Views
Symeonides’ 30th (and last) Annual Survey of Choice of Law
Symeon Symeonides, without doubt the doyen of US conflict of laws, just published what he says is the last of his annual surveys of American Choice of Law. (The series will be continued by John F. Coyle, William S. Dodge, and Aaron D. Simowitz, suggesting it takes three of our most eminent scholars to replace Symeonides.)
As everyone in our discipline knows, reliably, at the end of the year, Symeon has posted his survey of conflict-of-laws decisions rendered over the year, according to Westlaw. He would assemble the most important decisions (of which he finds a lot), organize them around themes, and comment on them, always with (sometimes admirable) restraint from criticism. Anyone who has ever tried to survey the case law of an entire year in a jurisdiction knows how much work that is. (We at Max Planck, with IPRspr, certainly do.)
The service rendered to the discipline is invaluable. Conflict-of-laws opinions are hard to track, not least because courts themselves do not always announce them as such, and because they cover all areas of the law. Moreover, conflict of laws in the United States remains disorganized, with different states following different methods. (Symeon helpfully provides a table listing each state’s methodological approach.)
Incredibly, this is Symeon’s 30th survey in 34 years. In this one, he uses the occasion to ruminate about what the 30 years have taught him: reading all the cases, and not missing the forest for the trees, enabled him (and thereby us) to gain a truer view of the conflicts landscape.( Of course, Symeonides also compiled his superb knowledge of the case law in his Hague Lectures on the past, present, and future of the Choice-of-Law Revolution (republished as a book) and his book on (US) choice of law in the series of Oxford Commentaries.) Such surveying shows that some of our assumptions are dated, as he showed in two special surveys on product liability and more generally cross-border torts. And it shows, as he beautifully puts it, that judges are not stupid, just busy. Which is one of the reasons why the practice of conflicts owes such an amount of gratitude for these surveys.
Our discipline has seen a theoretical revival over the last ten or so years. A discipline once viewed as overly technical, doctrinal and untheoretical (a “dismal swamp”, in Dean Prosser’s much-cited words) is now being analyzed with newly-found theoretical and interdisciplinary interest – from economic analyses to political theory, philosophy, and even gender theory. The risk of such work is always to disentangle from the actual practice of the discipline, and thereby to lose what is arguably one of conflicts’ greatest assets: the concrete case. Symeonides (himself no enemy to methodological and sometimes theoretical discussions) has, with his annual surveys, made sure that such theories could always remain tied to the actual practice. For this, he deserves gratitude not only from practice but also from theory of private international law. His oeuvre is, of course, much much richer than the surveys. But even if he had written nothing beyond the surveys (and truth be told, it is not fully clear how he ever managed to write so much beyond them), his stature would have been earned.
The last twenty of Symeonides’ surveys have been compiled in a three volume edition published by Brill, a flyer allows for a 25% discount. While you wait for delivery (or maybe for approval of the loan you need to afford the books), you may want to download his lates survey, read Symeonides’ own thirty-year retrospective in the beginning, and marvel.
Correction: In the original version of this post I said that Symeonides will be replaced by four scholars. I have now been informed that Melissa Tatum will not join the group of authors for the annual surveys, leaving the list of the other three.
The CJEU Shrems cases – Personal Data Protection and International Trade Regulation
Carmen Otero García-Castrillón, Complutense University of Madrid, has kindly provided us with her thoughts on personal data protection and international trade regulation. An extended version of this post will appear as a contribution to the results of the Spanish Research Project lead by E. Rodríguez Pineau and E. Torralba Mendiola “Protección transfronteriza de la transmisión de datos personales a la luz del nuevo Reglamento europeo: problemas prácticos de aplicación” (PGC2018-096456-B-I00).
The regulatory scenario
- In digital commerce times, it seems self-evident that personal data protection and international trade in goods and services are intrinsically connected. Within this internet related environment personal data can be accessed, retrieved, processed and stored in a number of different countries. In this context, the legal certainty for economic actors, and even the materialisation or continuation of commercial transactions requires taking into consideration both, the international jurisdiction and the applicable law issues on the one hand, and the international trade regulations covering these commercial transactions on the other hand.
