Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Kessedjian on Arbitration and Brussels I

March 4, 2010/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

 Catherine Kessedjian, who teaches at the European College of Paris (University Paris 2), has published in the last issue of the French Revue de l’arbitrage an article on Arbitration and the Brussels I Regulation (Le Règlement 44/2001 et l’arbitrage).

The English abstract reads:

The arbitration exception in Regulation 44/2001 must not be altered in the future amended Regulation, at least until all questions posed by the relation between an arbitral proceeding and a judicial proceeding have been thoroughly reflected upon. This must be done, notably, bearing in mind the role of Europe as a favoured place of arbitration. In addition, the reform of 44/2001 may not be limited to intra-European cases but also deal with relations to Third States, hence an even more cautious approach to the matter is necessary. In that context, Europe should not act unilaterally, unless efforts are undertaken at a universal level and have failed. With this in mind, this paper discusses the questions which occur in practice.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2010-03-04 08:20:212010-03-04 08:20:21Kessedjian on Arbitration and Brussels I

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
Link to: Parrish on Duplicative Foreign Litigation Link to: Parrish on Duplicative Foreign Litigation Parrish on Duplicative Foreign Litigation Link to: Mourre on Hess’ Guest Editorial Link to: Mourre on Hess’ Guest Editorial Mourre on Hess’ Guest Editorial
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top