As announced earlier, Erasmus School of Law is recruiting five researchers for a project on Affordable Access to Civil Justice in Europe, financed by the Dutch Research Council. The deadline for application has been extended till 27 July 2020. See our previous post.
The EU Regulations on the Property Regimes of International Couples – A Commentary has been published by Edward Elgar in its “Elgar Commentaries in Private International Law” series.
The publisher’s abstract reads: This article-by-article Commentary on EU Regulations 2016/1103 and 2016/1104 critically examines the uniform rules adopted by the EU to deal with the property relations of international couples, both married and in registered partnerships. Written by experts from a variety of European countries, it offers a comprehensive side-by-side discussion of the two Regulations to provide context and a deeper understanding of the issues of jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition of judgements covered.
Edited by Ilaria Viarengo and Pietro Franzina, this commentary features contributions by Giacomo Biagioni, Andrea Bonomi, Beatriz Campuzano Díaz, Janeen Carruthers, Sabine Corneloup, Gilles Cuniberti, Elena D’Alessandro, Pietro Franzina, Martin Gebauer, Christian Kohler, Silvia Marino, Cristina M. Mariottini, Dieter Martiny, Csongor I. Nagy, Jacopo Re, Carola Ricci, Andres Rodríguez Benot, Lidia Sandrini, Ilaria Viarengo and Patrick Wautelet.
Further info here
Back in February we reported on the Opinion presented by Advocate General Tanchev in case C-249/19, JE. Today the Court of Justice rendered its Judgment in which it confirms the interpretation provided in the Opinion.
As a reminder, the question referred to the Court of Justice originated in the proceedings pending before the Romanian courts dealing with a petition for divorce. The parties to these proceedings are Romanian nationals, habitually resident in Italy.
In these circumstances, under Article 8(a) of the Rome III Regulation, it is a priori Italian law that governs the grounds of divorce. According to Italian law, the dissolution of marriage can be pronounced only where there had been a legal separation of the spouses and at least three years have passed between this separation and the time at which the court have been seized by the applicant.
Seized of a petition for divorce, the first instance court considered that since no provision is made for legal separation proceedings under Romanian law, such proceedings must be conducted before the Italian courts and therefore any application to that effect made before the Romanian courts is inadmissible.
Yet, seized of an appeal lodged by the applicant, the second instance court focused on Article 10 of the Regulation that states, inter alia, ‘[w]here the law applicable […] makes no provision for divorce […], the law of the forum shall apply’. That court referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court asking, in essence, whether Italian law could be disapplied under Article 10.
In his Opinion presented this February, AG Tanchev held that Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation calls for a strict interpretation. The expression ‘where the law applicable pursuant to Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ relates only to situations in which the applicable foreign law does not recognize the institution of divorce. Italian law should therefore be applied by the Romanian courts. Despite the lack of procedural rules in relation to legal separation, these courts have to verify whether the requirement relating to separation was met.
The Judgment is in line with the Opinion: it confirms that a foreign law can be disapplied on the basis of Article 10 only when that law does not provide for any form of divorce.
As discussed in the initial post, at points 64 to 66, the Opinion seems to qualify the requirement provided for in the Italian law as a ‘procedural condition’. That qualification does not appear explicitly in the Judgment. At paragraph 43, the Judgment convincingly confines itself to stating that the substantive requirement at issue consists on a three years’ separation of the spouses and that the lack of procedural rules in relation to legal separation cannot prevent the Romanian court from verifying whether that requirement is met.
Against this background, at paragraph 40, the Judgment makes a point in the context of effectiveness of the Rome III Regulation. If the application of the requirement provided for in Italian law leads to the situation where the petitions for divorce are being rejected without their examination, the practical effectiveness of the uniform conflict of laws rules on divorce is undermined. I deem the references to the effectiveness/effet utile to be highly interesting. See paragraph 20 of the Judgment in Bier for one of the earliest occurrences of such reference. The Judgment in JE is yet another example: it presents a noteworthy take on the interaction between effet utile and conflict of laws rules. It will be interesting to see whether and how that specific line of argument will be developed in the future.
This Call for Paper is for an edited volume, the working title of which is: Public International Law and Private International Law: Charting a blurry boundary – towards convergence or still divergence?
The editors, Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (of the University of Tasmania) and Dharmita Prasad (of Jindal Global Law School), are in negotiation with Springer Nature Pte Ltd for this edited volume.