Too much personal data protection can excessively restrict international trade, especially in countries with less developed economies for which the internet is considered an essential sustainable development tool. Little protection can prejudice individual fundamental rights and consumers’ trust, negatively affecting international trade also. Hence, some kind of balance is needed between the international personal data flux and the protection of these particular data. It must be acknowledged that, summarising, whilst in a number of States personal data and their protection are fundamental rights (expressly in art. 8 CFREU, and as a part of the right to private and family life in art. 8 ECHR), in others, though placed in the individual’s privacy sphere (in the light of art. 12 UDHR), it is basically associated to consumer’s rights.
- The only general international treaty specifically dealing with personal data protection is the Convention 108 + of the Council of Europe, for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. The Convention defines personal data as any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual (art. 2.a) without an express and formal recognition of its fundamental right character. The Convention, whose raison d’etre was justified for need to avoid that the personal data protection controls interfere with the free international flow of information (Explanatory Report, para. 9), “should not be interpreted as a means to erect non-tariff barriers to international trade” (Explanatory Report, para. 25). Its rules recognise the individual’s rights to receive information on the obtaining and the treatment of their data, to be consulted and oppose that treatment, to get the data rectified or eliminated and to count, for all this, with the support of a supervisory authority and judicial and non-judicial mechanisms (arts. 8, 9 and 12). On the basis of these common standards, member States agree not to prohibit or subject to special authorisations the personal data flows as long as the transfer does not imply a serious risk of circumventing them (art. 14). Moreover, the agreed rules can be exempted when it is a “necessary and proportionate” measure “in a democratic society” to protect individual rights and “the rights and fundamental freedoms of others”, particularly “freedom of expression” (art. 11). Presently, 55 States are parties to this Convention, including the EU but not the US, that have an observer status.
Along these lines, together with other Recommendations, the OECD produced a set of Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (11.7.2013; revising the 1980 version). After establishing general principles of action as minimum standards, it was concluded that the international jurisdiction and the applicable law issues could not be addressed “at that stage” provided the “discussion of different strategies and proposed principles”, the “advent of such rapid changes in technology, and given the non-binding nature of the Guidelines” (Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 63-64).
On another side, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) administers different Agreements multilaterally liberalising international trade in goods and services that count with its own dispute settlement mechanism. In addition, States and, of course, the EU and the US, follow the trade bilateralism trend in which data protection and privacy has begun to be incorporated. Recently, this issue has also been incorporated into the WTO multilateral trade negotiations on e-commerce.
CJEU Schrems’ cases
- Last 16 July, in Schrems II (C-311/18), the CJEU declared the invalidity of the Commission Decision 2016/1250 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the Privacy Shield EU–US, aimed at allowing the personal data transfer to this country according to the EU requirements, then established by Directive 95/46 and, from 25 May 2018, by the Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). On the contrary, Commission Decision 2010/87 (2016/2297 version) on the authorisation of those transfers through contractual clauses compromising data controllers established in third countries is considered to be in conformity with EU law.
In a nutshell, in order to avoid personal data flows to “data heavens” countries, transfers from the EU to third States are only allowed when there are guarantees of compliance with what the EU considers to be an adequate protective standard. The foreign standard is considered to be adequate if it shows to be substantially equivalent to the EU’s one, as interpreted in the light of the EUCFR (Schrems II paras. 94 and 105). To this end, there are two major options. One is obtaining an express Commission adequacy statement (after analysing foreign law or reaching an agreement with the foreign country; art. 45 GDPR). The other is resorting to approved model clauses to be incorporated in contracts with personal data importers, as long as effective legal remedies for data subjects are available (art. 46.1 and 2.c GDPR). According to the Commission, this second option is the most commonly used (COM/2020/264 final, p. 15).
