A webinar event on “Corporate Due Diligence and Private International Law” organized by the NOVA Centre for Business, Human Rights and the Environment, will hold on February 25, 2021 at 15:00 – 17:30 CET. For more information on the event and how to register see here
Luís de Lima Pinheiro, Professor of Law at the University of Lisbon, has given his so-called “Last Class” earlier this week, thus putting an end to his activity as a Professor at the graduate level in this Law School (while remaining active in post-graduate courses).
The online lecture, in Portuguese, is available here.
In a landmark decision in the case of Okpabi and others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”) ruled on a jurisdictional issue on whether the claimants/appellants have an arguable case that the defendants/respondents – Royal Dutch Shell (an English domiciled company) – owed them a common law duty of care so as properly to found jurisdiction against a foreign subsidiary company (Shell Petroleum Development Corporation Limited, domiciled in Nigeria) as a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. This jurisdictional aspect was concerned with whether there was a real issue to be tried against the anchor defendant – Royal Dutch Shell (an English domiciled company).
The facts of the case was that the claimants/appellants, who are Nigerian citizens alleged that as a result of the negligence of Shell Petroleum Development Corporation Limited, numerous oil spills have occurred from oil pipelines and associated infrastructure operated in the vicinity of the claimants’/appellants’ communities. It is said that these oil spills have caused widespread environmental damage, including serious water and ground contamination, and have not been adequately cleaned up or remediated. It is also alleged that as a result of the spills, the natural water sources in the claimants’/appellants’ communities cannot safely be used for drinking, fishing, agricultural, washing or recreational purposes.
The High Court and Court of Appeal resolved this jurisdictional issue against the claimants/appellants, but the UKSC found merit in their appeal.
Analyses and comments on this decision are most welcome!
The first issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2021 features the following private international law articles:
Adrian Briggs, “A Conflict of Comity in the Enforcement of Judgments”
Patrick Dunn-Walsh, “Insurance Litigation under the Recast Brussels Regulation”
Anthony Kennedy, “A Place to Start”
Myron Phua and Serena Seo Yeon Lee, “Taxonomising “Quasi-Contractual” Anti-suit Injunctions”
Steve Peers (University of Essex) has just published a series of Brexit-related documents on Twitter, two of which appear to confirm that by leaving the European Union, the UK also (believes to have) ceased to be a party to the 1968 Brussels Convention and the 1980 Rome Convention – which many have argued might revive between the UK and those EU Member States who are parties to them.
The two letters, sent by the UK Government to the Council of the EU, both contain the following paragraph:
The Government of the United Kingdom hereby notifies the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union that it considers that the [Brussels Convention] / [Rome Convention] ceased to apply to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar from 1 January 2021, as a consequence of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a Member State of the European Union and of the end of the Transition Period.
Gustavo Cerqueira, Nicolas Nord (dir.), La connaissance du droit étranger: À la recherche d’instruments de coopération adaptés. Études de droit international privé comparé, Préface : Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon, Paris : Société de législation comparée, coll. “Colloques”, vol. 46, 2020, 268 p. Click here.
The authors’ foreword reads as follows (English translation):
“On November 28, 2019, jurists from various backgrounds met at the french Cour de cassation in Paris to reflect on suitable instruments for international cooperation in establishing the content of foreign law.
This conference is in line with the work previously carried out within the Société de législation comparée on the subject of foreign law. In particular, it continues the reflections started at the conference concerning the controls on constitutionality and conventionality of foreign law, which was held on September 23, 2016 at the Cour de cassation. This event brought together academics and practitioners from several European, North and South American countries and resulted in the publication of a book in 2017 by the Society.
This approach is also part of the continuity of research carried out in other learned societies at the global or regional level.
The conference of November 28, 2019 confirmed the need for such reflection. On the one hand, all of the contributors affirmed the important place now given to foreign law in the settlement of disputes. This is due, among other things, to the growth of international family and business relationships, the growing demand for recognition of situations established abroad and the possibilities for those concerned to choose the applicable law. On the other hand, the participants attested to the increased role of different legal professions in the application of foreign law. While judges and civil registrars were more traditionally exposed to such a burden, notaries and lawyers in their dual mission of advice and drafting of acts are currently called upon to take into account or implement foreign law.
In this context, while it appears that European Union law is often at the origin of the involvement of these different actors in the application of foreign law, another, more recent phenomenon seems to increase occurrences of dealing with such a law: the extensive jurisdictional competition to which the European States are engaged because of Brexit. Indeed, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and other capitals are establishing courts and chambers specialized in international litigation and in the application of foreign law. This phenomenon is also spreading to major cities, either international, such as Frankfurt am Main or Hamburg, or regional, such as Saarbrücken, in Germany.
