the Chair of the Drafting Committee, the Chair of the Commission on Judgments, and Members interested in this particular issue.” The PB took forms contained in international and regional instruments into account, including Brussels Ia Regulation.
• Development of the Legal Guide to Uniform Legal Instruments in the area of international commercial contracts (with a focus on sales) (Prel. Doc. 16 of January 2020 – for info only)
• Overview of the findings of the Experts’ Group on cross-border recognition and enforcement of agreements in family matters involving children in relation to the development of a normative instrument (Info. Doc. 2 of January 2020 – for info only)
• The HCCH and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Info. Doc. 3 of January 2020 – for info only)

A few meetings of the Special Commission (i.e. global meetings of experts) to review the practical operation of HCCH Conventions are in the pipeline and have been submitted for approval to Council concerning the following Conventions: the HCCH Apostille Convention, the HCCH Adults Convention, the HCCH Child Support Convention and the HCCH Maintenance Obligations Protocol. For the last three, if approved, it will be the first global meeting ever on their practical operation. See Prel. Docs 9, 10 and 12.

Participation in these meetings is restricted, as they are open only to delegates or experts designated by the Members of the HCCH, invited non-Member States and International Organisations that have been granted observer status.

Written by Jonathan Fitchen

The UK’s intention to attempt to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention is apparently proceeding apace. Though the events leading up to Friday 31st January, when the UK left the EU,  rather overshadowed this fact, the UK Government had already announced that its intention to accede by a posting on 28th January 2020 that may be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/support-for-the-uks-intent-to-accede-to-the-lugano-convention-2007   As will be remembered, the 2007 Lugano Convention is open to non-EU third States if the consent of all the existing Convention parties can be first secured. The UK Gov posting records that the UK has secured statements in support of it joining the 2007 Convention from the Swiss, the Norwegians and Iceland. So now all that is required is to secure the consent of the EU to this course of action. Assuming that such consent can be secured, the UK Gov posting records that it is the intention of the UK Government to accede to the 2007 Convention at the end of the transition period (currently scheduled / assumed for 23.00 GMT on 31st December 2020).

In an unprecedented manner, the UK has dealt with its problems around Brexit and its relations with the Contracting States to two HCCH Conventions on the international plane. The Depositary (i.e. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) has just announced that the UK has withdrawn its instruments of ratification of the HCCH Child Support Convention and instrument of accession to the HCCH Choice of Court Convention, together with its declarations and extension to Gibraltar, which actually never came into effect and were apparently only a backup option to a no-deal Brexit; see our previous posts (“some Brexit news” part 1, part 2 and part 3 and the more recent post “Brexit: No need to stop all the clocks” here).

As stated in the notification, the reason for the withdrawal of the instruments is the following: “Since the deposit of the Instrument of [Ratification and Accession], the United Kingdom and the European Union have signed, ratified and approved a Withdrawal Agreement, which will enter into force on 1 February 2020 (the “Withdrawal Agreement”). The Withdrawal Agreement includes provisions for a transition period to start on the date the Withdrawal Agreement enters into force and end on 31 December 2020 (the “transition period”). In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, during the transition period, European Union law, including the Agreement, will continue to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom” (our emphasis).

In its Note, the UK adds that it intends to deposit new instruments of ratification of and accession to the above-mentioned Conventions prior to the termination of the transition period. It remains to be seen whether the UK will submit the same declarations and whether it will extend those Conventions to Gibraltar.

The Depositary’s notifications are available here for the Child Support Convention and here for the Choice of Court Convention.

The last issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé has been released. It is a special edition on the Cloud Act and the General Regulation on Data Protection.

The abstracts of the articles, authored by Marie-Elodie Ancel, Patrick Jacob, Régis Bismuth and Théodore Christakis, are available here.

A full table of contents is available here.

As of today, Brexit has become reality – one more reason to think about the EU’s Judicial Cooperation with third states:

The largest proportion of EU economic growth in the 21st century is expected to arise in trade with third countries. This is why the EU is building up trade relations with many states and other regional integration communities in all parts of the world. The latest example is the EU-MERCOSUR Association Agreement concluded on 28 June 2019. With the United Kingdom’s exit of the Union on 31 January 2020, extra-EU trade with neighboring countries will further increase in importance. Another challenge for the EU is China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”, a powerful global development strategy that includes overland as well as sea routes in more than 100 states around the globe.

The increasing volume of trade with third states will inevitably lead to a rise in the number and importance of commercial disputes. This makes mechanisms for their orderly and efficient resolution indispensable. China is already setting up infrastructures for commercial dispute resolution alongside its belts and roads. In contrast, there seems to be no elaborate EU strategy on judicial cooperation in civil matters with countries outside of the Union, despite the DG Trade’s realisation that “trade is no longer just about trade”. Especially, there is no coherent plan for establishing mechanisms for the coordination of cross-border dispute resolution and the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. This is a glaring gap in the EU’s policy making in external trade relations (see also, in an earlier post by Matthias Weller  on CoL on this matter: Mutual trust and judicial cooperation in the EU’s external relations – the blind spot in the EU’s Foreign Trade and Private International Law policy?).