- In Schrems II the CJEU confirms that, contrary to the Privacy Shield Decision, the US data protection regime is not equivalent to EU’s one because it allows public authorities to access and use those data without being subject to the proportionality principle (para. 183; at least in some surveillance programs) and, moreover, without recognising data owners their possibility to act judicially against them (para. 187). It never rains but what it pours since, in 2015, a similar reasoning led to the same conclusion in Schrems I (C-362/14, 5.6.15) on the Safe Harbour Decision (2000/520), preceding the Privacy Shield one. Along these lines, another preliminary question on the Privacy Shield Decision is pending in the case La cuadrature du net, where, differing from Schrems II, its compatibility with the CFREU is expressly questioned (T-738/16). In this realm, it seems relevant noting that the CJEU has recently resolved the Privacy International case, where, the non-discriminated capture of personal data and its access by national intelligence and security agencies for security reasons, has been considered contrary to the CFREU unless it is done exceptionally, in extraordinary cases and in a limited way (C-623/17, para. 72). Given the nature of the issue at hand, a similar Decision could be expected in the La cuadrature du net case; providing additional reasons on the nullity of the Privacy Shield Decision, since it would also contravene the CFREU. Moreover, all this could eventually have a cascading effect on the Commission’s adequacy Decisions regarding other third States (Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Faeroe Islands, Andorra, Israel, Uruguay, New Zealand and Japan).
- As to the contractual clauses, beyond confirming the Commission analysis on their adequacy in this case, the CJEU states that it is necessary to evaluate the data access possibilities for the transferred country public authorities according to that country national law (para. 134). At the end of the day, EU Data Protection authorities have to control the risks of those authorities’ actions not conforming with EU standards, as much as the capability of the contractual parties to comply with the contractual clause as such. If the risk exists, the transfers have to be prohibited or suspended (para.135).
- The EU personal data protection norms are imperative and apply territorially (art. 3 GDPR; Guidelines 3/18 EDPB version 2.1, 7.1.2020 and CJEU C-240/14, Weltimmo). Therefore, data “imports” are not regulated and the “exports” are subject to the condition of being done to a country where they receive EU equivalent protection. In the light of CJEU case law, the measures to watch over the preservation of the EU standard are profoundly protective, as could be expected provided the fundamental rights character of personal data protection in the EU (nonetheless, many transfers have already taken place under a Decision now declared to be void).
Hence, once a third country legislation allows its public authorities to access to personal data -even for public or national security interests- without reaching the EU safeguards level, EU Decisions on the adequacy of data transfers to those countries would be contrary to EU law. In similar terms, and despite the recent EDPB Recommendations (01 and 02/20, 10.11.2020), one may wonder how the contracts including those authorised clauses could scape the prohibition since, whatever the efforts the importing parties may do to adapt to the EU requirements (as Microsoft has recently announced regarding transfers to the US; 19.11.2020), they cannot (it is not in their hands) modify nor fully avoid the application of the corresponding national legislation in its own territory.
As a result, the companies aiming to do business in or with the EU, do not only have to adapt to the GRDP, but not to export data and treat and store them in the EU (local facilities). This entails that, beyond the declared personal data international transferability (de-localisation), de facto, it seems almost inevitable to “localise” them in the EU to ensure their protection. To illustrate the confusion created for operators (that have started to see cases been filed against them), it seems enough to point to the EDPB initial reaction that, whilst implementing the Strategy for EU institutions to comply with “Schrems II” Ruling, “strongly encourages … to avoid transfers of personal data towards the United States for new processing operations or new contracts with service providers” (Press Release 29.10.2020).
Personal data localisation and international trade regulation
- There is a number of national systems that, one way or another, require personal data (in general or in especially sensitive areas) localisation. These kinds of measures clearly constitute trade barriers hampering, particularly, international services’ trade. Their international conformity relies on the international commitments that, in this case, are to be found in the WTO Agreements as much as in the bilateral trade agreements if existing. The study of this conformity merits attention.
- From the EU perspective, as an initial general approach it must be acknowledged that, within the WTO, the EU has acquired a number of commitments including specific compromises in trans-border trade services in the data process, telecommunication and (with many singularities) financial sectors. Beyond the possibility of resorting to the allowed exceptions, the “localisation” requirement could eventually be infringing these compromises (particularly, arts. XVI and/or XVII GATS).
Regarding EU bilateral trade agreements, some of the already existing ones and others under negotiation include personal data protection rules, basically in the e-commerce chapters (sometimes also including trade in services and investment). Together with the general free trade endeavour, the agreements recognise the importance of adopting and maintaining measures conforming to the parties’ respective laws on personal data protection without agreeing any substantive standard (i.e. Japan, Singapore). At most, parties agree to maintain a dialog and exchange information and experiences (i.e. Canada; in the financial services area expressly states that personal data transfers have to be in conformity with the law of the State of origin). For the time being, only the Australian and New Zealand negotiating texts expressly recognise the fundamental character of privacy and data protection along with the freedom of the parties to adopt protective measures (international transfers included) with the only obligation to inform each other.