Both editors would like to invite you to contribute a chapter in this edited volume focusing on addressing intersectionality between public international law and private international law. Further details are provided in the concept note below.
Tentative Timeline:
Editors:
Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit – Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, E-mail: poomintr.sooksripaisarnkit@utas.edu.au
Dharmita Prasad – Lecturer, Jindal Global Law School, E-mail: dprasad@jgu.edu.in
Concept Note
International law has a long history which can be traced back to over thousands of years ago with developments of modern international law took their starting point from the consequence of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 whereby the concept of nation state emerged. Along with the rise of legal positivism, international law became perceived as the body of law dealing with external aspects of States or, in other words, with relationships between States. Private disputes with foreign elements were gradually taken out of the scope of international law and students of private international law subject have since been taught of it as a domestic private law dealing with cases or disputes involving foreign elements. Public international law and private international law seemingly diverge.
Still, relationships and interactions between public international law and private international law have led to endless debates. Courts in considering what seemingly private international law cases from time to time have to touch on public international law issues. For example, the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Democratic Republic of Congo and Others v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC [2011] HKCFA 41; (2011) HKCFAR 95 had to deal with the concept of sovereign immunity in a case which was essentially an enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Likewise, the issue of sovereign immunity is likely to come up again in a class action lawsuit brought against the People’s Republic of China by thousands of American citizens claiming damages following the COVID-19 outbreak. Relevant to the COVID-19 outbreak, different countries have adopted different measures in an attempt to contain the virus, including closing borders, travel bans, compulsory quarantine, etc. Applying some or all of these measures will bring further complication in terms of potential issues or arguments involving possible frustration of international contracts. Within the scope of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), this involves the consideration of the scope of the force majeure and hardship provision in Article 79. Indeed, international instruments like the CISG present examples of attempts at avoiding private international law issues via public international law instruments. European experiences in negotiating instruments such as the Brussels Regime or wider international experiences in negotiating instruments under the auspices of international organisations such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law only point to the turning of conflict of law matters into international relations. These are some of the issues which highlight the blurry line between public international law and private international law.
This book seeks to contribute to existing debates by focusing its study on the boundary / intersectionality between pubic international law and private international law. In doing so, it seeks contribution for any work which falls within one of the following themes:
Nearly a year ago I reported on a Greek judgment refusing execution of two English orders issued on the basis of a High Court judgment which granted declaratory relief to the applicants. This came as a result of proceedings initiated in Greece, in breach of the settlement agreements and the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favor of English courts. A recent judgment rendered by the same court confirmed the incidental recognition of the same High Court judgment, which resulted in the dismissal of the claim filed before Greek courts due to lack of jurisdiction.
Piraeus Court of Appeal Nr. 89/31.01.2020
THE FACTS
The facts of the case are clearly presented in the case Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm) (26 September 2014. The UK defendants invoked before the Piraeus first instance court the judgment aforementioned, and requested incidental recognition in Greece. The Piraeus court granted recognition, and dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed, seeking reversal on two grounds: Lack of res iudicata and violation of Article 34 (1) Brussels I Regulation.
THE RULING
The Piraeus CoA founded its ruling on point 39 of the English judgment:
Res iudicata and public policy
The Piraeus court had no difficult task in establishing the finality of the English judgment: It simply referred to the certificate issued by the English court.
The public policy defence was also considered as unfounded, by reference to Article 35 (2 and 3) Brussels I Regulation.
No anti-suit injunction order
It then stressed out that the foreign judgment solidifies the exclusive international jurisdiction of English courts, without ordering the claimants/appellants to refrain from filing an action or moving ahead with the proceedings before Greek courts, by imposing any measures for this purpose. Hence, the court continues, the foreign judgment in question fulfils the criteria under Article 32 Brussels I Regulation, and therefore it is not considered as an anti-suit injunction, because it does not hinder the Greek court to examine their jurisdiction. For the above reasons, the English judgment may be incidentally recognized, which means that the Greek court is bound by its findings on the international jurisdiction issue. Finally, it should be underlined that no reference to the Gothaer ruling of the CJEU was made by the Piraeus court.
Clarifications
Finally, the Piraeus court explained the reasons which led to a different outcome from that of the judgment issued by the same court a year ago. First of all, the court was not bound by the res iudicata of the 2019 judgment, because the defendants were not the same. Secondly, the 2019 judgment examined an application for the enforcement of the English orders, whereas in the present case the subject matter was the existence or non-existence of the choice of court clause.
