The second issue of 2021 of Giustizia Consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released and it features:
Silvia Barona Vilar (Professor at the University of València) Sfide e pericoli delle ADR nella società digitale e algoritmica del secolo XXI (Challenges and Pitfalls of ADR in the Digital and Algorithmic Society of the XXI Century; in Italian)
The most recent issue of the German Journal of Comparative Law (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft) features the following articles on private international and comparative law:
Jürgen Samtleben: Internationales Privatrecht in Guatemala
Guatemala’s rules on private international law of Guatemala are found in the Law of Judicial Organization of 1989. But conflict-of-law questions are also regulated in other laws. All these legislative texts are based on older laws, since Guatemala has a rich legal tradition on this subject. It is only against the background of this tradition that one can understand the meaning of the laws actually in force. The article discusses the different aspects of Guatemalan private international law, which today is generally based on the principle of domicile. The law of 1989 introduces two innovations which are worth emphasizing: the application of foreign law ex officio and the principle of party autonomy for international contracts.
Dr Johannes Ungerer (Lecturer, University of Oxford)
Cross-border disputes are particularly complex due to the challenges involved in understanding and deciding on the applicable law and international jurisdiction. Contrary to this reality, it is commonly assumed that all private parties are capable of rational choices in pursuit of efficiency, which however disregards the fact that humans are not always guided by rationality but can be affected by psychological biases. Acknowledging ‘bounded rationality’ in cross-border cases calls for reconsidering the way private international law determines which law shall apply and which court may hear the case. In particular, it requires analysing connecting factors from this new perspective, thus appreciating the significance of how bounded rationality affects private parties in choosing a law or court or abstaining from choice.
As many our readers know the first conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL), established in late 2019, had to be rescheduled (twice) due to the Corona pandemic. It will now (hopefully) take place from 2-4 June 2022 at the University of Aarhus (Denmark).
The conference will bring together academics and practitioners from all over Europe and provide a unique opportunity to talk and think about European Private International Law in a pan-European fashion. Topics to be discussed will include the effects and the challenges of digitalization, the problems of fragmentation as well as other challenges the discipline is currently facing. For more information please visit the conference website.
Registration is possible here. For questions, please get in touch with the local organizer, Morten M. Fogt (mmf@law.au.dk).
For more information about EAPIL (including about how to join and how to get involved) please visit the Association’s website at https://eapil.org.
The editors of the European Yearbook for International Economic Law (EYIEL) welcome abstracts from scholars and practitioners at all stages of their career for the focus section of the EYIEL 2022. This year’s focus will be on the impact of climate change on international economic law.
Abstracts may cover any topic relating to dispute settlement in the field of international economic law, though preference is given to topics focusing on the perspective from public and private international or EU law. We particularly welcome contributions addressing the following aspects:
Issue 1/2022 of RabelsZ is out. It contains the following articles (including three open-access articles focusing on “Decolonial Comparative Law”):
Johannes Ungerer: Nudging in Private International Law. The Design of Connecting Factors in Light of Behavioural Economics, Volume 86 (2022) / Issue 1, pp. 1–31, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0002.
The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) has published issue No 46 of the Revista Mexicana de Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado (Mexican Journal of Private International and Comparative Law). It is available here.
Click here to access the Journal page.
A call for papers has been issued for the next number, whose theme will be “Matrimonio poliamoroso en el Derecho internacional privado”. Contributions must be sent before 25 February 2022 to the following email address: < graham@jamesgraham.legal >. For more information, see the last page of the current issue.
Below is the table of contents of No 46:
ÍNDICE
LA VOZ DEL COMITÉ EDITORIAL
DOCTRINA
LA EVOLUCIÓN DEL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO EN NICARAGUA / Jürgen Samtleben
BRIEF REMARKS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF DOMESTIC CRIMINAL LAW IN INVESTMENT ARBITRATION / Fausto Pocar
On Tuesday, Feb 1, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CET). Wolfgang Wurmnest (University Hamburg) will speak, in German, about the topic.
International Jurisdiction for Antitrust Violation Claims
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
The third issue of the Journal of Private International law for 2021 was released today. It features the following articles:
Jonannes Ungerer, “Explicit legislative characterisation of overriding mandatory provisions in EU Directives: Seeking for but struggling to achieve legal certainty”
Traditionally, the judiciary has been tasked with characterising a provision in EU secondary law as an overriding mandatory provision (“OMP”) in the sense of Art 9(1) Rome I Regulation. This paradigm has however shifted recently as the legislator has started setting out such OMP characterisation explicitly, which this paper addresses with regard to EU Directives. The analysis of two Directives on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain and on the resolution of financial institutions reveals that their explicit legislative characterisations of OMPs can benefit legal certainty if properly drafted by the EU and correctly transposed into national law by the Member States. These requirements have not yet been fully met as there are inconsistencies and confusion with only domestically mandatory provisions, which need to be resolved. More generally, the paper elucidates the tensions of competence between legislators and courts on both the EU and national levels due to the explicit legislative characterisation. It also considers the side effects on pre-existing and future provisions in Directives without explicit legislative characterisation. Finally, it acknowledges that the extraterritorial effect of OMPs is intensified and therefore requires the legislator to seek international alignment.
EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.
The sixth EFFORTS Newsletter was just released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.
The EFFORTS Reports on national case-law have also been posted: you may follow this link for the Reports on Belgian, French and Luxembourg case-law, respectively. The other reports will be posted in the forthcoming weeks.
Regular updates are also available via the Project’s website, as well as LinkedIn and Facebook pages.
Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union