Concluding remarks
9. As the GDPR acknowledges “(F)lows of personal data to and from countries outside the Union and international organisations are necessary for the expansion of international trade and international cooperation. The increase in such flows has raised new challenges and concerns with regard to the protection of personal data.” (Recital 101). In facing this challenge, Schrems II confirms the unilaterally asserted extraterritoriality of EU personal data protection standards that, beyond its hard and fully realistic enforcement for operators abroad, constitute a trade barrier that could be eventually infringing its WTO Agreements’ compromises. Hence, in a digitalised and globally intercommunicated world, the EU personal data protection standards contribute to feeding the debate on trade protectionism. While both the EU and the US try to expand their respective protective models through bilateral trade agreements, multilaterally -among other initiatives involving States and stakeholders, without forgetting the role of technology (privacy by design)- it will be very interesting to see how the on-going WTO negotiations on e-commerce cover privacy and personal data protection in international trade data flows.
The Global struggle towards affordable access to justice
The Global struggle towards affordable access to justice: Dutch baby steps towards a more open legal market
Written by Jos Hoevenaars, Erasmus University Rotterdam (postdoc researcher ERC project Building EU Civil Justice)
In a global context of civil justice in crisis (Zuckerman) and a legal professional under pressure to adjust to the rapidly changing legal landscape (Susskind), experiments, adjustments and transformations in the way justice is done are an almost daily occurrence. Last week, the Dutch Bar Association announced an experiment to (slightly) open up the legal market in the Netherlands.
Effective yet affordable legal representation
The administration of (civil) justice remains an expensive practice, both in terms of public spending on the courts and publicly funded legal aid, as well as for those seeking justice. In most jurisdictions, access to justice remains a far cry from reality for large sections of society. Effective yet affordable legal representation has long been one of the most important stumbling blocks, and it goes without saying that in cross-border cases these costs only increase, while self-presentation – even if allowed – is often illusory.[1] With high and unpredictable lawyer fees as one of the most prevalent impediments to access, there have been many attempts at transforming the market for legal representation.
On the side of the legal system, we have seen moves away from strict legal representation requirements by a lawyer towards more self-representation and ‘do-it-yourself-justice’, taking lawyers out of the equation altogether (a practice leading to some disastrous results in some places). And, in response to the resulting challenges faced by litigants in person, we see movements in the direction of permitting for different forms legal representation, such as the so-called ‘McKenzie friends’ in UK courts, or the ‘Lay Assistant Scheme’ in Singapore, that allow for non-lawyers to be present in court to assist self-representing litigants (to a limited extent).
If we add to this the growing market of private dispute resolution as well as the tectonic shifts that are to be expected from the technological innovations (in both legal aid provisions and the digitalization of court procedures) we can see how such moves are likely small steps on a long and winding road of radical transformations of the legal profession, and likely of legal markets and the justice system as a whole. In the Dutch context, we witnessed one of those small steps last week.
Burgeoning shifts in the Dutch legal market
On December 3rd the Dutch Bar Association (NOvA) announced an experiment to give more leeway to lawyers from legal assistance insurers and claims settlement offices, by letting lawyers not employed by a law firm represent clients in court. As in many other legal systems, the legal market in the Netherlands has long been a hermetically sealed bulwark. While in large parts of the Dutch legal system assistance by a lawyer is mandatory, litigation with the use of a lawyer is only allowed if that lawyer is employed firm that is owned by layers. Legal departments of service providers such as accountancy organizations and claims settlement offices are therefore sidelined in court. In this recent move, however, the bar association gave the green light to the Hague legal aid provider SRK, a company that is not owned by lawyers, to offer lawyers’ services to people who are uninsured – a practice that up until now was restricted. This move is heralded as a crucial first step to break open the strictly regulated legal market in the Netherlands.
Bar under pressure
The move does not come as a complete surprise, NOvA has been under growing pressure by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) to adjust its professional rules because they may frustrate market forces. In February of this year, rather than taking action directly, the ACM gave the bar association a last chance to adjust its rules itself, while emphasizing that it could still conduct an investigation if there was reason to do so.
