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

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

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

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

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

Speaker: Professor Alex Mills (Faculty of Laws, UCL)

Chair: Professor Campbell McLachlan QC (Victoria University Wellington)

Date and time: 06 February 2020, 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm

Location: Bentham House, UCL Laws, London, WC1H 0EG, United Kingdom

Abstract

The boundary between public and private legal relations at the international level has become increasingly fluid. State actors engage internationally in private commercial activity, while the privatisation of traditional governmental functions has led to private actors exercising ostensibly public authority, and accelerated the development of a hybridised public-private international investment law. Privatisation as a general phenomenon is much debated, although there has been relatively little focus on the governmental functions which are perhaps of most interest to lawyers – law making, law enforcement, and dispute resolution. This lecture will argue that modern legal developments in the context of private law and cross-border private legal relations can be usefully analysed as two distinct forms of privatisation. First, privatisation of the allocative functions of public and private international law, in respect of both institutional and substantive aspects of regulation. Second, privatisation of the institutional and substantive regulation of private legal relationships themselves, through arbitration and the recognition of non-state law. Analysing these developments through the lens of privatisation highlights a number of important critical questions which deserve greater consideration.

About the Speaker

Alex Mills is Professor of Public and Private International Law in the Faculty of Laws, University College London. His research encompasses a range of foundational issues across public and private international law, as well as international investment law and commercial arbitration. He has degrees in Philosophy and Law from the University of Sydney, and an LLM and PhD (awarded the Yorke Prize) from the University of Cambridge, where he also taught before joining UCL. His publications include ‘Party Autonomy in Private International Law’ (CUP, 2018), ‘The Confluence of Public and Private International Law’ (CUP, 2009), and (co-authored) ‘Cheshire North and Fawcett’s Private International Law’ (OUP, 2017). He was awarded the American Society of International Law’s Private International Law Prize in 2010, has Directed Studies in Private International Law at the Hague Academy of International Law, and is a member of Blackstone Chambers Academic Advisory Panel and the Editorial Board of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly.

The organisors request you to consult for more information and to register for the event here.

By Tasha Joseph

The confusion between ‘place’, ‘seat’ and ‘venue’ in International Commercial Arbitration cases was put to rest in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hardy Explorations And Production(India) Inc.1. The decision was given by a three-judge bench which unanimously passed the decision that ‘seat’, ‘venue’ and ‘place’ did not signify the same meaning and could not be used interchangeably. Instead, the three terms denote different meanings and in the absence of express provision for any of the same, there were tests to be met in order to determine the actual ‘place’, ‘venue’ and ‘seat’.

In this case, Kuala Lumpur was selected as the ‘venue’ for the arbitration proceedings in the agreement, with the application of the UNCITRAL model for the same. Upon the Union of India challenging the award under section 342 in the Delhi High Court, the Court had to determine whether Kuala Lumpur was the ‘seat’ and hence if the action in the Indian court was unmaintainable. The Delhi High Court held that the courts did not have jurisdiction and thus refrained from looking into the merits of the case. The matter then went to a division bench and finally a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.

The court went into the previous decisions such as Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC & Ors. 3, Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. 4and BALCO case5 to understand the principles that need to be applied for deciding the seat of arbitral proceedings.

The Court observed that the determination of the seat has to be contextually done. Only when the ‘place’ was agreed upon, in the agreement, between the parties, ‘place’ would be equivalent to the seat. Positive action is needed and for ‘place’ to be treated as ‘seat’, a condition precedent (if any) must be met as well. For instance, a ‘place’ can become a ‘seat’ if a condition precedent present (if any) is met. For the ‘venue’ to become ‘seat’ something else was needed as a concomitant to the provision of ‘venue’ in the agreement. ‘Venue’ and ‘place’ do not ipso facto assume the status of a ‘seat’.