For all the above reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
SHORT COMMENT
Following the case law of the CJEU on anti-suit injunctions, and the non-recognition of the orders, which were labelled by the 2019 judgment as ‘quasi’ anti-suit injunctions, the defendants used the seemingly sole remaining tool for avoiding a re-examination of international jurisdiction on the merits by the Greek courts; the outcome proves them right. The question however remains the same: Are declaratory orders stating that English courts have exclusive jurisdiction and that proceedings in other Member States are in breach of an English exclusive jurisdiction agreement in line with the mutual trust principle? In his thesis [pp. 146 et seq.], Mukarrum Ahmed argues that those orders are at odds with the above principle.
The Greek Supreme will have the final word.
Of course, a preliminary request remains a possibility.
A comprehensive and innovative volume by Tobias Lutzi was recently released providing a dedicated analysis of the EU private international law framework as it applies to online activities and to the civil liability arising therefrom. The volume is a welcome addition to Oxford University Press’s already thriving ‘Oxford Private International Law Series’.
Linking the question of the role of private international law in addressing the challenges brought forth by the Internet to the broader debate about the potential of private international law in conflicts regulation and resolution, the Author identifies in the Internet’s independence from State border and in the prevalence of private ordering the two key challenges for private international law vis-à-vis civil liability arising from online activities.
Selecting, as core areas for his analysis, the protection of personality rights, the protection of intellectual property rights, the prevention of unfair competition, the regulation of agreements, and the protection of weaker contract parties, the Author expounds on the potential of private international law as a tool for regulation. In doing so, he provides a comprehensive overview and critical analysis of the current private international law framework for Internet activities in the European Union, extending his analysis to comparisons with the U.S. legal framework, where desirable.
Against this background, the Author puts forth a proposition for an alternative approach, which aims to bring into balance the interests of the different stakeholders and regulators and the legitimate expectations of the parties to a legal relationship. Notably, he advocates for a new EU instrument providing specific rules of jurisdiction and applicable law that combine a country-of-origin default rule with a targeting-based exception for the structurally weaker parties.
Overall, Tobias Lutzi’s book successfully combines complex theoretical analysis with concrete propositions in a multifaceted and developing area of the law. It exemplifies the contribution of private international law in addressing the challenges arising in information services: in doing so, it illustrates how policies and political aims may be promoted via private international law. As such, his book is an essential and highly recommended reading for academics, regulators, and practitioners.
Tobias LUTZI, Private International Law Online. Internet Regulation and Civil Liability in the EU, pp. vii-223 (Oxford University Press, 2020), available for purchase at global.opu.com.
by Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Associate Professor of the University of Sydney Law School, Jeanne.huang@sydney.edu.au
Recently, in Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc ([2020] FCA 531), the Federal Court of Australia (‘FCA’) addresses substituted service and the Hague Service Convention in the contexts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This case is important on whether defendants located outside of Australia in a Hague Convention state can be served by substituted service instead of following the Convention.
1. Facts:
Facebook Inc is a US company (‘Facebook US’) and Facebook Ireland is incorporated in Ireland. Due to the Analytica scandal, the office of the Australian Information Commission has investigated Facebook since April 2018 and hauled Facebook into the FCA on 9 March 2020.[1] According to the Commission, Facebook Inc and Facebook Ireland breached the Privacy Act (Cth) from 12 March 2014 to 1 May 2015.
Both defendants appointed King & Wood Mallesons (‘KWM’) to respond to the Commission’s inquiries before the FCA proceeding was initiated. However, KWM indicated that it had no instructions to accept the service of the originating process.
Consequently, the Commission sought orders under Federal Court Rules (‘FCR’) 2011 rr 10.42 and 10.43(2) for leave to serve Facebook US and Facebook Ireland through the central authorities according to Article 5 of the Hague Convention and by substituted service under r 10.24. The proposed substituted service was to email the judicial documents to the named persons at KWM and the Head of Data Protection and Privacy and Associate General Counsel at Facebook Ireland.
2. Ruling
On 22 April 2020, the FCA granted both leave to serve outside Australia and the order for substituted service.