This pressure resulted from a request by legal aid provider SRK. The company wants to have its lawyers provide services to clients without legal expenses insurance through its subsidiary company BrandMR. However, this would go directly against NOvA rules, which stipulate, among other things, that lawyers may provide their services only while employed by an office that is owned by lawyers. This rule is meant to prevent lawyers from being guided by business interests rather than those of their clients.
There is one exception to this rule: lawyers may be employed by a (non-lawyer owned) legal expenses insurer, provided they work exclusively for insured persons, which is the practice of SRK. However, by also catering to non-insured persons SRK would violate that principle. With BrandMR, SRK targets the market of people who earn too much for subsidized legal aid yet have no legal aid insurance. According to the legal aid provider, about 25% of the Dutch population, especially young people, avoid legal assistance because they are not insured and consider the costs of a lawyer too high and unpredictable.
Since October of this year, and in defiance of the Bar’s rules, people without insurance can turn to SRK if they have a conflict. Under the BrandMR label, SRK offers them legal assistance at a fixed price, instead of the hourly rate that law firms charge. SRK director Peter Leermakers says he ‘supports’ all the rules of the legal profession, but not this one. ‘Our lawyers have been allowed to work for people with legal expenses insurance for over 15 years. Then why not for people without insurance? Why should they suddenly no longer be independent? ‘ He argues that the independence of the lawyers at SRK is guaranteed by an internal committee, which is assisted by two lawyers who previously were acting deputies of NOvA.
Political support
There has been political support for for SRK’s attempt to stretch the rules for the legal profession in the Netherlands. Minister Sander Dekker of Legal Protection (VVD) has submitted a bill to allow experiments in the Dutch legal system. He wants to offer citizens more flexible access to justice and reduce the costs of justice through a wide range of potential changes to and shifts in the Dutch justice landscape. He has already indicated several times that he welcomes initiatives such as those of SRK, and also hinted in the House of possible measures if the bar does not seriously consider how it can help foster new business models in the legal profession.
As described here in an earlier blogpost, the Minister previously clashed with the legal profession about legal aid funding. The government pays lawyers for people who cannot afford it themselves. Lawyers will then receive compensation based on a system of fixed rates for each type of court case. According to many lawyers, these are too low, but Dekker refused to make more money available, eventually leading to a strike by lawyers at the end of 2019.
A five-year experiment
The bar association thus yields to heavy pressure from politics, cartel watchdog ACM and non-industry service providers eager to enter the legal market. Although, rather than a full-fledged rule change that would open up the legal market to a host of providers, for the time being the admission of SRK is ‘an experiment’ with a maximum duration of five years. Service providers other than SRK may also participate, under the watchful eye of the Bar. The experiment is part of a broader investigation into a possible new system of regulations around permitting alternative business structures for lawyers.
The experiment announced by the NOvA must therefore be viewed in that light. “There needs to be movement on this subject somewhere, either by the NOvA, either by the ministry or the ACM,” said General Dean of the Dutch Bar Frans Knüppe. “We think it is wise to start the experiment now, and thus gain knowledge and experience on this fundamental issue. We expect that the Minister and ACM will not have to take any steps for the time being.” Knüppe emphasized that the NOvA is open to new initiatives, as long as the core values – in this case lawyers’ independence – ??are guaranteed.
International shifts in the legal market
While the move by the NOvA is only a small step towards rule changes, in terms of corporate structures it could potentially lead to a significant shift in the character of the Dutch legal market. The opening up of commercial opportunities for legal service providers could be part of the solution for the segment of the population that earn too much for subsidized legal aid but are not wealthy enough to employ costly and often unpredictable services of a lawyer without legal aid insurance.
The changes in the Dutch context do not stand on their own, as we have seen considerable volatility in legal market globally. In the United Kingdom and the United States, established law firms have been facing competition for much longer. The 2011 Legal Services Act in England has made it possible for parties other than lawyers to become co-owners of a law firm. As a result, law firms can collect money from outside the company, at the stock exchange for example. The new law opened the door for non-lawyers such as accountants and bailiffs, as well as supermarkets, to enter the legal market.
It remains to be seen what the impact of this temporary rule change will be on the Dutch legal market. The board of representatives of the NOvA expressed concern that the experiment could potentially lead to shifts in the legal landscape that prove to be irreversible after the five-year experiment. On the other hand, the ACM has applauded the move by the NOvA, yet also questions whether the relaxing of the rules goes far enough.