There were no conditions precedent or any positive act mentioned to determine Kuala Lumpur as the ‘seat’ in the concerned matter and hence Kuala Lumpur could not be treated as the juridical seat. Thus, the matter was maintainable as the courts in India have jurisdiction and the order passed by the Delhi High Court had been set aside.

The Conference represents the final event of the JUDGTRUST Project (2018-2020), funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union (2014-2020). The objective of the Project is to identify best practices and to provide guidelines in the interpretation and application of Regulation 1215/2012 (BI-bis). The JUDGTRUST Project is coordinated by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and carried out in partnership with the University of Hamburg, the University of Antwerp and the Internationaal Juridisch Instituut.

The Conference will host panels on, inter alia, the scope of application, relationship with other instruments, rules on jurisdiction, provisional measures, as well as enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments. Additionally, the key findings from the National Reports of the EU Member States will be presented. It aims to bring together academics, policy makers and legal practitioners. It will take place on Thursday 24 September 2020 at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague. 

More information will be provided on the Project website (https://www.asser.nl/judgtrust) shortly.

Advocate General Szpunar proposes that the Court should rule that the victims of the sinking of a ship flying the Panamanian flag can bring an action for damages under the Brussels I Regulation as a “civil and commercial matter” in the sense of Article 1 before the Italian courts against the Italian bodies which classified and certified that ship.

At para. 47, the Opinion deals with the effect of customary international law on the scope ratione materiae of the Brussels I Regulation and holds:

[t]he EU legislature might have drawn inspiration from customary international law and taken general guidance from it in so far as concerns the distinction between acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis. However, I am of the opinion that it did not have recourse to the concept of immunity from jurisdiction in order to define precisely the reach of EU rules in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications or, in particular, the material scope of Regulation No 44/2001.

At para. 59, the Opinion explains the concept of “civil and commercial matters” abstractly with a view to previous case law and holds:

[t]he Court has repeatedly held that it is the exercise of public powers by one of the parties to the case, inasmuch as it exercises powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals, that excludes such a case from civil and commercial matters within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that regulation. On that basis the Court has already held that an action whereby a tax authority of one Member State claims damages for loss caused by a tortious conspiracy to commit value added tax (VAT) fraud in that Member State falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, provided that the tax authority is in the same position as a person governed by private law in the action in question. I infer from this that, in order to determine whether or not Regulation No 44/2001 is applicable in a case, it is not necessary to focus upon the field or area to which belongs the act in respect of which liability is alleged; it is necessary to consider whether that act proceeds from the exercise of public powers

As an interim conclusion, the Opinion states, at paras. 99 et seq.:

99. …[t]he mere fact that the defendants carried out the acts at issue upon delegation from a State does not in itself mean that the dispute in which liability for those acts is alleged falls outside the scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 44/2001. Secondly, the fact that those acts were carried out on behalf of, and in the interests of the delegating State does not have that effect either. Thirdly and last, the fact that those operations were carried out in performance of international obligations of the delegating State in no way calls the foregoing conclusions into question.

100. Nevertheless, whenever recourse is had to public powers when carrying out acts, Regulation No 44/2001 will not as a result apply ratione materiae in a dispute in which liability for those acts is alleged. Given the range of powers exercised by the defendants in carrying out the classification and certification of the Al Salam Boccaccio ’98, those operations cannot be regarded as proceeding from the exercise of public powers.

101.  In light of the foregoing, it should be held that Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages brought against private-law bodies concerning classification and certification activities carried out by those bodies upon delegation from a third State, on behalf of and in the interests of that State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

After rejecting jurisdictional immunity for the defendants, the Advocate General concluded, at para. 155:

Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages brought against private-law bodies in respect of classification and certification activities carried out by those bodies as delegates of a third State, on behalf of that State and in its interests, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

The principle of customary international law concerning the jurisdictional immunity of States does not preclude the application of Regulation No 44/2001 in proceedings relating to such an action.

The Opinion can be found here.