This is why the Bonn group of PIL colleagues – Moritz Brinkmann, Nina Dethloff, Matthias Lehmann, Philipp Reuss, and Matthias Weller – are hosting a conference on Friday and Saturday, 25 and 26 September 2020, at the University of Bonn that seeks to explore ways in which judicial cooperation in civil matters between the EU and third countries can be improved by the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019 as an important driver, if not game changer, of legal certainty in cross-border commercial relations.

The list of speakers includes internationally leading scholars, practitioners and experts from the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the European Commission (DG Trade, DG Justice), and the German Ministry of Justice and for Consumers (Bundesjustizministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz).

For the HCCH as co-host, the event will be the European stop on their roadshow around the world to discuss their new Convention. The Conference will be further co-hosted by the Zentrum für europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht at the University of Bonn and The International Litigation Exchange (ILEX).

The Organizers will kindly ask participants to contribute with € 75.- to the costs of the event.  

Date:

Friday, 25 September 2020, and Saturday, 26 September 2020.

Venue:

Bonner Universitätsforum, Heussallee 18 – 22

Draft Programme

Friday, 25 September 2020

1.30 p.m.      Registration

2 p.m.           Welcome note

Prof Dr Wulf-Henning Roth, University of Bonn, Director of the Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht (ZEW)

2.10 p.m.      Part 1: Chances and Challenges of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019

Chairs of Part 1: Matthias Weller / Matthias Lehmann

Keynote: Hague Conference’s Perspective and Experiences

Hans van Loon, Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Hague

1. Scope of application

Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

2. Judgments, Recognition, Enforcement

Prof Dr Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich

Discussion

3.30 p.m.      Coffee Break

4.00 p.m.      Part 2: Chances and Challenges of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 continued

Chairs of Part 2: Nina Dethloff / Moritz Brinkman

3. Jurisdictional filters

Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan

4. Grounds for refusal

Prof Dr Paco Garcimartín, University of Madrid

Discussion

5.30 p.m.      Part 3: Panel Discussion – Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters between the EU and Third Countries, 60 min:

Chairs of Part 3: Matthias Weller / Matthias Lehmann

Colin Brown, Unit Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of Trade Policy, DG Trade (tbc); Andreas Stein, Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”; Dr. Jan Teubel, German Ministry of Justice and for Consumers; RA Dr. Heiko Heppner, Attorney at Law (New York), Barrister and Solicitor Advocate (England and Wales), Chair of ILEX, Head of Dispute Resolution, Partner Dentons, Frankfurt, and perhaps more…

Discussion

7 p.m.           Conference Dinner

Saturday

9.30 a.m.      Part 4: The context of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019

Chairs: Moritz Brinkmann/Philipp Reuss

5. Relation to the HCCH 2005 Convention Choice of Court Agreements

Prof Paul Beaumont, University of Stirlin

6. Relations to the Brussels Regime / Lugano Convention

Prof Marie-Elodie Ancel, Université Paris-Est Crétei

7. Brexit…

Dr Pippa Rogerson, Reader in Private International Law, Faculty of Law, Cambridge

Discussion

11:00 a.m.    Coffee Break

11:30 a.m.    Part 4: The context of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 continued

Chairs: Nina Dethloff / Matthias Lehman

8. South European Neighbouring and Candidate Countries

Prof Dr Ilija Rumenov, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia

9. MERCOSUR – EU

Dr Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of Internationalisation, Senior Lecturer in International Private Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh

10. Relations to International Commercial Arbitration

Jose Angelo Estrella-Faria, Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT, Senior Legal Officer UNCITRAL Secretariat, International Trade Law Division Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations (tbc)

Discussion

1 p.m.           Closing Remarks

                     Matthias Weller

Written by Jonathan Fitchen.

‘The time has come’; a common enough phrase which may, depending on the reader’s mood and temperament, be attributed variously to Lewis Carroll’s discursive Walrus, to Richard Wagner’s villainous Klingsor, or to the conclusion of Victor Hugo’s epigrammatic comment      to the effect that nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. In the present context however ‘the time has come’ refers more prosaically to another step in the process described as ‘Brexit’ by which the UK continues to disentangle itself from the EU.

On the 31st of January 2020 at 24.00 CET (23.00 UK time) the UK ceases to be an EU Member State. This event is one that some plan to celebrate and other to mourn. For those interested in private international law and the conflict of laws in the EU or in the legal systems of the UK, celebration is unlikely to seem apt. Whether for the mundane reason that the transition period of the Withdrawal Agreement preserves the practical application and operation of most EU law concerning our subject in the UK and within the EU27 until the projected end point of 31st December 2020, or for deeper reasons connected with the losses to the subject that the EU and the UK must each experience due to the departure of the UK from the EU. If celebration is not appropriate must we therefore opt to mourn? This post suggests that mourning is not the only option (nor if overindulged is it a useful option) and sets out some thoughts on the wider implications for the private international laws of the UK’s legal systems and the legal systems that will comprise the EU27 consequent on the UK’s departure.

This exercise is necessarily speculative and very much a matter of what one wishes to include in or omit from the equation under construction. If too little is included, the result may be of only abstract relevance; if too much is included, the equation may be incapable of solution and hence useless for the intended purpose of calculation. Such difficulties, albeit expressed in a non-mathematical form, are familiar to private international lawyers who while engaging with their subject routinely consider the macroscopic, the microscopic and many points in between. In what remains of this post I will offer some thoughts that hopefully will provoke further thoughts while avoiding useless abstraction and (at least for present purposes) ‘useless’ incalculability.