Leave to serve outside Australia was granted pursuant to FCR 2011 rr 10.42, 10.43(2) and (4). This is because the court held that it had original jurisdiction in the proceeding. As the proceeding was related to the Privacy Act, it fell into the item 14 of r 10.42 for service outside Australia. Moreover, the Commission established a prima facie case for the reliefs claimed in the proceeding. Further, the proposed method of service via the central authorities in the US and Ireland complied with Article 5 of the Hague Convention.
Relying on FCR 2011 r 10.24, the court considered the impact of the pandemic on service of process in the US and Ireland and consequently granted the order for substituted service. On one hand, the court held that it was not presently practicable to effect service on Facebook US pursuant to Article 5 of the Hague Convention. This is because ABC Legal has ‘suspended service of process nationwide’ across the US according to its website. ABC Legal is the contractor for the US Department of Justice in charge of serving foreign processes on private individuals and companies in the US under the Hague Convention. On the other hand, regarding Facebook Ireland, the court acknowledged that Ireland’s High Court and postal services remained operative.[2] Nevertheless, the court held that ‘it is impracticable to do so in the rapidly changing and evolving environment caused by the current pandemic; the present situation may have changed by the time service in the relevant way would be sought to be effected’.[3] Paragraph 66 contains the most important legal reasoning in the judgment concerning substituted service[4]
‘[t]his Court has held, in circumstances analogous to the present, that an order for substituted service may be made under either r 10.24 or r 10.49 : Commissioner of Taxation v Zeitouni (2013) 306 ALR 603 at [60] (Katzmann J); see also: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2035 at [18] (French J); Commissioner of Taxation v Oswal [2012] FCA 1507 at [32] (Gilmour J). Even if that position is incorrect, I would have ordered substituted service under r 10.49, with a dispensation from the implicit requirement to attempt service under r 1.34, for equivalent reasons to those for which I will order substituted service under r 10.24, explained next.’
3. Comments
Before discussing the court’s reasoning, we need to differentiate FCR 2011 r 10.49 from r 10.24.
FCR 2011 r 10.49 requires that the attempt to serve a defendant in a Hague Convention state according to the Convention should be made before a plaintiff applies to substituted service:
‘If service was not successful on a person in a foreign country, in accordance with a convention, the Hague Convention or the law of a foreign country, a party may apply to the Court without notice for an order:
(a) substituting another method of service; or
(b) specifying that, instead of being served, certain steps be taken to bring the document to the attention of the person; or
(c) specifying that the document is taken to have been served:
(i) on the happening of a specified event; or
(ii) at the end of a specified time.’
FCR 2011 r 10.24 states:
‘If it is not practicable to serve a document on a person in a way required by these Rules, a party may apply to the Court without notice for an order:
(a) substituting another method of service; or
(b) specifying that, instead of being served, certain steps be taken to bring the document to the attention of the person; or
(c) specifying that the document is taken to have been served:
(i) on the happening of a specified event; or
(ii) at the end of a specified time.’
In light of the differences between rr 10.49 and 10.24, the court’s reasoning is questionable in three respects.
First, the Hague Convention is not applicable to all the three cases cited in Paragraph 66 of the judgment. Zeitouni[5] and Kokos[6] are cases where the defendants’ addresses were unknown. The Oswal court noted that it was unclear who might be present at the address to accept service on behalf of the defendant.[7] Article 1 of the Hague Convention explicitly indicates that these are circumstances where the Convention is not applicable.[8] In contrast, Facebook is subject to the Hague Convention. Notably, it is widely accepted that the Hague Convention is of the ‘non-mandatory but exclusive’ nature.[9] That is, service in Convention states must be conducted in a method permitted by the Convention. Therefore, in Facebook, the attempt requirement of r 10.49 should not be lightly dispensed with unless the rare instance under r 1.34 is satisfied.
