Conflictoflaws

Maximilian Schulze, an assistant of Dr. Susanne Gössl, LL.M. (Tulane), University of Bonn, has kindly provided us with the following report.

On 5 April 2019, the first meeting of the newly established research network “Young Private International Law in Europe” took place at the University of Würzburg, Germany. The network intends to create a Europe-wide exchange at ‘junior faculty’ level (predoc/postdoc) in the context of various comparative Private International Law (PIL) projects. The first research project and meeting in Würzburg deal with the “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations”. This topic was selected in view of the recent series of decisions by the CJEU regarding international name law (see, e.g. CJEU C-148/02 – Garcia Avello) and, most recently, same-sex marriage (CJEU C-673/16 – Coman)) and a parallel discussion which evolved in the context of the case law of the ECtHR, in particular regarding the recognition of adoptions, same-sex marriages and surrogacy. In order to contribute to a pan-European understanding of ‘acceptance’ of legal situations related to a person’s status in a cross-border context to enhance the free movement of EU citizens and protect their fundamental rights regarding private and family life, the aforementioned first project of the research network compares the reception and implementation of the CJEU and ECtHR case law in 16 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden).

The meeting, organised by Susanne Lilian Gössl, Bonn, and Martina Melcher, Graz, comprised a public and a workshop session. The meeting was kindly supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG) as well as by the prior meeting of the German “Conference for Young PIL scholars” at the University of Würzburg.

The public session

Martina Melcher and Susanne Lilian Gössl opened the public session with an overview of the project and outlined the results of the comparative study. Martina Melcher highlighted the aim of the project as an “academic offspring” for young scholars to facilitate their comparative law and PIL research interests by setting up a network for young scholars. Methodologically, the network selects a specific topic – in this project/meeting the “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations” – on which participants first submitted national reports, which then led to a comprehensive comparative report and analysis, which will be finalized and published in 2020. Susanne Gössl further specified the network’s approach on how the individual reports are to be composed. This is to take CJEU and ECtHR case law in all fields of the law where member states’ awareness is high (e.g. name law, surrogacy and same-sex marriage) as a starting point and then look at the individual states’ implementations, including in particular the recognition by judgments and by rules of PIL. As the network is not limited to international family law, future meetings and comparative reports will also deal with commercial law topics.

Marion Ho-Dac, Valenciennes, then set out the methodological approaches to recognition. She highlighted the increasing importance of cross-border continuity of status in view of the circulation of people and recent refugee movements. When looking at the Member States’ approaches, she stressed two considerations one has to bear in mind: the legal technique of recognition and the underlying legal policy thereof. She then set of the three different approaches: traditional PIL methods, procedural recognition and alternative methods (e.g. uniform law on supranational level or a mutual recognition system at EU level). However, she concluded that none of these were perfect methods. In his responsio, Tamás Szabados, Budapest, doubted that legislators always have a clear methodology in mind. He exemplified this by the Hungarian PIL Act, in effect since 2018, in which no general theory of recognition is followed, although the responsible committee was aware of the recognition questions discussed.

Sarah den Haese, Gent, then referred to a 2014 academic proposal on the recognition of names that was not acted upon by the Commission and analysed its weaknesses which need addressing for a future proposal to be successful. Firstly, any proposal would require a harmonisation of conflict of laws rules. Secondly, she proposed recognition without a conflict of laws test and no control of the substantive law subject to a very narrow public policy exception only. Tena Hoško, Zagreb, responded by setting out the conflict rules implemented in Croatia. Although academic proposals had been submitted, the Croatian legislator did not follow them but rather opted to copy the German conflicts rule (Art. 10 EGBGB). Although she exemplified certain weaknesses in this newly implemented approach (i.e. the issues of dual citizenship and renvoi), she concluded that the new rules are a huge step forward.

The workshop session

The public session was followed by a workshop session in which the preliminary results of the draft comparative report on “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations” were discussed among the project participants and a few other interested parties. The workshop contained four parts, each initiated by a short introduction summarising the major findings and followed by an in-depth discussion among the participants.

In the first part, the general awareness was addressed. In her introduction, Giulia Vallar, Milan, pointed out an academic awareness in many Member States that a comprehensive overhaul of the rules of PIL is required. This awareness is also registered by the legislator, however mostly by countries that were involved in CJEU cases. She went on to set out the areas of law in which awareness for recognition is high (e.g. name law and same-sex marriages or partnerships). She concluded that based on their awareness of the issue, the analysed Member States can be subdivided into those involved in CJEU cases, those indirectly influenced by CJEU case law and those influenced by the ECtHR.

The second part, focusing to the legal methodology employed for recognition, was introduced by Katarzyna Miksza, Vilnius. She pointed out and illustrated the huge variety of methods of recognition detected by the draft comparative report by reference to national laws. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that it would be rather difficult to reconcile the different kinds of approaches to recognition.

Thirdly, the substantive requirements for recognition were discussed. In their presentation, María Asunción Cebrián Salvat and Isabel Lorente Martínez, Murcia, highlighted the (general) prohibition of a revision au fond as a starting point before outlining three hotspots of the public policy exception (surrogacy, same sex marriages or civil partnerships, and name law) and further challenges for recognition, in particular fraus legis and the legitimate expectations of the parties, in the various countries. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that the comparative report also shows that the public policy exception does not only function as a bar to recognition, but can, as well as human rights, require and facilitate recognition.

Finally, the formal requirements for recognition were discussed. Florian Heindler, Vienna, initially drew attention to the difficulty of distinguishing between formal and substantive requirements and stated the definition of the comparative report of the former as requirements relating to form (i.e. of documents) as well as procedural requirements (regarding certain additional procedural steps). Also in the subsequent discussion the challenging identification and categorisation of requirements was brought up.

In the final discussion, it was immediately agreed that the project was until now only able to scratch the surface of the issues and further work and discussions were required and promising. Therefore, a continuation of the project was agreed on and a further meeting is already being planned.

Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Multidisciplinary Perspective is set to be released by Thomson Reuters (Hong Kong) Limited at the end of July 2019. Edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit, Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, and Dr Sai Ramani Garimella, Senior Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, this book has the following unique features:

• On the 30th anniversary of the implementation of the CISG (in the year 2018) and almost the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the text of the CISG (in the year 2020), this title at the right time provides value added content for students and practitioners alike considering CISG and its intersection with public domestic and international law;
• Unique and jurisdictionally relevant thought-leadership content – presents national perspectives;
• Providing fresh critiques on core principles as well as forecasting on potential areas for reform or improvement
• Multi-country author team providing perspectives from across diverse global jurisdictions as well as contributions from members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague) and The Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

Contributors include:

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit – Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania

Sai Ramani Garimella – Senior Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University

John Felemegas – Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

King Fung Tsang – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Daniel Mathew – Assistant Professor, National Law University, Delhi

Lijun (Liz) Zhao – Senior Lecturer, School of Law, Middlesex University

Ernesto Vargas Weil – Assistant Professor for Private Law, University of Chile

Ngoc Bich Du – Dean, Faculty of Law, Open University of Ho Chi Minh City

Julian Bordaçahar – Legal Counsel, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague

Juan Ignacio Massun – Legal Counsel, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague

Benjamin Hayward – Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash Business School, Monash University

Rosmy Joan – Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National Law University Jodhpur

Andre Janssen – Chair Professor, Radbound University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Luca Castellani – Legal Officer, The Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

Navin G. Ahuja – Doctoral Candidate, City University of Hong Kong

Dharmita Prasad – Assistant Professor, UPES School of Law

Details of the book shall be available soon from the publisher’s website: www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk

To order:

Tel: +852 2847 2000

Fax: +852 2520 6954

E-mail: legal.hk@thomsonreuters.com

Mailing address: Sweet & Maxwell, Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Ltd, 15/F Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong Kong

Promotion code: CISG2019 – valid on or before 31 July 2019

For more information about the book, you can contact Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (poonmintr@icloud.com) or Dr Sai Ramani Garimella (ramani@sau.ac.in)

PROGRAM COORDINATOR:
Prof. Marco Torsello

VENUE:
University of Verona, School of Law, Via C. Montanari 9, Verona (VR), Italy
INSTRUCTORS:
Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh, School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)
Tim W. Dornis (Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany)
Nevena Jevremovic (IACCM – International Association for Contract and Commercial Management, Bosnia-Herzegovina)
Tyler Ochoa (Santa Clara University, School of Law, Santa Clara, CA, USA)
Marco Torsello (Univ. of Verona, School of Law).

Pennsylvania lawyers participating to the course will obtain Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits: additional information and registration instructions will be posted on-line at: www.law.pitt.edu/Verona

Dr. Alexia Pato (Senior Research Fellow at the University of Bonn) has authored a book on jurisdiction and cross-border collective redress (Hart Publishing). You may pre-order it online. A discount voucher is available here.

Summary:

Widespread law violations, such as massive data breaches, the use of unfair terms, and financial fraud, may affect numerous victims around the globe. Those violations are on the rise, stimulated by globalisation and digitalisation. Unfortunately, the development of effective procedural vehicles enabling victims to obtain redress is comparatively slow. As a result, a private enforcement gap persists, which can be characterised by a difference between the theoretical possibilities to obtain redress drafted by the legislator and the reality experienced by victims in daily life. Collective redress represents an interesting instrument, which may have the power to fulfil that gap. The US experience regarding the class action is a telling example in that regard. On the other side of the Atlantic, European Member States have adopted collective redress mechanisms, the features of which often differ from their American homologue. As a result, issues regarding their effectiveness have arisen and legal reforms have started in an attempt to solve them.

The adoption of collective redress certainly generates complex legal issues. The present book specifically analyses the allocation of jurisdiction in cross-border collective redress cases, inasmuch as it directly impacts access to justice. To that effect, several collective redress mechanisms, including the Dutch WCAM, the test case procedure, the class action, and the representative model involving intermediaries, are studied (ch 2). Their structure, functioning and goal(s) are explained and a comparative law table containing information on more than 20 collective redress instruments summarises those elements (annex II). The book takes full account of the US law on class actions in order to enrich the comparative law study (ch 1).

Then, difficulties in applying private international law rules on jurisdiction to selected collective redress models are highlighted and analysed. The most relevant case law is examined as well. Notably, the Shell decision issued by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, the recent CJEU’s ruling in Schrems (C?498/16), and the VW scandal are thoroughly studied. Chapter 3 of the book highlights the current mismatch between European private international law rules on jurisdiction (BIa) on the one hand, and collective redress procedures on the other. As a result, the centralisation of claims protecting either general or collective interests in a unique forum is often difficult – not to say impossible. Besides, significant obstacles, such as costs of proceedings, lack of financing, and language barriers, further deter access to justice. The unprecedented empirical study included in this book confirms that statement (annex III).

In light of this, the EU has presented several policy papers; drafted a Recommendation in 2013; and enacted Article 80 of the General Data Protection Regulation dealing with the representation of data subjects. Besides, the Directive on representative actions is in the pipeline. A comprehensive analysis of those documents is provided in chapter 2 of the book. Although those legislative efforts are welcome, this book contends that EU measures have not satisfactorily lowered barriers to access to justice. Therefore, the creation of a new head of jurisdiction for international collective redress cases is proposed, the content of which is presented in chapter 4 of the book.

A table of contents is available here.

Written by Michele Angelo Lupoi, Civil Procedural Law and European Judicial Cooperation, University of Bologna

The Department of Juridical Sciences of the University of Bologna, Ravenna Campus, has organized a Summer School on Transnational Tort Litigation: Jurisdiction and Remedies, to be held in Ravenna, on July 15-19, 2019.

The Summer School deals with transnational jurisdiction, private international law and remedies available in tort cross-border litigation, with both a theoretical and a practical approach. The Faculty includes experts from US and EU in order to provide a comparative perspective to the participants.

The US perspective will be centered on procedural remedies for mass-torts (class actions) and on the assumption of jurisdiction in transnational toxic tort litigation (e.g. asbestos and tobacco tort disputes). The EU part of the programme will address the Brussels I-bis Regulation as regards jurisdiction in tort claims, and the Rome II Regulation, in relation to the law applicable to transnational tort disputes.

The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and lawyers who want to obtain a specialised knowledge in this area of International Civil Procedure.