The loudest calls for the UK to leave the EU did not arise from UK private international law, nor from its practitioners; few UK private international lawyers appear to have wished for Brexit as a means of reforming private international law. Whatever appeals to nostalgia may have swayed opinions in other sectors of the UK and may have induced those within them to vote to leave, they were not expressed with reference to matters of private international law. Few who remember or know the law as it stood in any of the UK’s legal systems prior to the implementation of the UK’s accession to the Brussels Convention of 1968 would willingly journey back to the law as it then stood and regard it as an upgrade. Mercifully, aspects of this view are, at present, apparently shared by the UK Government and account for its wish, after ‘copying and pasting’ most EU law and private international law into the novel domestic category of ‘retained EU Law’, to then amend and allow that which does not depend on reciprocity to be re-presented as a domestic private international law to be applied within and by the UK’s legal systems: thus the Rome I and Rome II Regulations will be eventually so ‘imitated’ within the legal systems of the UK. Unfortunately, many other EU provisions do require reciprocity, and thus cannot be ‘saved’ in this manner; for these provisions the news in the UK is less good.  

There are however other available means of salvage. Because the UK will no longer be an EU Member State at 24.00 Brussels Time it may, but for the Withdrawal Agreement, thereafter participate more fully in proceedings and projects at the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The UK plans to domestically clarify the domestic understanding of certain existing Hague conventions, e.g. 1996 Parental Responsibility Convention, via the recently announced Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill 2019. Earlier in 2018 the UK deposited instruments of accession concerning conventions it plans to ratify at the end of the Withdrawal Agreement’s transition period to attempt to retain prospectively the salvageable aspects of certain reciprocity requiring EU private international law Regulations lost via Brexit: thus, the UK plans to ratify the 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the 2007 Maintenance Convention. After these ratifications it may be that the UK will also consider the ratification of the 2019 judgment enforcement convention, particularly it the EU takes this option too. In the medium and long term however, the UK, assuming it wishes to participate in an active sense, will have to accept the practical limitations of the HCCH as it (the UK) becomes accustomed to the differences, difficulties and frustrations of private international law reform via optional instruments that all the intended parties are entitled to refuse to opt-in to or ratify.

Over the medium term and longer term, it should additionally be noted that though the UK has left the EU it has not cast-off and sailed away from continental Europe at a speed in excess of normal tectonic progress: there may therefore eventually be further developments between the two. It may be that the UK can be induced at some point in the future, when Brexit has become more mundane and less politically volatile within the UK, to cooperate in relation to private international law in a deeper sense with the EU27; whether by negotiating to join the 2007 Lugano Convention or a new convention pertaining to aspects of private international law. If this last idea seems too controversial then maybe it would be possible for the UK to eventually negotiate with an existing EU Member State as a third country via Regulation 664/2009 or Regulation 662/2009 or perhaps via another yet to be produced Regulation with a somewhat analogous effect? Brexit, considered in terms of private international law, may well re-focus a number of existing questions for the EU27 pertaining to the interaction of its private international law with third States, whether former Member States or not.   

What is however unavoidably lost by Brexit is the UK’s direct influence on the development and particularly the periodic recasting of the EU’s private international law: this loss cuts both ways. For the EU27 the UK will no longer be at the negotiating table to offer suggestions, criticisms and improvements to the texts of new and recast Regulations. For the EU27 this loss is somewhat greater than it might appear from the list of Regulations that the UK did not opt-in to as the terms of the UK’s involvement in these matters permitted it to so participate without having opted-in to the draft Regulation.   

The suggested loss of influence will however probably be felt most acutely by the private international lawyers in the UK. Despite the momentary impetus and excitement of salvaging that which may be salvaged and ratifying that which may be ratified to mitigate the effect of Brexit on private international law, the reality is that we in the UK will have lost two of the motive forces that have seen our subject develop and flourish over decades: viz. the European Commission and the domestic political reaction thereunto. Post-Brexit, once the salvaging (etc.) is done, it seems unlikely that the UK Government will continue to regard a private international law now no longer affected by Commission initiatives or re-casting procedures as retaining its former importance or meriting any greater legislative relevance than other areas of potential law reform. The position may be otherwise in Scotland as private international law is a devolved competence that devolution entrusted to the Scottish Government. It may be that once the dust has settled and the returning UK competence related reforms have been applied that the comparatively EU-friendly Scottish Government may seek to domestically align aspects of Scots private international law with EU law equivalents. For he who would mourn for the effect of Brexit on the subject of private international law, it is the abovementioned loss of influence of the subject at both the EU level and particularly at the domestic level that most merits a brief period of mourning. After this, the natural but presently unanswerable question of, ‘What now?’ occurs. Though speculation is offered above, all in the short term will depend on the progress in negotiations over an unfortunately already shortened but technically still extendable transition period during which the EU and UK are to attempt to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement: thereafter for the medium term and long term all depends on the future political relationship of the EU and the UK.