Second, the facts of Facebook does not warrant the court to invoke the rare instance of r 1.34 in disregarding the usual attempt requirement contemplated in r 10.49. There is a long-standing legal doctrine holding that substituted service should not be used to extend the court’s jurisdiction in the absence of any other power to do so. In Laurie v Carroll, the High Court of Australia held that substituted service should not be used to replace personal service if the defendant was out of the jurisdiction when a writ was issued. In Facebook, no real urgency for service exists. The claim is about the defendants’ conduct in 2014 and 2015. There is also no evidence showing that the two defendants may liquidate their assets in Australia or that any third party should be joined swiftly. Although due to the COVID-19 pandemic, service according to the Hague Convention may cause uncertain delay of the proceeding at the FCA, this reason alone is unlikely to justify the substitution of the Hague Convention. This is because, as a Hague Convention member state, Australia is obliged to serve foreign defendants in a Convention state according to the ‘non-mandatory but exclusive’ nature of the Convention. Moreover, a delay of proceeding is distinct from the urgency of proceeding contemplated in r 1.34, as per Swan Brewery Co Ltd v Atlee. In this case, the defendant was in the Philippines, where service through diplomatic channels could take six months or considerably more. However, the court rejected the plaintiff’s application for an order to serve a sequestration order by post. The court held that, while the utilisation of the diplomatic channel was impractical, it was not established on the evidence that personal service was not impractical. Similarly, in Facebook, although the ABC Legal Service in the US suspended its service, no evidence showed that service via the US post was impractical. The COVID-19 pandemic’s effect in delaying the proceedings alone cannot justify the dispense of the attempt requirement in r 10.49.
Third, more evidence should be required to prove that rr 10.24 and 10.45 are satisfied in Facebook. Because Ireland’s High Court and postal services are operative amid the COVID-19 pandemic, serving Facebook Ireland in accordance with Hague Convention is possible. The court described how the environment is ‘rapidly changing and evolving’ due to the pandemic.[10] However, the curve of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Ireland has flattened, thereby indicating a realistic possibility that the environment may recover, not worsen. Further, ‘being not practical’ should be determined by ‘whether at the date on which the application regarding service is made, the applicant, using reasonable effort, [was] unable to serve the respondent personally (emphasis added)’[11] Additionally, the mere fact that Facebook was aware of the proceeding cannot suffice to satisfy the requirement of ‘not practicable’ in r 10.24.[12] Therefore, the court’s reasoning that it is not practical to serve Facebook Ireland by forecasting the future change is not without doubts.
In conclusion, the Facebook court granted substituted service too lightly.
[1] The dispute centered on the ‘This is your digital life’ App (hereinafter ‘APP’). The defendants allowed the APP to request information from the Facebook accounts of 305,000 Facebook Users globally who installed the APP, of which approximately 53 were Australian. They also allowed the APP to request the personal information of approximately 86,3000,000 Facebook Users globally (approximately 311,074 of whom were Australian Facebook Users) who were friends of the installers (that is, they did not install the APP themselves). The personal information the APP obtained from the defendants were released to third parties, including the Cambridge Analytica Ltd, and/or its parent company, for profit.
[2] The Hague Service Convention website page relating to Ireland describes the prescribed methods as ‘[p]ersonal or by post.’ Ireland permits service of the court documents on individuals and entities in Ireland (e.g. Facebook Ireland) by post under the Hague Convention.
[3] Facebook [71].
[4] Facebook, [66].
[5] Zeitouni, [65]. There was no dispute that the Commissioner did not know the address(es) of the defendants. Though presumably in a position to provide information on the whereabouts of the defendants, their lawyers refrained from doing so. The Australian Federal Police had been looking for one brother who was in Indonesia for six months without success. For the other brother, the Commissioner only knew he was not in Australia but did not know where he went.
[6] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2035, [18]. Although ACCC knew that the defendant was likely in Japan, it had been unable to obtain an address at which he could be served. Neither the defendant nor his solicitors would provide an address for service. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australia Embassy in Japan were unable to make inquiries on the ACCC’s behalf. Therefore, the plaintiff could not make an attempt to serve the defendant in Japan. The court held that service was not practical, and a substitute service was granted under ord 7 r 9 of FCR 1979.
[7] Oswal, [35]–[36]. Mrs. Oswal was not in Australia. Her last known address was in the UAE, but she is also an Indian national and has business interests in Singapore. Consequently, it is not possible to know with certainty her whereabouts to effect personal service.
[8] Hague Service Convention art 1.
[9] Hague Conference on Private International Law, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, ed Christophe Bernasconia and Laurence Thébault (Wilson & Lafleur, 2006) [24]-[41].
[10] Facebook [66].
[11] Foxe v Brown [1984] HCA 69, [547] as applied in O’Neil v Acott (1988) 59 NTR 1, 2.
[12] Morris v McConaghy Australia (No 4), [2018] FCA 1516, [16]. The second defendant MC2 was in the Cayman Islands. There was no dispute that MC2 was aware of the originating process and had notice of the relevant court documents. However, the court required that the service must be conducted under the Hague Convention because the mere fact that the document has been brought to the attention of the party being served cannot suffice to satisfy r 48(a) (i.e. the requirement of ‘not practical’).