Deadline for inscriptions: 28 June 2019. Programme and further information can be found here

For those who read Portuguese, here is a round-up of books published in Portugal and Brazil in the last year or so. Abstracts in English hereunder provided when available.

Rui Dias, Pactos de Jurisdição Societários, Almedina, 2018

“This study is dedicated to an analysis, from the point of view of both private international law and company law, of company-law related choice-of-court agreements under Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia).

After an introductory framing that emphasizes the intersection of EU private international law applicable to companies and Portuguese national corporate law, we begin by analysing the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Powell Duffryn, where it has been established that «when the company’s statutes contain a clause conferring jurisdiction, every shareholder is deemed to be aware of that clause and actually to consent to the assignment of jurisdiction for which it provides if the statutes are lodged in a place to which the shareholder may have access, such as the seat of the company, or are contained in a public register».

The European Court’s reasoning raises issues, when confronted with the most common understanding of the choice-of-court agreement as a contract. That justifies an inquiry on the role of consent and agreement in its conclusion, and, in the end, the search for a comprehension of its legal nature, with the Brussels Ia legal framework in mind. By asserting the logical-legal antecedence of private autonomy, as put in motion by the conclusion of a jurisdictional agreement, vis-à-vis a so-called statutory ordinance of competence instituted by a given positive-legal regime situated in time and space, we see advantages in the delineation of a framework that considers illegitimate the allegation of existence and the exercise of a jurisdictional clause, whenever there is not an indispensable minimum of correspondence between the contents of such clause and a person’s consent — be it a realconsent, or rather one that is to her reasonably imputable, given that the person was in the position to be able to know, or ought to know, the content of such clause, included in a contract or statutes that bind her.

With these elements in mind, we undertake an analysis of the conditions of admissibility, validity and effectiveness of a choice-of-court-agreement under Brussels Ia. After referring to the scope of application of such rules, as well as to the general framework regarding the «external» and «internal» limits of the binding effects of such agreements, we draw attention to the particular situation of the extension of such binding effects, beyond a strict understanding of consent, in statutes of companies.

We then tackle some situations of particular uncertainty, where company-legal and conflicts-of-law and conflicts-of-jurisdiction aspects are, more or less inextricably, simultaneously at stake, namely: the law applicable to jurisdiction agreements and the scope of its application (especially regarding the recast version of now Article 25 of Brussels Ia); the relevance of statutes and generally corporate-related regulation; the limitations imposed by the latter to jurisdictional undertakings; the possible safeguards against an abusive invocation or exercise of the jurisdiction agreement; and the need to set and analyse choice-of-court agreements within the framework of rules applicable to agreements related to corporate liability suits — thus crossing the borders of national and European law, and of corporate and jurisdictional law.”

Dulce Lopes, Eficácia, Reconhecimento e Execução de Actos Administrativos Estrangeiros, Almedina, 2018

“The recognition of foreign administrative acts has gained again – after more than a century – a striking importance in doctrinal and legislative terms. In a world were distances are rapidly overcome and new forms of private and public interaction develop, the exercise of sovereignty is reconceptualised.

Now, with more importance and frequency, foreign administrative acts — originally or subsequently – aim at being recognised and executed in/by other States (the receiving, host or destination States, distinct from the issuing or home authorities), raising once again, but in a quite different manner, the challenging questions of extraterritoriality and jurisdiction.

However not always greater attention means better regulation. And this is a field were, unlike what should be expected (or desired), plurality and fragmentation are still the rule and the need for clarification of recognition procedures is crucial.

Indeed, beyond the recognition demands resulting from international and European Union law demands and from a few specific legislative provisions, there is no general framework on recognition and enforcement of foreign administrative acts, nor in what regards their possible effects, neither in what concerns the requirements and procedures from which they can or should be drawn.

Our proposal rests in the identification of three types of foreign administrative acts. While supranational administrative acts,despite their various origins, have an immanent and immediate aptitude to be applied to areas under State influence, transnational administrative actshave as a normal – but not always immediate – characteristic the extension of their effects to States that are under a recognition obligation. Foreign administrative acts in a strict sense, constitute a third category that doesn’t have the same coherence as the former two. In principle, these acts only produce effects within the limits of the issuing State, because they do not have a qualified title to recognition, but this can also be altered.

A relevant part of our efforts was centred in the definition of the substantial and procedural criteria for recognition and enforcement of suchforeign administrative acts, criteria that – varying according to the type of foreign act and respective effects – constitute the basis of a structured, however plural, proposal for recognition.”

Afonso Patrão, Hipoteca e Autonomia Conflitual, Gestlegal, 2018

“Considering statistical data suggesting national compartmentalisation of mortgage markets (land security rights are essential for internal credit but less than 1% of all international credit involves mortgages) and acknowledging the failure of the proposals of building a European mortgage single market (unification of mortgage laws; introduction of Eurohypothec as an additional optional legal regime; securitisation of granted mortgage loans), this text studies the feasibility of introducing party autonomy in mortgage law, allowing the parties to choose the applicable law to this property right.

The choice of law to land security rights is in harmony with the tendency of dépeçage of private international law on property rights and with the purpose of European integration. Provided that adequate precautions are taken, the author aims to show there is no reason for the mandatory application of lex rei sitae to mortgages.” 

Dário Moura Vicente, Direito Internacional Privado – Ensaios, vol. IV, Almedina, 2018

This is a collection of essays published by the Professor of the University of Lisbon, now in its fourth volume.

Luís de Lima Pinheiro, Direito Internacional Privado, Volume III – Tomo I – Competência Internacional, AAFDL, 3rd edition, 2019

A new edition of the first part – on jurisdiction – of Volume III of the handbook on Private International Law by the Professor of the University of Lisbon.

—

André de Carvalho Ramos / Nádia de Araújo (org.), A Conferência da Haia de Direito Internacional Privado e seus Impactos na Sociedade – 125 anos (1893-2018), Arraes Editores, 2018

A collection of essays celebrating the 125thanniversary of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Jean Eduardo Nicolau, Direito Internacional Privado do Esporte, Quartier Latin, 2018

A PhD thesis on the Private International Law of Sport.