The first 2020 issue RabelsZ has just been released. It features the following articles:

Magnus, Robert, Unternehmenspersönlichkeitsrechte im digitalen Raum und Internationales Privatrecht (Corporate Personality Rights on the Internet and the Applicable Law), pp. 1 et seq

Companies can defend themselves against defamatory and business-damaging statements made on the internet. German case law in this area is based primarily on the concept of a corporate right relating to personality, which has some similarities but also important differences to the personality rights of natural persons. A corresponding legal right is also recognised in European law. However, determining the applicable law for these claims proves to be difficult. First of all, it is an open though not yet much-discussed question whether the exception in Art. 1(2) lit. g Rome II Regulation for “violation[s] of privacy or personal rights” is limited to the rights of natural persons or whether it applies also to the corresponding claims of legal entities. Moreover, the determination “of the country in which the damage occurs” in accordance with Art. 4(1) Rome II Regulation is hotly debated with respect to violations of rights relating to personality, especially when the violations were committed via the internet. The thus far prevailing mosaic principle produces excessively complex results and therefore makes it unreasonably difficult to enforce the protected legal position. This article discusses alternative concepts for the determination of the applicable law for these actions and analyses the scope and background of the exception in Art. 1(2) lit. g Rome II Regulation.

Thon, Marian, Transnationaler Datenschutz: Das Internationale Datenprivatrecht der DS-GVO (Transnational Data Protection: The GDPR and Conflict of Laws), pp. 24 et seq

This article analyses the territorial scope of the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and addresses the question whether Article 3 GDPR can be considered as a conflict-of-law rule. It analyses the possibility of agreements on the applicable law and argues that Article 3 GDPR qualifies as an overriding mandatory provision. It finds that the issue of the applicable national law is no longer addressed by the GDPR and that a crucial distinction should therefore be made between internal and external conflicts of law. It argues that the country-of-origin principle is the key to determining which national data protection law applies. Furthermore, the article analyses Article 3 GDPR in more detail from the perspective of private international law. It finds that the targeting criterion is helpful in mitigating the problem of information asymmetries in view of the applicable data protection law. However, it criticizes the establishment criterion because it puts European companies at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, the article proposes to incorporate a “universal” conflict-of-law rule into the Rome II Regulation which should be accompanied by a general conflict-of-law rule specifically addressing violations of privacy and rights relating to personality.

Voß, Wiebke, Gerichtsverbundene Online-Streitbeilegung: ein Zukunftsmodell? Die online multi-door courthouses des englischen und kanadischen Rechts (Court-connected ODR: A Model for the Future? – Online Multi-door Courthouses Under English and Canadian Law), pp. 62 et seq

Will conflict management systems based on the model of companies such as eBay and PayPal soon become a part of civil proceedings before German state courts? Recently, some thought has been given to the development of a new “expedited online procedure” designed to provide an affordable and fast alternative to traditional civil litigation for small consumer claims, thus broadening access to justice. After a brief outline of the current barriers to the justice system and the shortcomings of the private ODR platforms consumers often turn to instead, this article explores the concept of online procedures which other legal systems have developed in response to similar challenges. The analysis of typical, trendsetting examples of e-courts – the Civil Resolution Tribunal under Canadian Law as well as the Online Court that is currently being established in England – reveals a new model of court-connected ODR that is based on the integration of private ODR structures into the justice system. By harnessing digital technologies and integrating methods of dispute prevention and consensual dispute resolution into the state-based proceedings, such online courts offer enormous potential for lay-friendly, accessible civil justice while at the same time using scarce judicial resources sparingly. On the other hand, online technology alone is not a panacea. Establishing online procedures in Germany poses challenges which go beyond the technical dimension. These procedures may conflict with constitutional requirements and procedural maxims such as the principle of open justice, the right to be heard before the legally designated court and the principle of immediacy. However, a well thought-out design and minor modifications of the English and Canadian models would avoid these conflicts without losing the benefits of the innovative procedure.

Monsenepwo, Justin, Vereinheitlichung des Wirtschaftsrechts in Afrika durch die OHADA (The Unification of Business Law in Africa Through OHADA), pp. 97 et seq

In the 1980s, legal and judicial uncertainty prevailed in most western and central African countries, thereby impeding local and foreign investments. To improve the investment climate and further legal and economic integration in Africa, fourteen western and central African States created the Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, OHADA) on 17 October 1993. As per the preamble of the Treaty on the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, OHADA aims to harmonize business laws in Africa through the elaboration and the adoption of simple, modern, and common business law regulations adapted to the economies of its Member States. Nearly two decades after its creation, OHADA has developed ten Uniform Acts and three main Regulations, which cover several legal areas, such as company law, commercial law, security interests, mediation, arbitration, enforcement procedures, bankruptcy, transportation law, and accounting. This article analyses the historical background, the institutions, and the main provisions of some of these Uniform Acts and Regulations. It also recommends a few legal areas which OHADA should make uniform to increase legal certainty and predictability in civil and commercial transactions in Africa.

A postdoctoral fellowship at the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University is available for the academic year of 2020-2021. The position is part of the “Old Identities, New Times: Does the Common Legal Identity Withstand Modernity?”, a research project headed by Dr Sharon Shakargy and funded by the Israeli Science Foundation (grant 835/18).

The research project deals with items of personal status, such as age, sex, religion, marital status, parenthood, legal capacity, and the changes in the regulation and perception thereof. The project investigates these items of personal status comparatively, focusing on Western legal systems but not limited to them. More details on the project are available here.

Scholars interested in perusing independent work related to the questions mentioned above are invited to apply. 