On request of the Ministry of Justice and Security and the NOvA, the WODC (Research and Documentation Centre) of the Ministry is currently conducting research into the consequences of the admission of alternative business structures in the legal profession.
[1] Hoevenaars, J. & Kramer, X.E. (2020). Improving Access to Information in European Civil Justice: A Mission (Im)Possible? In Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement. Cambridge: Intersentia
News
Review of Commercial Litigation in Anglophone Africa: The Law Relating to Civil Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Interim Remedies, 2nd edition
The second edition of Commercial Litigation in Anglophone Africa: The Law Relating to Civil Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Interim Remedies by Andrew Moran KC and Anthony Kennedy was published in December 2022. The blurb of the book reads as follows:
Commercial Litigation in Anglophone Africa details the broad framework of the private international law rules in operation in each of the sixteen Anglophone jurisdictions considered (Botswana, Gambia, Ghana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe).
The authors identify and provide a refined explanation of the law to be applied as it relates to: (i) civil jurisdiction over commercial disputes involving a foreign element; (ii) the enforcement of foreign judgments; and (iii) the availability and nature of the interim remedies, in each of the sixteen jurisdictions addressed. The authors have also provided comprehensive coverage of the potential availability of an anti-suit injunction (in common law jurisdictions) or anti-suit interdict (in Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions).
The first edition of the book was reviewed in the Journal of Private International Law (Okoli, 2020), South African Law Journal (Ordor, 2019) and Lloyds Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly (McParland, 2019). Overall, the reviews of the 1st edition of the book were very positive.
The preface to the second edition of the book notes several recent developments that have been taken into account. One recent development worth noting is the rise in the number of anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions in the English-speaking African courts of, for example, Ghana,[1] South Africa,[2] and Nigeria.[3] I also observe that the book incorporates about seventy new decided cases that were not utilised in the previous edition.
Overall, my impression of this book is positive. Practitioners interested in commercial conflict of laws in Africa will find this work very useful.
[1] The Attorney General v Cassius Mining Limited (Suit No CM/MISC/0568/2023), decided on 31 July 2023; Magna International Transport Ltd v Ghana Telecom Communications Co Ltd (Suit No: H1/227/2018), decided on 17 October 2019; Quantum Oil Terminals Ltd v International Finance Corporation, Suit No: Misc/00228/17 (Rulings of 8 January 2018 and 23 February 2018).
[2] Vedanta Resources Holdings Limited v ZCCM Investment Holdings PLC [2019] ZAGPJHC 250 (23 June 2019).
[3] Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited v Crestar Integrated Natural Resources Limited (2016) 9 NWLR 300, 322; Zenith Global Merchant Limited v Zhongfu International Investment (Nig) FZE (2017) All FWLR 1837. See also Ecobank (Nig) Ltd & Ors v Aiteo Eastern E and P Co Ltd & Anor (2022) LPELR-56994(CA).
Symposium for David McClean in Sheffield on 6 September
Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh), Paul Beaumont (Stirling) and Jonathan Harris (KCL) are pleased to announce that Sheffield Law School will host a Symposium on 6 September 2024 to celebrate the scholarly work of emeritus professor David McClean CBE KC (Hon).
David has long been one of the leading Conflict of Laws (Private International Law) scholars in English law and across countries through the Commonwealth. For over six decades his authoritative work on Private International Law has been internationally recognised.
This Symposium will bring together colleagues and friends, from the UK and abroad, to celebrate David’s many contributions.
Keynote speakers: Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Hans van Loon, George Leloudas and Kisch Beevers. Chairs and Speakers: David McClean, Roxana Banu, Jonathan Harris, Campbell McLachlan, Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Jayne Holliday, Paul Beaumont, Abubakri Yekini, Alex Mills, Andreas Ruehmkorf, Auguste Hocking, and Daniel Wand.
This is an in-person event. It is open to all, subject to capacity, but registration is required. Please follow this link for more information about the event, including programme and registration.