Mariana Sebalhos Jorge, A Residência Habitual no Direito Internacional Privado, Arraes Editores, 2018

A Masters thesis on the habitual residence connecting factor in Private International Law.

Alexandre Jorge Carneiro da Cunha Filho et al. (coord.), Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro – Anotada, Volume I,Quartier Latin, 2019

This is an article-by-article commentary to the Brazilian law containing rules on Private International Law.

Gustavo Ferraz de Campos Monaco, Conflitos de Leis no Espaço e Lacunas (Inter)Sistêmicas, Quartier Latin, 2019

Thesis recently presented by the Author to achieve full professorship at the University of São Paulo.

Written by Gustavo Becker*  

During the 26th Willem C. Vis Moot, Dr. Gustavo Moser, counsel at the London Court of International Arbitration and Ph.D. in international commercial law from the University of Basel, coordinated the organization of a seminar regarding choice of law in international contracts and international arbitration. The seminar’s topics revolved around Dr. Moser’s recent book Rethinking Choice of Law in Cross-Border Sales (Eleven, 2018) which has been globally recognized as one of the most useful books for international commercial lawyers.

On April 15th, taking place at Hotel Regina, in Vienna, the afternoon seminar involved a panel organized and moderated by Dr. Moser and composed of Prof. Ingeborg Schwenzer, Prof. Petra Butler, Prof. Andrea Bjorklund, and Dr. Lisa Spagnolo.The panel addressed three core topics in the current scenario of cross-border sales contracts: Choice of law and Brexit, drafting choice of law clauses, and CISG status and prospects.

The conference started with a video presentation in which Michael Mcllwrath (Baker Hughes, GE), addressed his perspectives on how Brexit might impact decisions from companies regarding choice of law clauses in international contracts, its effects on the recognition of London as the leading seat for dispute resolution, and the position of English law as the most applicable law in international contracts.

In Mr. Mcllwrath’s perspective, in spite of Brexit, London will still remain a significant place for international dispute resolution as it adoptsglobally recognized commercial law principles, is an arbitration friendly state and enjoys a highly praised image as a safe seat for international cases. However, in order to try to predict the impact of Brexit in international dispute resolution, Mr. Mcllwrath collected data released by arbitral institutions and found that in the years leading up to the Brexit vote, London did not grow as a seat of arbitration significantly. Considerable growth nonetheless has been seen outside the traditional centers of international arbitration. Therefore, the big issue involving Brexit, in Mr. Mcllwrath’s view, is the uncertainty that companies will face with the UK’s unsettled political future. For this reason, the revision of contract policies is now likely to be undertaken and the choice of English law in international contracts might be affected.

Prof. Schwenzer pointed out that the whole discussion about Brexit and its effects on international dispute resolution depends primarily on the type of Brexit that will be chosen and the agreements between Europe and Great Britain. In her point of view, one of the main questions is whether the UK will join the Lugano Convention, which would make the enforcement of English court decisions easier in European State-members. Prof. Schwenzer also highlighted that, in terms of choice of law, there will be uncertainty issues regarding the regulations that have been imported from Europe and are now part of the English legal system. The problem might be how these rules will be developed further as the Court of Justice of the European Union will no longer be responsible for interpreting this part of English law.

Furthermore, Prof. Bjorklund stated that, whilst the choice of English law will require more caution after Brexit, the well-recognized security related to arbitration in the UK is likely to continue as long as the New York Convention, the English Arbitration Act, and the arbitration friendly character of English commercial courts will not likely change. However, in the point of view of an international arbitration counsel, certainly, the “risks of arbitrating in the UK” will leave some room for parties to choose arbitration in other places rather than in London or – at least – to start rethinking the classic choice for English-seated arbitration.

Concerning the choice of English law, Prof. Butler reminded the audience of two important regulations which should be analyzed in the context of Brexit: Rome I for deciding which contract law is applicable in international cases, and the Brussels Regulation to define which court is entitled to decide a case and how to enforce and recognize foreign decisions within the EU. According to Prof. Butler, under the first Brexit bill, the statutes signed within the EU regime would still apply. However, subject to confirmation from the English government, the development of these laws might no longer be applicable.

Dr. Spagnolo added that whether a country joins an international instrument sometimes has little to do with rational factors and are often “emotional”. In this sense, one of the arguments that the political environment seems to emphasize nowadays under the notion of nationalism is the maintenance of sovereignty. According to Dr. Spagnolo, this is a dangerous consideration to be emphasized in an environment that relies on commercial sense and needs basic guarantees of international harmonization, such as the enforcement of foreign awards or the application of a uniform law.

Regarding the topic “drafting choice of law clauses”, Mr. Mcllwrath highlighted the “emotional” features involving the choice of law. In his opinion, as Dr. Moser has demonstrated in his book, many choices of law decisions are driven by factors such as how many times a specific law had already been applied by a law firm or what law the attorneys involved in that contract were already familiar with. Considering this, Mr. Mcllwrath understands that Brexit can make lawyers rethink the application of English law, even though this might be dependant upon whether financial institutions and companies currently based in London will or will not move away from the UK.

Prof. Schwenzer highlighted that what Dr. Moser has found in his research regarding the emotional aspect of the choice of law is a proving fact of what she has experienced in practice: choice of law decisions are mostly emotionally charged and seldom rational. One example is that even though Swiss law is arguably the second most chosen law in international contracts, in Prof. Schwenzer’s view, Swiss law is not predictable: in core areas of contract law, such as limitation of liability, Swiss law is not advantageous for commercial contracts in her opinion. Prof. Schwenzer added that this shows that lawyers seldom analyze the pros and cons of laws deeply before applying them in international commercial contracts.

Concluding the panel discussions, Dr. Moser brought up the topic “CISG status and prospects”.  While discussing this matter, all the panelists agreed upon the urgent need of global initiatives to increase awareness and improve knowledge of the CISG for both young lawyers who are sitting for the bar exam, and for judges who will face international commercial cases and might not be familiar with the CISG or even prepared to apply its set of provisions.