Qualifications: 

• Candidates’ doctoral dissertation has focused on, or closely connected to, family law, comparative private law, private international law (conflict of laws).
• Candidates will have submitted their doctoral dissertation by the starting date of the postdoctoral position. 
• Good knowledge of German, French or English private law/ family law is an advantage.
• Candidates must have an excellent command of the English language. Other relevant languages are an advantage. No Hebrew proficiency is required. 

Position Details: 

• The position is available starting from October 18, 2020, for a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 12 months.
• Regular participation in workshops and other academic activities is expected throughout the academic terms.
• The compensation is a stipend of 10,000 ILS/ Month (~$US 2890; €2620). Health insurance, travel, accommodation and any other expenses are not covered.

Interested applicants should submit a 2-page long research proposal, their CV and publication list, and 1-2 letter(s) of recommendation to Sharon.Shakargy@mail.huji.ac.il by March 15, 2020. Please indicate “postdoc position” in the subject line. 

The University of Milan announces the first edition of the Master Programme on International Trade Compliance Control (IntTradec) to be held in Milan at the Department of International, Legal and Historical-Political Studies,

The Programme aims to train professional figures called to work within the Export Control Program, with a specific focus on International Trade Law, Private International Law, Customs Law and Tax Law.  It includes teaching activities and workshops for a total of 500 hours, and a training period of 300 hours.

More information is available here (in Italian).

Director: Prof. Angela Lupone, University of Milan

Scientific Committee:  Prof. Giovanna Adinolfi (UNIMI), dr. Cristian Battistello (consulente aziendale), prof. Andrea Carati (UNIMI), dr. Maurizio Castello, dr. Antonio Ciavatta (Baker Hughes), dr. Simone Dossi (UNIMI), prof. Manlio Frigo (UNIMI), prof. Alessandra Lang (UNIMI), prof. Laurent Manderieux (Università Bocconi), dr. Luca Moriconi (adjunct prof.), avv. Marco Padovan (Padovan Law Firm), dr. Marco Piredda (ENI S.p.a.), prof. Marco Pedrazzi (UNIMI), prof. Francesca Villata (UNIMI).

Stages and internships: Baker Hughes, Nuovo Pignone International S.r.l., Banca Popolare di Sondrio, Caleffi Hydronic Solutions, Comecer S.p.a., Elantas Europe S.r.l; Fratelli Cosulich S.p.a.; Modo Customs Services S.r.l.; Omal S.p.a., Sabaf S.p.a., StMicroelectronics S.r.l, Studio Legale Padovan (Milano). 

Contacts: direzione.intgiurpol@unimi.it

Deadline: 3 February 2020 (2 p.m.) with possibility of extention. 

by José Antonio Briceño Laborí, Professor of Private International Law, Universidad Central de Venezuela y Universidad Católica Andrés Bello

In 2019 the Venezuelan Private International Law (hereinafter “PIL”) academic community made clear that, despite all the difficulties, it remains active and has the energy to expand its activities and undertake new challenges.

As an example of this we have, firstly, the different events in which our professors have participated and the diversity of topics developed by them, among which the following stand out:

• XI Latin American Arbitration Conference, Asunción, Paraguay, May 2019 (Luis Ernesto Rodríguez – How is tecnology impacting on arbitration?)
• Conferences for the 130th Anniversary of the Treaties of Montevideo of 1889, Montevideo, Uruguay, June 2019 (Eugenio Hernández-Bretón and Claudia Madrid Martínez – The recent experience of some South American countries not part of Montevideo Treaties in comparative perspective to them. The case of Venezuela).
• OAS XLVI Course on International Law. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 2019 (Javier Ochoa Muñoz – Effectiveness of foreign judgements and transnational access to justice. Reflections from global governance).
• The Role of Academia in Latin American Private Intertnational Law, Hamburg, Germany, September 2019 (Javier Ochoa Muñoz – The Legacy of Tatiana Maekelt in Venezuela and in the Region).
• XIII ASADIP Annual Conference 2019: Transnational Effectiveness of Law: Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, arbitral awards and other acts (Claudia Madrid Martínez – Transnational Efficacy of Foreign Judgments – Flexibilization of Requirements; Eugenio Hernández-Bretón – Transnational Effectiveness of Provisional Measures; and Luis Ernesto Rodríguez – New Singapore Convention and the execution of international agreements resulting from cross-border mediation).

However, this year’s three most important milestones for our academic community occurred on Venezuelan soil. Below we review each one in detail:

1. Celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Venezuelan PIL Act

The Venezuelan PIL Act, the first autonomous legislative instrument on this subject in the continent, entered into force on February 6, 1999 after a six months vacatio legis (since it was enacted in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela on August 6, 1998).

This instrument has a long history, as its origins date back to the Draft Law on PIL Norms written by professors Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren, Joaquín Sánchez-Covisa and Roberto Goldschmidt in 1963 and revised in 1965. The Draft Law was rescued in 1995 on the occasion of the First National Meeting of PIL Professors. Its content was updated and finally a new version of the Draft Law was sent by the professors to the Ministry of Justice, which in turn sent it to the Congress, leading to its enactment (for an extensive overview of the history of the Venezuelan PIL Act and its content, see: Hernández-Bretón, Eugenio, Neues venezolanisches Gesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht, IPRax 1999, 194 (Heft 03); Parra-Aranguren, Gonzalo, The Venezuelan Act on Private International Law of 1998, Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 1 1999, pp. 103-117; and B. de Maekelt, Tatiana, Das neue venezolanische Gesetz über Internationales Privatrecht, RabelsZ, Bd. 64, H. 2 (Mai 2000), pp. 299-344).