Global Value Chains and Transnational Private Law Workshop at Edinburgh Law School – Report
By Zihao Fan (Ph.D. Candidate in Law, Peking University Law School)
The ‘Global Value Chains and Transnational Private Law’ workshop was successfully held at Edinburgh Law School in a hybrid format from June 23 to 25, 2024. This project is funded by the Law Schools Global League (LSGL), convened by Prof. Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh Law School) and Prof. Michael Nietsch (EBS Law School). The workshop attracted scholars and researchers from 15 universities and institutions worldwide. Over two days, participants shared inspiring work in progress and engaged in discussions on how transnational private law influences and shapes global supply chains. During the workshop plans for the upcoming publication and dissemination were discussed. This overview aims to briefly summarise the research outcomes presented during the workshop (following the sequence of the presentations).
Morning Session on 24 June
Dr. Catherine Pedamon (Westminster Law School) and Dr. Simone Lamont-Black (Edinburgh Law School) first introduced a previous related workshop held in Edinburgh Law School on ‘Sustainability in the Food Supply Chain: Challenges and the Role of Law & Policy’. This project consists of contributions from a variety of legal and policy areas at the UK, EU, and international levels, focusing on the role of law (including commercial law, contract law, competition law, and corporate law) in resolving regulatory difficulties and opportunities in food supply chains, with a particular emphasis on sustainability and food security, therefore highly connected to the current project.
Afterwards, Dr. Pedamon and Dr. Lamont-Black also presented their research titled ‘Responsible Contracting in Agri-Food Supply Chains: Mitigating Power Asymmetries on the Road Towards Sustainability’. They pointed out that recent events like the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, climate-related price instability, and inflation have severely impacted the global economy, creating an unprecedented food crisis. Complex food supply chains reveal power imbalances, with larger trading partners often imposing unfair practices on less powerful suppliers. This research aims to shed light on the issues surrounding governance gaps and the various challenges and opportunities that arise from private international law, examining UK domestic law pertaining to food supply relationships, taking the EU level regulation into account, and providing potential examples of its implementation.
Dr. Francesca Farrington (School of Law, University of Aberdeen) and Dr. Nevena Jevremovic (School of Law, University of Aberdeen) then presented their work titled ‘Private International Law and the Race to the Bottom in Labour Standards: The Case of Begum v Maran’, discussed the recent Court of Appeal case, Begum v Maran. They noted that the literature has generally focused on the unique arguments relating to duty of care, and the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the claim was not fanciful – it illustrates that the Rome II Regulation does little to prevent a ‘race to the bottom’ in labour standards especially given that corporate liability was a rapidly expanding field of law. They also discussed the different results when courts adopting different characterization methods on business-related human rights (BHR) claims.
Dr. Sara Sanchez Fernandez (IE Law School, Spain) shared her research on ‘Civil Liability under the CS3D: International Jurisdiction Rules and Access to an Effective Legal Remedy’. She first introduced the background: the EU recently enacted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D), which establishes due diligence responsibilities and civil consequences for violations of such obligations. The CS3D establishes rules for organizations’ risk-based due diligence requirements across their entire value chain. Her research centred on the assurance of access to Member State courts for CS3D-related issues, scrutinizing the interaction between CS3D, international jurisdiction in the Brussels I bis Regulation, and the foreign jurisdiction rules of Member States. She also explored the potential solutions for cases where entities are non-EU domiciled.
First Afternoon Session on 24 June
Prof. Toshiyuki Kono (Faculty of Law, Kyushu University) and Prof. Ren Yatsunami (Faculty of Law, Kyushu University) presented their work on ‘The Global Value Chain & Network Responsibility: The New Possibilities of Private Ordering’. They pointed it out that in recent years, policymakers and scholars from numerous disciplines have concentrated on mapping the outlines of the modern global value chain, with the concept of ‘network’ emerging as a repeating theme. They investigate the relevance of viewing networks as lenses through which better understand the GVC and its regulation, particularly in terms of human rights and environmental issues. Besides, they also examine the failure of the network and related legal responses, suggesting that a mixture of public and private norms, hard laws and soft laws should be considered as alternatives.
Prof. Carlos Vasquez (Georgetown Law School, US) then discussed his research on ‘Applicable Law in BHR Cases’. He focused on the applicable substantive law in BHR suits brought in developed countries (usually the home state of the defendant corporation) for injuries suffered in developing countries (the host state). He centred on both vertical and horizontal choice-of-law inquiries: ‘vertical’ refers to the decision-making process that involves choosing between international law and national (or subnational) law as the primary source of relevant law, while ‘horizontal’ refers to the decision between applying the legal system of the host country or the legal system of the home State.