*With contributions from Gustavo Moser

The Centre for European Policy (CEP) in Freiburg (Breisgau) is the European-policy think tank of the German non-profit foundation “Stiftung Ordnungspolitik”. It has just released its policy brief on the Proposal COM(2018) 96 of 12 March 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims. The CEP’s main conclusion reads as follows:

“The general rule, that the applicable law is that of the assignor’s habitual residence, strengthens legal clarity and thus legal certainty. However, it increases transaction costs and complexity. For syndicated loans, an exception to the general rule should be added to avoid the application of various laws. To avoid legal uncertainty, the Regulation must clarify what is meant by the habitual residence ‘at the material time’ and should only allow overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the Member State in which the assignment has to be or has been performed. The Regulation’s rules on conflict of laws overlap with those of other EU directives and regulations. This results in inconsistencies.”

The full text of the policy brief is available here. See also the earlier posts on this topic by Robert Freitag and by Leonhard Hübner.

The Centre for Notary and Registry Studies (CENoR) of the Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra, will host a conference on 6 and 7 June, co-organized with the Spanish Colegio de Registradores de Propiedad, dealing with registration aspects of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes.

More information and enrolment here.

On 10 and 11 May 2019, the 2nd Dialogue on International Family Law took place at the University of Marburg (Germany). The dialogue serves as a forum for the exchange between high-level practitioners and academics active in the field of international family law; it is organised on an annual basis by Professors Christine Budzikiewicz (Marburg) and Bettina Heiderhoff (Münster), Dr. Frank Klinkhammer, a judge at the German Federal Supreme Court and an honorary professor in Marburg, and Dr. Kerstin Niethammer-Jürgens, a renowned family lawyer in Potsdam/Berlin. This year’s meeting focused on the well-being of the child in international family law, the pending revision of the Brussels IIbis Regulation and conflict of laws with regard to matrimonial property.

The conference was opened by Professor Rüdiger Ernst, a judge at the Kammergericht (Court of Appeals of Berlin), who described and analysed the various standards regarding the procedure to hear a child in international cases, with a special focus on the current state of play concerning the Brussels IIbis Regulation. The second presentation on the well-being of the child in the procedural law of the EU (the Brussels IIbis and the Maintenance Regulation) was given by Bettina Heiderhoff, who, in light of an intense scrutiny of the case-law, posed the critical question as to whether judges actually give weight to the well-being of the child in determining jurisdiction or whether they merely pay lip-service to this overarching goal. In particular, Heiderhoff focused on the question to which degree concerns for the well-being of children had an influence on determining their habitual residence. The second panel was started by Professor Anatol Dutta (University of Munich), who dealt with issues of lis pendens and annex jurisdiction in international family procedures – apparently, this is another area where more coherence between the various European regulations would be highly desirable. Then, Dr. Andrea Schulz (European Commission) analysed the new system of enforcement of judgments in the framework of the revised Brussels IIbis Regulation, which, by abolishing exequatur, shows a discernible influence of the paradigm shift already achieved by Brussels Ibis. At the moment, the English text is being finalised; it is to be expected that the revised version will be adopted by the Council of Ministers at the end of June 2019.

On the second day of the conference, Professor Dirk Looschelders (University of Düsseldorf) gave a presentation on the substantive scope of the Matrimonial Property Regulation (and the Regulation on Property Aspects of Registered Partnerships). The fact that there is no common European definition of the concept of “marriage” leads to numerous difficulties of characterisation; moreover, European courts will have to develop autonomous criteria to draw the line between matrimonial property regimes and adjacent legal areas (contracts, partnerships) not governed by the Regulation. Subsequently, Dr. Jens Scherpe (University of Cambridge) talked about forum shopping before English courts in matrimonial property cases. He focused on determining jurisdiction, calculating alimony and maintenance under English law and the thorny issue of under which circumstances English courts will accept matrimonial contracts as binding. Finally, Frank Klinkhammer gave a survey on recent case-law of the Federal Supreme Court in cases involving international agreements on surrogacy, in particular regarding the Ukraine. In a recent decision of 20 March 2019 (XII ZB 530/17), the Court had decided that a child who, after being born by a Ukrainian surrogate mother, was then brought to Germany as planned by all parties did not have its first habitual residence in the Ukraine, but in Germany, which, in effect, leads to consequence that the German designated mother has no other option but to adopt the child if she wishes to establish a family relationship. This led to an intense discussion about the principle of recognition and the determination of habitual residence (again). The conference proceedings will be published by Nomos. The next dialogue will take place on 24-25 April 2020 in Münster.

The latest issue of the Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP 2/2019) features a very interesting article by the former president of the Groupe Européen de Droit International Privé (GEDIP), Christian Kohler, on “Comparative Law in Action at the Court of Justice of the European Union – European Conflict of Laws in Theory and Practice” (p. 337). In this autobiographical essay, Kohler traces his professional career from studying at the Free University of Berlin under the supervision of his academic teacher, the legendary Wilhelm Wengler, to becoming General Director at the European Court of Justice while also being part of European academia as an honorary professor for private international law, European civil procedural law and comparative law at the University of Saarbrücken. In particular, Kohler elucidates the practical working of the CJEU and the very important role that comparative legal research plays in preparing the Court’s rulings. Although, seen from the outside, the influence of comparative considerations is frequently not discernible in the Court’s decisions themselves – which, following the French style in this regard, contain neither footnotes nor lengthy doctrinal discussion –, Kohler vividly describes the enormous amount of work that was put into building a world-class legal library in Luxembourg and the intense use that the Advocates General and their scientific staff make of its resources. A fascinating read – highly recommended!

In the editorial of the same issue (p. 249), Alexandre Biard and our fellow conflictoflaws.net co-editor Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam) give a critical comment on “The EU Directive on Representative Actions for Consumers: a Milestone or Another Missed Opportunity?”. This article intends to contribute to ongoing policy discussions at the EU level by pointing out several loopholes in the current Commission’s proposal. After highlighting a few key elements of the proposed representative action, the authors focus on selected issues. They submit that first, in view of the ever-increasing globalisation of goods and services, a revision of European private international law rules is urgently needed for resolving cross-border mass claims. Secondly, they argue that the Commission’s proposal fails to fully consider new actors and new forms of mass litigation that are now emerging, in particular the rise of mass dispute entrepreneurs who are using online platforms and digital tools to structure and to create mass claims. Thirdly, the authors elaborate that the Commission’s proposal leaves several questions relating to the financing of mass litigation still unanswered.