To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Act, the Private International and Comparative Law Professorship of the Central University of Venezuela and the “Tatiana Maekelt” Institute of Law with the participation of 7 professors and 9 students of the Central University of Venezuela Private International and Comparative Law Master Program.

All the expositions revolved around the Venezuelan PIL Act, covering the topics of the system of sources, vested rights, ordre public, in rem rights, consumption contracts, punitive damages, jurisdiction matters, international labour relations, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements, transnational provisional measures and the relations between the Venezuelan PIL Act and international arbitration matters. The conference was both opened and closed by the professor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón with two contributions: “The Private International Law Act and the Venezuelan university” and “The ‘secret history’ of the Private International Law Act”.

• Private International and Comparative Law Master Program’s Yearbook

On the occasion of the XVIII National Meeting of Private International Law Professors, the Private International and Comparative Law Master’s Degree Program of the Central University of Venezuela launched its website and the first issue of its yearbook. This specialized publication was long overdue, particularly in the Master’s Program context which is focused on educating and training researchers and professors in the areas of Private International Law and Comparative Law with a strong theoretical foundation but with a practical sense of their fields. The Yearbook will allow professors, graduates, current students and visiting professors to share their views on the classic and current topics of Private International Law and Comparative Law.

This first issue included the first thesis submitted for a Master’s Degree on the institution of renvoi, four papers spanning International Procedural Law, electronic means of payment, cross-border know-how contracts and International Family Law, sixteen of the papers presented during the Commemoration of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Venezuelan Private International Law Act’s entry into force, and two collaborations by Guillermo Palao Moreno and Carlos Esplugues Mota, professors of Private International Law at the University of Valencia (Spain), that shows the relation of the Program with visiting professors that have truly nurtured the students’ vision of their area of knowledge.

The Call of Papers for the 2020 Edition of the Yearbook is now open. The deadline for the reception of contributions will be April 1st, 2020 and the expected date of publication is May 15th, 2020. All the information is available here. The author guidelines are available here. Scholars from all over the world are invited to contribute to the yearbook.

• Libro Homenaje al Profesor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón

On December 3rd, 2019 was launched a book to pay homage to Professor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón. Its magnitude (4 volumes, 110 articles and 3298) is a mirror of the person honored as we are talking about a highly productive and prolific lawyer, professor and researcher and, at the same time, one of the humblest human beings that can be known. He is truly one of the main reasons why the Venezuelan Private International Law professorship is held up to such a high standard.

The legacy of Professor Hernández-Bretón is recognized all over the work. Professor of Private International Law at the Central University of Venezuela, Catholic University Andrés Bello and Monteávila University (he is also the Dean of the Legal and Political Sciences of the latter), Member of the Venezuelan Political and Social Sciences Academy and its President through the celebration of the Academy’a centenary, the fifth Venezuelan to teach a course at The Hague Academy of International Law and a partner in a major law firm in Venezuela (where he has worked since his law school days) are just some of the highlights of his career.

The contributions collected for this book span the areas of Private International Law, Public International Law, Comparative Law, Arbitration, Foreign Investment, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Tax Law, Civil Law, Commercial Law, Labor Law, Procedural Law, Penal Law, General Theory of Law, Law & Economics and Law & Politics. The book closes with six studies on the honored.

The contributions of Private International Law take the entire first volume. It includes the following articles:

• Adriana Dreyzin de Klor – El Derecho internacional privado argentino aplicado a partir del nuevo Código Civil y Comercial (The Argentine Private International Law applied from the new Civil and Commercial Code).
• Alfredo Enrique Hernández Osorio – Objeto, contenido y características del Derecho internacional privado (Purpose, content and characteristics of Private International Law).
• Andrés Carrasquero Stolk – Trabajadores con elevado poder de negociación y Derecho applicable a sus contratos: no se justifica restricción a la autonomía de las partes (Workers with high bargaining power and applicable law to their contracts: no restriction to party autonomy is justified).
• Carlos E. Weffe H. – La norma de conflicto. Notas sobre el método en el Derecho internacional privado y en el Derecho internacional tributario (The conflict norm. Notes on the method in Private International Law and in International Tax Law).
• Cecilia Fresnedo de Aguirre – Acceso al derecho extranjero en materia civil y comercial: cooperación judicial y no judicial (Access to foreign law in civil and commercial matters: judicial and non-judicial cooperation).
• Claudia Madrid Martínez – El rol de las normas imperativas en la contratación internacional contemporánea (The role of peremptory norms in contemporary international contracting).
• Didier Opertti Badán – Reflexiones sobre gobernabilidad y Derecho internacional privado (Reflections on governance and Private International Law).
• Fred Aarons P. – Regulación del internet y el derecho a la protección de datos personales en el ámbito internacional (Internet regulation and the right to personal data protection at international level).
• Gerardo Javier Ulloa Bellorin – Interpretación del contrato: estudio comparativo entre los principios para los contratos comerciales internacionales del UNIDROIT y el derecho venezolano (Contract interpretation: comparative study between the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts and Venezuelan law).
• Gilberto Boutin I. – El recurso de casación en las diversas fuentes del Derecho internacional privado panameño (Cassational complaint in the various sources of Panamanian Private International Law).
• Guillermo Palao Moreno – La competencia judicial internacional en la nueva regulación europea en materia de régimen económico matrimonial y de efectos patrimoniales de las uniones registradas (International jurisdiction in the new European regulation on the economic matrimonial regime and the property effects of registered partnerships).
• Héctor Armando Jaime Martínez – Derecho internacional del trabajo (International Labor Law).
• Javier L. Ochoa Muñoz – El diálogo de las fuentes ¿un aporte del Derecho internacional privado a la teoría general del Derecho? (The dialogue of sources: a contribution from private international law to the general theory of law?
• Jorge Alberto Silva – Contenido de un curso de Derecho internacional regulatorio del proceso (Content of a course on international law regulating the process).
• José Antonio Briceño Laborí – La jurisdicción indirecta en la ley de derecho internacional privado.
• José Antonio Moreno Rodríguez – Los Principios Unidroit en el derecho paraguayo (The UNIDROT Principles in Paraguayan law).
• José Luis Marín Fuentes – ¿Puede existir una amenaza del Derecho uniforme frente al Derecho interno?: ¿podríamos hablar de una guerra anunciada? (Can there be a threat to national law from uniform law? Could we talk about an announced war?).
• Jürgen Samtleben – Cláusulas de jurisdicción y sumisión al foro en América Latina (Jurisdiction and submission clauses in Latin America).
• Lissette Romay Inciarte – Derecho procesal internacional. Proceso con elementos de extranjería (International Procedural Law. Trial with foreign elements).
• María Alejandra Ruíz – El reenvío en el ordenamiento jurídico venezolano (Renvoi in the Venezuelan legal system).
• María Mercedes Albornoz – La Conferencia de La Haya de Derecho Internacional Privado y el Derecho aplicable a los negocios internacionales (The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the applicable Law to International Business).
• María Victoria Márquez Olmos – Reflexiones sobre el tráfico internacional de niños y niñas ante la emigración forzada de venezolanos (Reflections on international child trafficking in the face of forced migration of Venezuelans).
• Mirian Rodríguez Reyes de Mezoa y Claudia Lugo Holmquist – Criterios atributivos de jurisdicción en el sistema venezolano de Derecho internacional privado en materia de títulos valores (Attributive criteria of jurisdiction in the Venezuelan system of Private International Law on securities trading matters).
• Nuria González Martín – Globalización familiar: nuevas estructuras para su estudio (Globalization of the family: new structures for its study).
• Peter Mankowski – A very special type of renvoi in contemporary Private International Law. Article 4 Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado of Venezuela in the light of recent developments.
• Ramón Escovar Alvarado – Régimen aplicable al pago de obligaciones en moneda extranjera (Regime applicable to the payment of obligations in foreign currency).
• Roberto Ruíz Díaz Labrano – El principio de autonomía de la voluntad y las relaciones contractuales (The party autonomy principle and contractual relations).
• Stefan Leible – De la regulación de la parte general del Derecho internacional privado en la Unión Europea (Regulation of the general part of Private International Law in the European Union).
• Symeon c. Symeonides – The Brussels I Regulation and third countries.
• Víctor Gregorio Garrido R. – Las relaciones funcionales entre el forum y el ius en el sistema venezolano de derecho internacional privado (The functional relations between forum and ius in the Venezuelan system of private international law.

As we see, the contributions are not just from Venezuelan scholars, but from important professors and researchers from Latin America, USA and Europe. All of them (as well as those included in the other three volumes) pay due homage to an admirable person by offering new ideas and insights in several areas of law and related sciences.

The book will be available for sale soon. Is a must have publication for anyone interested in Private International Law and Comparative Law.

As reported previously, the ECtHR was asked by the French Cour de cassation for an advisory opinion on the legal parentage of children born through surrogacy arrangement. In its answer, the Court considered that the right to respect for private life (article 8 of ECHR) requires States parties to provide a possibility of recognition of the child’s legal relationship with the intended mother. However, according to the Court, a State is not required, in order to achieve such recognition, to register the child’s birth certificate in its civil status registers. It also declared that adoption can serve as a means of recognizing the parent-child relationship.

The ECtHR’s opinion thus confirms the position reached by French courts: the Cour de cassation accepted to transcribe the birth certificate only when the intended father was also the biological father. Meanwhile, the non-biological parent could adopt the child (See for a confirmation ECtHR, C and E v. France, 12/12/2019 Application n°1462/18 and n°17348/18).

The ECtHR advisory opinion was requested during the trial for a review of a final decision in the Mennesson case. Although it is not compulsory, the Cour de cassation has chosen to comply with its recommendations (Ass. plén. 4 oct. 2019, n°10-19053). Referring to the advisory opinion, the court acknowledged that it had an obligation to provide a possibility to recognize the legal parent-child relationship with respect to the intended mother. According to the Cour de cassation, the mere fact that the child was born of a surrogate mother abroad did not in itself justify the refusal to recognize the filiation with the intended mother mentioned in the child’s birth certificate.

When it comes to the mean by which this recognition has be accomplished, the Cour de cassation recalled that the ECtHR said that the choice fell within the State’s margin of appreciation. Referring to the different means provided under French law to establish filiation, the Court considered that preference should be given to the means that allow the judge to exercise some control over the validity of the legal situation established abroad and to pay attention to the particular situation of the child. In its opinion, adoption is the most suitable way.