The stakes are crucial. The search for suitable instruments for a good knowledge of foreign law is essential for national laws in full legislative and jurisprudential evolution. Indeed, these changes specific to each system reinforce the need for access to reliable content of foreign law in order to guarantee the legal certainty of litigants, as well as to avoid civil liability of legal service providers or even fraud in manipulation of foreign solutions.
The research envisaged in this colloquium is unfolding, of course, in an environment in which there are formal and informal cooperation mechanisms, the effectiveness of which is only partial in the face of the complexity of the phenomena that cover the application of foreign law. Indeed, they were conceived to deal with a foreign law that supposed to be stable and simple and not shifting and plural in its sources. These mechanisms, not very visible, are also unknown to the practitioners themselves. Current discussions at European (EU) and international (Hague Conference) level attest to the urgency of thinking about responses in this area, using one or more relevant and effective instruments.
This is what the conference on knowledge of foreign law: in search of suitable cooperation instruments meant to answer. To this end, based on an indicative and non-exhaustive questionnaire, the issue of establishing an inventory was first raised, and then discussions ensued on the solutions adapted to the various requirements revealed both by the type of situation to be treated and by the category of professional involved. In this last respect, the needs of the judge and the notary were different, as were those of the registrar and the lawyer.
The adaptation was also considered in the light of the various questions specific to the original system. While the objective may a priori be to achieve the adoption of a general instrument with the widest possible geographical scope, it quickly appeared vain to try to favor such an approach at present. On the one hand, each profession has different needs, on the other hand, the level of development of the different systems compared is not the same. While some countries lag behind and struggle to adopt satisfactory rules in this area, others are at the forefront and therefore are not really in demand for a cooperation instrument whose usefulness does not seem obvious to them.
In this perspective, different paths for reflection have been explored. They range from the revitalization of old instruments to the creation of specialized institutions at internal, international or European level, including the establishment of specific mechanisms or the use of artificial intelligence. Such abundance shows the crucial nature of the issue and the vitality of the reflections carried out, but also the relevance of having debated it and the need to continue doing so.
In this sense, the next stage of this debate could be that of the opportunity of adopting a European regulation on the matter. In addition to the interest of such an instrument at the European level, it could serve as an impetus for other regional groups, such as Mercosur.” (our emphasis)
Prefaced by Professor emeritus Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (Paris II Panthéon Assas), the book contains the following contributions (most of them in French).
Préface
Hélène GAUDEMET-TALLON
Avant-propos
Gustavo CERQUEIRA and Nicolas NORD
Introduction
Cyril NOURISSAT, Connaissance du droit étranger et coopération internationale : entre nécessité impérieuse et difficultés à surmonter
I. État des lieux
En France
La magistrature
François ANCEL, La connaissance du droit étranger. État des lieux – La magistrature
Cyril ROTH, Le droit étranger, irréductiblement inconnaissable : leçons tirées de la création d’une collection de lois exotiques
L’avocature
Dominique FOUSSARD, Le point de vue d’un avocat au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation
Olivier BERG, L’avocat et le droit étranger : entre connaissance et représentation
L’état civil
Nicolas NORD, Le droit étranger devant l’officier de l’état civil. État des lieux
Dans le voisinage
Jochen BAUERREIS, La connaissance du droit étranger en Allemagne
Guillermo PALAO MORENO, La connaissance du droit étranger en Espagne
Pietro FRANZINA, La connaissance du droit étranger : cadre juridique et moyens disponibles en Italie
Lukas HECKENDORN URSCHELER, La connaissance du droit étranger en Suisse. Une multitude de moyens
En Amérique Latine
Gustavo Ferraz DE CAMPOS MONACO, La connaissance du droit étranger en Amérique
II. Solutions envisageables
Du point de vue des universitaires
Patrick KINSCH, La preuve de la loi étrangère par renvoi préjudiciel
Gustavo CERQUEIRA, Fondamentalisation du droit et justice prédictive. Deux phénomènes à prendre en compte pour la connaissance du droit étranger
Guillermo PALAO MORENO, La connaissance du droit étranger : évaluation de la situation en Espagne et propositions dans une perspective européenne
Maria Rosa LOULA, The challenges in accessing applicable foreign law and international cooperation in Brazil
Du point de vue des praticiens
Le magistrat
Jean-Noël ACQUAVIVA, Connaissance du droit étranger et coopération internationale. Solutions prospectives : l’opinion d’un juge
Le notaire
Jean-Louis VAN BOXSTAEL, La connaissance du droit étranger. Le point de vue d’un notaire
Du point de vue des institutions
Marie VAUTRAVERS, Le point de vue du Bureau du droit de l’Union, du droit international privé et de l’entraide civile, direction des affaires civiles et du Sceau, France
Rodrigo RODRIGUEZ, Knowledge of Foreign Law and the London Convention of 1968 – Council of Europe’s CDCJ
Wolfgang ROSCH, La connaissance du droit étranger et la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne
Nicolas NORD, La Commission Internationale de l’État Civil
Propos conclusifs
Françoise Monéger
Annexes
Questionnaire envoyé aux contributeurs
Programme du Colloque
Liste des contributeurs (auteurs, orateurs, et présidents des séances)
The full table of contents, the preface and the forewords are available here (in French).