In addition, the issue contains three case-notes on recent important decisions:

Wolfgang Hau (University of Munich) analyses the decision of CJEU in the case C-467/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:993 ? Brigitte Schlömp ./. Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall, in which the Court decided that Articles 27 and 30 of the Lugano Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of lis pendens, the date on which a mandatory conciliation procedure was lodged before a conciliation authority under Swiss law is the date on which a “court” is deemed to be seized (p. 384).

Anton S. Zimmermann (University of Heidelberg) deals with the ruling of the CJEU in the case C-210/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:388 – Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH ./. Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein, in which the Court decided that European data protection rules must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of “controller” within the meaning of those provisions encompasses the administrator of a fan page hosted on a social network. In addition, the Court gave further guidance on the applicability of European data protection rules to international cases (p. 395).

Finally, Kasper Steensgaard (University of Aarhus) comments on a judgment of the Danish Supreme Court of 6 December 2016, case no. 15/2014 (p. 407). In this judgment, the Danish Supreme Court reaffirmed an interpretation of § 2a of the Danish Law on salaried employees (LSE) that the CJEU had found to be precluded by EU law. Whereas the CJEU had instructed the Danish Supreme Court to either change the interpretation or to disapply the provision as barred by the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, the Danish judges found it impossible to change the interpretation, and the majority decided to apply the controversial understanding of § 2a LSE, despite the CJEU’s ruling to the contrary.

For the further content of the same issue of the ZEuP, see last week’s selection of other no less interesting articles here.

Thank you to everyone who responded to the call for paper. For those who were not yet ready, the deadline has been extended to May 17.

This year’s Forum Conveniens Annual Lecture at the University of Edinburgh will be held on Wednesday, 29 May 2019, 5.30 – 7 pm. The speaker is Prof. Marta Pertegás Sender, Maastricht University/ University of Antwerp , on the topic: “A New Judgments Convention in Times of Decaying Multilateralism?”.

The venue is Raeburn Room, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL.

The event is free but registration is required at https://forumconveniens2019.eventbrite.co.uk

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) will be holding its XLII Seminar entitled “Towards an International Judicial Law ” at the Escuela Judicial del Estado de México in Toluca (Mexico) from 13 to 15 November 2019.

The seminar will focus on the draft National Code of Civil and Family Procedure and the draft National Law on Private International Law. The latter is an initiative of AMEDIP and has been drafted by professors Dr. Leonel Pereznieto Castro, Dr. Jorge Alberto Silva and Lic. Virginia Aguilar. These are two significant pieces of legislation and the seminar will analise how they would interact if they were passed by the Mexican Congress.

Potential speakers are invited to submit a paper in Spanish, English or Portuguese by 5 July 2019. Papers must comply with the criteria established by AMEDIP and will be evaluated accordingly. Selected speakers will be required to give their presentations preferably in Spanish as there will be no interpretation services but some exceptions may be made by the organisers upon request.

The final programme of the seminar will be made available at the end of October.

There is a registration fee of 300 Mexican pesos (approx. 14 Euros) for students and 800 Mexican pesos (approx. 37 Euros) for the general public. For speakers, the organisers will provide transportation from Mexico City and will cover hotel costs in Toluca.

For more detailed information (incl. convocation), see www.amedip.org.   Any queries, as well as registration requests, may be directed to asistencia@amedip.org.

The latest issue of ZEuP has just been released. It features the following articles:

Christoph Teichmann/Andrea Götz: Metamorphosen des Europäischen Gesellschaftsrechts: SUP, Company Law Package und SPE 2.0

So far, European initiatives aimed at facilitating the regulatory framework for limited-liability companies, such as the SPE-Regulation and the SUP-Directive, have failed. Their failure, however, has fostered a deeper understanding of the regulatory issues. The authors illustrate this achievement by analysing the long and winding road of the SUP proposal. It paved the way for the “Company Law Package” (regarding digitalization) and it may even contribute to an updated SPE version (“SPE 2.0”).

Christian Schmitt/Julia Bhatti/Christian Storck: Die neue europäische Prospekt-Verordnung – ein großer Wurf?

The new EU Prospectus Regulation attempts at solving the conflict between investor protection and the opening of the capital market. It is an attempt to provide investors with clearer prospectus information, while making access to the capital markets easier for companies. However, new requirements will also create additional liability risks. The overall picture shows that although the Regulation does not represent a revolution, it does offer potential for an evolution of the EU prospectus regime.

John Bowers/ACL Davies/Ruth Dukes/Mark Freedland/Birke Häcker: Sir Otto Kahn-Freund QC (1900–1979): A Retrospective

The present contribution contains the presentations delivered at a symposium held in honour of Sir Otto Kahn-Freund QC at the University of Oxford. Kahn-Freund was a German labour lawyer from a Jewish family who emigrated to the United Kingdom in 1933. He became a founding father of modern British labour law and held professorships at the London School of Economics and the University of Oxford. 2019 marks the fortieth anniversary of his death.

Rosa Miquel Sala: Das Sechste Buch des katalanischen Zivilgesetzbuches: neues Kaufrecht unter europäischem Einfluss

The Sixth Book of the Catalan Civil Code has been in force since the 1st of January 2018, a decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court is pending. The new Book contains an exhaustive regulation of sales contracts following the European models. A modernisation of the law of obligations in the Spanish Civil Code taking into consideration the existing projects and maybe also the new Catalan rules should follow. Equally urgent is an amendment of the rules on intra-state conflicts of laws.

Professor Dr Robert Magnus is looking for a highly skilled and motivated PhD candidate and fellow (Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in) to work at the Chair for Civil Law, Private International Law and Civil Procedural Law, EBS Law School Wiesbaden, Germany, on a part-time basis (50%).

The successful candidate holds the First German State Examination in Law. A good command of English and additional language skills are an advantage.

The fellow will be given the opportunity to conduct his/her PhD project (according to the Faculty’s regulations). The initial contract period is two years, with an option to be extended. Responsibilities include research and teaching.