Dr. David Capper (School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast) presented his research next, on ‘Procedural Aspects of Transnational BHR-Litigation’. Continuing with BHR cases he discussed how victims of tortious conduct by multinational corporations are seeking remedy against the latter in a Global North jurisdiction, with a focus on the UK. He illustrated the procedural mechanisms in the UK that are available for mass tort litigation of this kind and suggested that the Group Litigation Order (GLO) would be the appropriate mechanism in the majority of cases of mass tort litigation. Then he elaborated on several aspects of GLO, including group registers, case management, and costs. Finally, he suggested examining the Okpabi case to see how GLOs work.
Second Afternoon Session on 24 June
Prof. Irene-Marie Esser (School of Law, University of Glasgow) and Dr. Christopher Riley (Durham Law School) presented their research on ‘Groups and Outsiders in the Context of Tort and Human Rights Violations’, examining the challenges that arise in protecting the interests of ‘outsiders’ from corporate groups’ misbehaviour. They argued that regulations applied to individual ‘stand-alone’ companies suffer weaknesses when applied to corporate groups. By using the UK’s experience of enforcing human rights norms against groups and of applying tort law, they demonstrate the implications of an ‘enterprise approach’ for regulation.
Dr. Catherine Pedamon (Westminster Law School) shared her work in progress on the French duty of vigilance. The French Loi de Vigilance has been enacted for seven years, yet its first decision was rendered on 5th December 2023. It still appears to be in the initial stages of development, not only due to its groundbreaking nature but also the obstacles to enforcement. She then shared some key preconditions on the applicability, the public availability of a vigilance liability plan, compensation for damages due to the companies’ failure to comply, etc. She also introduced the recent developments in the related cases in France.
Prof. Michael Nietsch discussed his research, ‘Corporate Accountability of Multinational Enterprises for Human Rights Abuses – Navigating Separate Legal Entity and Attribution under Delict’, elaborating the growing interest in corporate accountability for human rights violations in the German judicial system. In contrast to the UK, Germany has seen few incidents of damages lawsuit with the implementation of statutory due diligence procedures under the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act 2021 (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, LkSG). Nonetheless, legal academics continue to discuss the basis for corporate liability for human rights violations under German private law, as well as the proper standards of care that arise as a result. This is a fundamental issue in German delict law and the separation of legal entities. He argued that the LkSG has ruled out private liability based on a violation of the Act’s due diligence criteria while allowing such liability on other grounds, which adds to the complexity.
At the end of the day, Dr. Juan Manuel Amaya Castro (Faculty of Law, University of the Andes, Colombia) presented his work on ‘Global Value Chains with a Human Face’. He discussed the definition of social traceability from a legal perspective and its requirements, purpose, and reasons for tracing a particular good in the supply chain. He then explained how traceability is mandated in due diligence and reporting legislation, pointing out that practices including auditing and certification, feedback loops, administrative guidelines, and civil liability standards should be considered.
Morning Session on 25 June
Dr. Biset Sena Güne? (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany) started the day with her research, ‘Harmonisation of Private International Law Rules to Promote Sustainability in Global Value Chains?’. She elaborated that the role of private international law is frequently constrained concerning sustainability. In most cases, the ability to reach a truly sustainable outcome is dependent on the applicable private legislation. When this is the case, it is difficult to justify the need for harmonisation of current private international law standards without simultaneously focusing on uniform private law regulatory remedies. Nonetheless, she suggested that the need for harmonisation of private international law standards governing corporate social responsibility should be explored further and proposed a comparative approach for that further research.
The morning session on 25 June also discussed the plans for the upcoming publication and the dissemination conference to be held in Germany in 2025.
In summary, the workshop enabled fruitful discussion of work-in-progress and shared insights on the complexities of global value chains and the role of transnational private law. Key topics included sustainability, corporate accountability, and legal frameworks affecting global supply chains. The project successfully fosters international collaboration amongst and beyond LSGL researchers, nurturing comparative and interdisciplinary approaches. Participants gained a deeper understanding and ideas to take the research forward to address regulatory and coordination challenges in furthering sustainability in global commerce.