More information: https://legiscompare.fr/ecommerce/fr/197-la-connaissance-du-droit-etranger-a-la-recherche-d-instruments-de-cooperation-adaptes
As has now become tradition, the Annual Conference of the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) will feature a section dedicated to Conflict of Laws. In 2021, the conference will take place between 31 August and 3 September at the University of Durham and virtually (further information on the conference can be found here). The new conveners of the Conflict of Laws section, Lauren Clayton-Helm and Bobby Lindsay, have kindly provided the following Call for Papers.
SLS Conflict of Laws Section: Call for Papers/Panels for 2021 SLS Annual Conference at Durham University and virtually
This is a call for papers and panels for the Conflict of Laws section of the 2021 Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference to be held at the University of Durham, from Tuesday 31st August – Friday 3rd September. The Conflict of Laws section will meet in the first half of the conference on 31st August – 1st September and will have four sessions, each lasting 90 minutes.
If you are interested in delivering a paper or organising a panel, please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Friday 26th March 2021. All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed using the following link – https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/2483/submitter – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant subject section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same e-mail address this year if that address remains current. For those whose papers are accepted, the original submission offers the facility to upload a full paper nearer the time. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact http://slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.
We intend to host the 2021 conference in person, with an online option for those who would prefer to participate virtually. The precise format of the conference will be confirmed by the end of April. When submitting an abstract you will be asked to indicate whether you would wish to present in person or virtually. Please note that this indication is not binding and it is merely to assist with conference planning.
Decisions will be communicated by the end of April.
We welcome proposals for papers and panels on any issue relating to the conflict of laws/private international law. We welcome proposals representing a full range of intellectual perspectives and methodological approaches in the subject section, and from those at all stages of their careers.
Those wishing to present a paper should submit a title and abstract of around 300 words. Those wishing to propose a panel should submit a document outlining the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate) and their abstracts. Sessions are 90 minutes in length and so we recommend panels of three to four speakers, though the conference organisers reserve the right to add speakers to panels in the interests of balance and diversity.
As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many members with good quality papers as possible are able to present, we discourage speakers from presenting more than one paper at the conference. With this in mind, when you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections.
Please also note that the SLS offers two prizes. First, The Best Paper Prize, which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel. The Prize carries a £300 monetary award and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, appear in Legal Studies. To be eligible:
Last year the Society launched the Best Paper by a Doctoral Student Prize, which is open to currently registered doctoral students who are members of the Society. The Prize is £300. There is no link to publication in Legal Studies arising from this award, but any winner would be welcome to submit their paper for consideration by the Society’s journal. To be eligible:
We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by Friday 18th June 2021 in order to secure their place within the programme, though please do let us know if this deadline is likely to pose any problems for you. Booking information will be circulated in due course, and will open after the decisions on the response to the calls are made.
With best wishes,
Dr Lauren Clayton-Helm (l.clayton-helm@northumbria.ac.uk)
Dr Bobby Lindsay (bobby.lindsay@glasgow.ac.uk)
Co-convenors, Conflict of Laws Section
Invitation by Pietro Franzina
The Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan will host a webinar on The Fundamental Rights of Persons with Cognitive Disabilities in Cross-border Situations – Time for Italy and Spain to Join the Hague Adults Convention, on 22 February 2021, from 5 pm to 7 pm CET.
The speakers – Philippe Lortie (First Secretary of The Hague Conference on Private International Law), Salomé Adroher Biosca (Comillas Pontifical University), Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) and Geraldo Maciel Rocha Mendes Ribeiro (University of Coimbra) – will analyse the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults and the prospect that Italy and Spain might join the thirteen States which are currently bound by that regime.
Attendance is free. No prior registration is required.
For more information, including the link to access the webinar, see here.