If you are interested in this position, please send your application (cover letter; CV; and relevant documents and certificates, notably university transcripts and a copy of law degree) by email to robert.magnus@ebs.edu or by mail to

Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Internationales Privatrecht und Zivilprozessrecht
EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht
Gustav-Stresemann-Ring 3
65189 Wiesbaden

Further information can be found here.

Written by Leonhard Huebner, Institute for Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws and International Business Law (Heidelberg University)

The third-party effects of the assignment are one of the “most discussed questions of international contract law” as it concerns the “most important gap of the Rome I Regulation”. This gap is regrettable not only for dogmatic reasons, but above all for practical reasons. The factoring industry has provided more than 217 billion euros of working capital to finance more than 200,000 companies in the EU in 2017 alone. After a long struggle in March of 2018, the European Commission, therefore, published a corresponding draft regulation (COM(2018)0096; in the following Draft Regulation). Based on a recent article (ZEuP 2019, 41) the following post explores whether the Draft Regulation creates the necessary legal certainty in this economically important area of law and thus contributes to the further development of European private international law (see also this post by Robert Freitag).

Legal background and recent case law

Although Article 14 of the Rome I Regulation provides for a rule governing the question regarding which law is applicable to the voluntary assignments of claims, it is the prevailing opinion that the third party effects of assignments are not addressed within the Rome I Regulation. According to Article 27 (2) of the Rome II Regulation, the European Commission was under the obligation to submit a report concerning the question of the effectiveness of an assignment or subrogation of a claim against third parties and the priority of the assigned or subrogated claim over a right of another person. Said report should have been published no later than 17 June 2013. In March 2018, almost nine years after the Rome I Regulation came into force, the Commission finally presented said report in form of the Draft Regulation subject to this article. The practical importance and the need for a harmonized European approach have also been demonstrated by recent case law proving the rather unsatisfactory status quo in European PIL. Two recent decisions of the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (dated 8 August 2018 – 4 U 109/17) and of the Norwegian Supreme Court (see IPRax 2018, 539) gave striking examples of how the diverging requirements for the effectiveness of the assignment vis-à-vis third parties lead to different solutions within the respective PIL rules of the member states. The preliminary reference to the ECJ of the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken concerns a multiple assignment, while the ruling of the Norwegian Court of Justice deals with the question whether unsecured creditors of the assignor can seize the allegedly assigned claims of the assignor in insolvency (see also this post by Peter Mankowski).

The material scope of the proposed regulation

Art. 5 of the Draft Regulation determines the material scope of application of said Draft Regulation with regard to the effectiveness of an assignment as well as its priority vis-à-vis third parties. The effectiveness vis-à-vis third parties is regularly determined by registration or publication formalities (lit. a), while priority conflicts for the assignee arise vis-à-vis various persons. Lit. b) concerns multiple assignments, while lit. c) regulates the priority over the rights of the assignor’s creditors. In addition, lit. d) and e) assign priority conflicts between the assignee and the rights of the beneficiary of a contract transfer/contract assumption and a contract for the conversion of debts to the Draft Regulation.

In essence, Art. 5 of the Draft Regulation covers notification requirements to the assignee. Most legal systems require a publicity act for binding effects vis-à-vis third parties and the debtor, such as a notice of assignment to the debtor or a registration in a public register. Whereas under German law the assignment becomes effective immediately between the assignor and the assignee as well as against third parties, in other jurisdictions this only applies once the debtor has been notified of the assignment (signification in French law pursuant to former Art. 1690 of the Code civil or within the framework of legal assignment in the UK).

Connecting factor: habitual residence of the assignor combined with sectorial exceptions

The connecting factors employed by current national PIL rules considerably vary between the member states. In principle, three connecting factors compete with each other: the habitual residence of the assignor, the law applicable to the transfer agreement (assignment ground statute) and the law applicable to the transferred claim. Furthermore, the law at the debtor’s domicile might also be considered an important factor.

Art. 4 (1) of the Draft Regulation unties this gordic knot as it specifies the law of the country in which the assignor has his habitual residence “at the relevant time” as the primary connecting factor. The goal of the European Commission is to create legal certainty and, above all, to promote cross-border trade in claims. By way of sectoral exceptions, the law of the transferred claim is to be applied if either (i) “cash collateral” credited to an account or (ii) claims from financial instruments are transferred (Art. 4 (2) of the Draft Regulation).

A downside of the link to the law of habitual residence is its changeability, which may lead to a conflit mobile. By altering the connecting factor, the applicable law may also change leading to legal uncertainty. To overcome such conflict, so called meta conflict of laws rules are also provided for in the Draft Regulation. In this case, it is a matter of determining the relevant point in time in order to make a viable connection. This rule has been implemented in Art. 4 (2) of the Draft Regulation.

An unsolved problem is the determination of the “material point in time” cited in Art. 4 (1) of the Draft Regulation. Accordingly, the third parties’ effects are determined by the assignor’s habitual residence at the relevant time. However, neither a recital nor the catalogue of Art. 2 of the Draft Regulation give an adequate definition of this relevant point in time so far. It is therefore advisable to replace the term “at the relevant time” with “at the time of conclusion of the assignment contract” in the final regulation. This is also reflected in the EP’s legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 (P8_TA-PROV(2019)0086, p. 12). The advantage of this clarification would be that the same point in time would be relevant in the legal systems of the member states which follow the principle of separation as well as those which follow the principle of unity.

A step forward?

The Draft Regulation would represent a major step forward in the trade of cross-border receivables in the EU. It closes a large gap within European PIL, while at the same time aiding EU member states to partly adapt their domestic legal system accordingly. Even if the European Commission did not comply with the (unrealistic) deadline for the review cited in Art. 27 (2) of the Rome I Regulation, the legal debate made this essential progress possible demonstrating the EU’s ability to reach compromises. Although the Draft Regulation solves many problems, it may also raise new ones. That is again good news for lawyers interested in PIL. Nevertheless, the enactment of the Draft Regulation would eventually answer “one of the most frequently discussed questions of international contract law”. The old saying “patience is a virtue” would be proven right again.

This blog post is a condensed version of the author’s article in ZEuP 2019, 41 et seqq. which explores the new Draft Regulation in more detail and contains comprehensive references to the relevant literature.

The Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law has published two new articles on the Hague Judgments project, just in time for the upcoming Diplomatic Session in June. David Goddard QC, Chair of the Special Commission on the Judgments Project, describes the current state of play in the development of a draft Convention and identifies some of the key issues that participants will need to address when they meet in June. Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University and formerly First Secretary at the Hague Conference) provides the background on the negotiations through the years and suggests bucking the past to provide for the future. Both articles, emerging from symposia at NYU and at the AALS annual meeting respectively, will be essential reading for participants and observers of the Diplomatic Session.

The latest issue of RabelsZ has just been released. It focuses on “legal methodology” and contains the following articles:

Reinhard Zimmermann, Reinhard, Juristische Methodenlehre in Deutschland (Legal Methodology in Germany), pp. 241 et seq

The existence of a method, and thus also of a methodology, is very widely regarded as essential for an academic discipline. In Germany, law is, and has always been, an academic discipline. It is the object of what is referred to as Rechtswissenschaft (literally: legal “science”; less literally: scholarship relating to the law), characterized by a specifically legal methodology. Legal methodology is a foundational subject taught in German law faculties and set out in a rich body of legal literature. The present essay attempts to assess, on the basis of that literature, how lawyers are conceived (or perhaps rather: supposed) to operate in Germany. A specificity of the German discourse is the conceptual distinction between statutory interpretation and judicial development of the law. The essay provides an analysis of the various factors relevant within the enterprise of statutory interpretation, and of the prerequisites, the different levels, and the legitimacy of judicial development of the law. It also alerts the reader to the political experiences overshadowing the methodological discourse in Germany. The essay starts with five observations of a more general nature focusing on (i) methodological commonalities in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria; (ii) the normative character of the methodological discourse; (iii) (emerging) methodological differences between different fields of law; (iv) the place of Rechtsdogmatik (legal doctrine and the scholarship associated with its creation); and (v) the historical background of the German discourse.

Gregor Christandl, Juristische Methodenlehre in Italien oder: Kurze Geschichte der italienischen Zivilrechtswissenschaft ab dem 19. Jahrhundert (Legal Methodology in Italy – A Brief History of Italian Private Law Scholarship since the 19th Century), pp. 288 et seq

In Italy, as in other continental legal systems, it is common to refer to “legal science” (scienze giuridiche) with regard to legal scholarship. Since the main purpose of such a legal science is the solution of practical cases or legal problems, it requires a method, or in other words, a prescribed process of single steps that lead to a solution. It is the purpose of this article to find out whether there is any discussion of such legal methodology in Italy, what role it plays in academic legal education and how it has developed since the 19th century. If one agrees that all legal methodology comes down to methods of interpretation of the law, the history of methodology is a history of interpretation. This article therefore also recounts the major developments in the history of interpretation of Italian private law and critically assesses the latest stage of “Italian legal style” in the last fifty years.

Coro Jansen, The Methodology of Dutch Private Law from the Nineteenth Century Onwards, pp. 316 et seq

– No abstract available –

Gerhard Dannemann, Juristische Methodenlehre in England (Legal Methodology in England), pp. 330 et seq

There is no equivalent to the German juristische Methodenlehrein English law. Four of its aspects have appeared to different degrees, in different combinations, and at different times in English legal education and textbooks: (i) the development of case law through the doctrine of binding precedent; (ii) the interpretation of statutes; (iii) jurisprudence; and (iv) the classification and systematization of English law. Based on a historical review of legal education at English universities, the article describes that aspects (i) and (ii) continue to be taught, but separately from (iii), which no longer is a core element at many universities, and that (iv), never a strength of the common law, is frequently neglected. The article offers six reasons why something akin to juristische Methodenlehre  has never taken off in English law: (i) when legal methodology was refined and developed in 19th  century Germany, English law was facing very different problems and only saw the beginnings of university education; (ii) unlike in Germany, legal methodology has never been a compulsory element of legal education; (iii) employers, whose professional organizations still determine the compulsory elements of the legal education syllabus, expect more practical than methodological skills; (iv) student demand for legal methodology has been consistently low; (v) a three-year syllabus for an English LL.B. can accommodate fewer subjects than a four- to five-year syllabus for a German first degree in law; and (vi) English law has demonstrated with its development of case law over the last decades in particular that it is nevertheless quite capable of achieving the goals which German legal methodology seeks to attain, doing so arguably better than German law.

Hans Petter Graver, Teaching Legal Method in Norway, pp. 346 et seq

– No abstract available –

Gabriele Koziol, Juristische Methodenlehrein Japan (Legal Methodology in Japan), pp. 361 et seq

Starting in the 1920s, legal methodology established itself as the object of lively discussions in Japan. Unlike in Germany, however, the discussion did not focus on concrete problems of statutory interpretation, being led instead on a more abstract level. Issues discussed included, for instance, the question of how to deal with law imported from Western countries at the end of the 19th century and the importance of legal dogmatics, considering also the relationship of case law and statutes. While for some time a pragmatic approach prevailed – an approach sometimes even rejecting the binding nature of statutes – in recent years there has once again been a tendency towards a more systematic-functional approach. In legal practice, a set of interpretation methods is generally acknowledged which by and large resemble those adopted under German law. However, some peculiarities of Japanese court practice can be found with regard to the acknowledged sources of law as well as, for example, the use of analogy. In legal education at universities, legal methodology does not play an important role. Nevertheless, the academic discussion on methodological issues has also dealt with the question of what legal education should look like. Currently, the discourse on methodological questions is witnessing a revival, partly due to an increased interest in law and economics. Also, the recent reform of the law of obligations could bring about some changes in the approach to statutory interpretation.

This year’s annual meeting of the German branch of the International Law Association will take place in Frankfurt/Main on 7 June 2019. The current topic will be the question whether there is a renaissance of soft law in international law. The confirmed speakers include Professors Michael Stürner (University of Konstanz), Mahulena Hofmann (University of Luxembourg) and Jürgen Bast (University of Gießen). The speakers will address the subject both from a public and a private international law perspective, with a special focus on the harmonisation of private law, on space law and on the UN Global Compact on Migration. For further information and registration, please click here.