Following successful events in Bonn and Würzburg, the third iteration of the conference for young German-speaking scholars in private international law will take place – hopefully as one of the first events post-Corona – on 18 and 19 March 2021 at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg. The conference will focus on the theme of PIL for a better world: Vision – Reality – Aberration?; it will include a keynote by Angelika Nußberger, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, and a panel discussion between Roxana Banu, Hans van Loon, and Ralf Michaels.
The organisers are inviting contributions that explore any aspect of the conference theme, which can be submitted until 20 September 2020. The call for papers and further information can be found on the conference website.
written by Michael Wells-Greco
(Note: publication of this book was announced earlier.)
La gestación por sustitución en el derecho internacional privado y comparado
Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas UNAM – Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)
México, 2020
This highly informative and timely book edited by María Mercedes Albornoz addresses the pressing challenges presented by surrogacy arrangements. With contributions from Nuria González Martín, Verónica Esparza, Ximena Medellín Urquiaga, Isabel Fulda, Rebeca Ramos, Regina Tamés, Mónica Velarde, Federico Notrica, Cristina González Beilfuss, Rosa Elvira Vargas, María Virginia Aguilar, Francisco López González, María Mercedes Albornoz and Nieve Rubaja, and a thought provoking preface by Eleonora Lamm, this collection contains a remarkable wealth of comparative Ibero-America legal materials on surrogacy. While comparisons are made with the diverse national surrogacy approaches in other parts of the world, much of the comparative discussion centres on the experience of surrogacy in the Americas (in Mexico and Argentina, in particular). The careful analysis demonstrates the challenges for many states arising from surrogacy arrangements.
The book contains a number of contributions that provide international perspectives on surrogacy. These include, for example, a careful consideration of the impact and relevance of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the discussion begs the question whether the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will be seised to consider surrogacy in ways similar to its European cousin) and two reflective discussions on the work and aims of international surrogacy projects. The current situation in the Americas highlights ever more starkly the need for the international community to come together to consider whether a multilateral framework might be agreed upon which enable states to work together to uphold the human rights of all concerned. Only a holistic analysis by the global community can begin to determine whether international frameworks can achieve these aims.
Yet there are limitations with possible international approaches. There are also limits to what is considered to be morally acceptable. It is rightly posited that it is for each state to consider its national approach to surrogacy (which may include prohibition) but public policy is not an empty vessel and it cannot be deployed as a blanket defence when legal parent-child relationships are established abroad. There is an acceptance that surrogacy is not going to go away, so consideration ought to be given to the more complex and important human rights considerations it raises, which means focusing on the interests of children, as well as those of the surrogate (who in the volume is intentionally not referred to as the surrogate mother) herself.
The book returns, as it were, to Mexico and concludes with a proposed model of regulation in Mexico of cross-border surrogacy arrangements through a private international law lens.
The book is a fascinating read – it would interest anyone from lay readers with an interest in surrogacy to academics, lawyers and other professionals.
Dr. Michael Wells-Greco
In lieu of its originally scheduled programme, the Hague Academy of International Law recently announced its first online programme, the invitation to which reads as follows:
The Hague Academy of International Law is pleased to announce the launch of its very first online programme: an entirely online session of its Centre for Studies and Research. This session will take place between September 1st, 2020, and June 1st, 2021, on the theme of Epidemics and International Law. The working language will be English.
The Directors of Research, Professor Shinya Murase (Sophia University, Tokyo) & Ms. Suzanne Zhou (McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, Melbourne) invite applications from researchers including students in the final phase of their doctoral studies, holders of advanced degrees in law, political science, or other related disciplines, early-stage professors and legal practitioners.
Selected participants will each write an article on a sub-topic related to the overall theme of Epidemics and International Law. The research work will start in September 2020 and, following a very strict planning, the articles should be finalized in April/May 2021. Interested applicants must therefore be available to conduct their research and write their contribution in the coming months. The best articles will be included in a book to be published in August 2021 approximately.
Applications can be sent in between July 1st and September 1st, 2020. As the Academy expects to receive a large number of applications, the application deadline might already close on August 1st, 2020. Interested candidates are therefore encouraged to apply as soon as possible using the appropriate online form.
For more information on this programme, please consult the poster, as well as the web pages related to the Centre for Study and Research – Online.