However, considering the specific situation of the Mennesson twins who had been involved in legal proceedings for over fifteen years, the Court admitted that neither an adoption nor an apparent status procedure were appropriate as both involve a judicial procedure that would take time. This would prolong the twins’ legal uncertainty regarding their identity and, as a consequence, infringe their right to respect for private life protected by article 8 ECHR. In this particular case, this would not comply with the conditions set by the ECtHR in its advisory opinion: “the procedure laid down by the domestic law to ensure that those means could be implemented promptly and effectively, in accordance with the child’s best interest”.

As a result and given the specific circumstances of the Mennessons’ situation, the Cour de cassation decided that the best means to comply with its obligation to recognize the legal relationship between the child and the intended mother was to transcribe the foreign birth certificate for both parents.

The Cour de cassation’s decision of October 2019 is not only the final act of the Mennesson case, but it also sets a modus operandi for future proceedings regarding legal parentage of children born trough surrogate arrangements: when it comes to the relation between the child and the intended mother, adoption is the most suitable means provided under domestic French law to establish filiation. When such an adoption is neither possible nor appropriate to the situation, judges resort to transcribing the foreign birth certificate mentioning the intended mother. Thus, adoption appears as the principle and transcription as the exception.

Oddly enough, the Court then took the first chance it got to reverse its solution and choose not to follow its own modus operandi.

By two decisions rendered on December 18th 2019 (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 18 déc. 2019, n°18-11815 and 18-12327), the Cour de cassation decided that the intended non-biological father must have its legal relationship with the child recognized too. However, it did not resort to adoption as a suitable means of establishing the legal relationship with the intended parent. Instead, the court held that the foreign birth certificate had to be transcribed for both parents, while no references were made to special circumstances which would have justified resorting to a transcription instead of an adoption or another means of establishing filiation.

The Court used a similar motivation to the one used in 2015 for the transcription of the birth certificate when the intended father is also the biological father. It considered that neither the fact that the child was born from a surrogate mother nor that the birth certificate established abroad mentioned a man as the intended father were obstacles to the transcription of the birth certificate as long that they complied with the admissibility conditions of article 47 of the Civil Code.

But while in 2015 the Court referred to the fact that the certificate “did not contain facts that did not correspond to reality”, which was one of the requirements of article 47, in 2019 this condition is no longer required.

Thus, it seems that the Cour de cassation is no longer reluctant to allow the full transcription of the foreign birth certificate of children born of surrogate arrangements. After years of constant refusal to transcribe the birth certificate for the non-biological parent, and just a few months after the ECtHR advisory opinion accepting adoption as a suitable means to legally recognize the parent-child relationship, this change of view was unexpected.

However, by applying the same treatment to both intended parents, biological and non-biological, this reversal of solution put into the spotlight the publicity function of the transcription into the French civil status register. As the Cour de cassation emphasized, a claim for the transcription of a birth certificate is different from a claim for the recognition or establishment of filiation. The transcription does not prevent later proceedings directed against the child-parent relationship.

But the end is still not near!  On January 24th, during the examination of the highly sensitive Law of Bioethics, the Sénat (the French Parliament’s upper house) adopted an article prohibiting the full transcription of the foreign birth certificates of children born trough surrogate arrangements. This provision is directly meant to “break” the Cour de cassation’s solution of December 18th 2019. The article will be discussed in front of the Assemblée nationale, the lower house, and the outcome of the final vote is uncertain.

The conflict over the legal parentage of children born trough surrogate arrangements is not over yet.  To be continued…

The project on Gender and Private International Law (GaP) at the Hamburg Max Planck Institute, jointly organized by Ivana Isailovic and Ralf Michaels, will end the academic year with a bang! After the inaugural workshop (see Asthma Alouane’s report here) and three successful reading sessions in the fall, there will be a whole day workshop with three themes and six fabulous conveyors who will enable a truly crossdisciplinary event.
A call for applications to take part is here. Note that some travel and accommodation money is available for emergent scholars!

The Law Department at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) is pleased to host a Public Lecture by Visiting Professor Hannah Buxbaum, on ”Reasonableness’ Limits in Extraterritorial Regulation’.

About the topic:
Extraterritorial regulation has become commonplace. States frequently apply their laws to foreign conduct in order to protect local economic interests—and sometimes to advance shared interests, such as the protection of human rights. Are there limits to these exercises of state authority? If so, what is the source and content of those limits? This lecture will investigate the role of “reasonableness” as a limitation on extraterritorial regulation. It will focus in particular on developments in the United States, where the recently adopted Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law has reframed the role of international law in limiting the reach of national legislation.

About the speaker:
Professor Hannah Buxbaum is Vice President for International Affairs, the John E. Schiller Chair in Legal Ethics and a Professor of Law at Indiana University. Professor Buxbaum is an expert on cross-border regulatory litigation and extraterritoriality, U.S. securities and competition law, and foreign relations law. 

Thursday 30 January 2020 6:30pm to 8:00pm
Hosted by the LSE Department of Law
Chair: Dr. Jan Kleinheisterkamp (LSE)SUMEET VALRANI LECTURE THEATRE LSE Centre Buildings (CBG.1.01)

The Lecture is open to all; there is no need to register. For more information, please contact Jan Kleinheisterkamp (LSE) or Jacco Bomhoff (LSE).