Views
New Rules on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Saudi Arabia – Some Preliminary Observations
Many thanks to Karim El Chazli (Consulting and Testifying Expert on Arab Laws) for the tip-off
I. Introduction
The field of foreign judgments in the MENA region has witnessed additional legal developments. After Morocco, which adopted in February a new Code of Civil Procedure containing an updated regime for the enforcement of foreign judgments (see my previous on this blog), Saudi Arabia followed suit by adopting a new Execution Law (Nizam at-Tanfidh), approved by the Council of Ministers on 15 April 2026 (27–28 Shawwal 1447 H), which contains rules on the enforcement of foreign judgments. The new law replaces the existing Execution Law promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/53 of 3 July 2012 (13 Sha’baan1433 H).
Bahraini Supreme Court Accepts the Applicability of “Foreign” Jewish Customs in a Succession Case Involving Bahraini Jews
I. Introduction
This is certainly a genuinely interesting case from Bahrain, involving the application of “foreign” Jewish customs in a succession dispute that appears to be between Jewish Bahraini nationals. Although the case seems to lack any foreign element, its relevance to conflict of laws is nonetheless clear, since – to my knowledge – this is the first case in which the applicability of “foreign” religious customs in matters of personal status has been explicitly admitted in what appears a purely domestic case. The case also provides a broader analytical framework, raising questions about the place and applicability of non-state law in private international law (this contrasts of the recent decision of the French Supreme Court denying the applicability of Jewish law, albeit in a different context) and, more generally, about the compatibility of non-Islamic religious norms with domestic public policy frameworks in Muslim-majority legal systems.
Advocate General Emiliou’s Opinion on Case C-799/24: Res Judicata Effect Applies Despite Breach of Art 31(2) Brussels Ia
by Arvid Kerschnitzki, University of Augsburg
On 23 April 2026, Advocate General Emiliou published his opinion on Case C-799/24 – Babcock Montajes S.A. v Kanadevia Inova Steinmüller GmbH. It adds another piece to the puzzle that is the CJEU’s broad interpretation of the term ‘judgment’ in the Brussels Ia Regulation. At the same time, the case highlights the persisting problems with procedural coordination under the regulation.
News
Out now: Private International Law and Children’s Rights Law by Tine Van Hof
The publisher’s blurb, including a discount code, is as follows:
Private International Law and Children’s Rights Law
Conflicts in International Child Abduction Cases
Tine Van Hof
This book examines the relationship between two legal fields when courts decide on cross-border child abduction. While private international law prioritises the child’s prompt return and applies the best interests principle in abstracto, children’s rights law demands an in concreto, individualised assessment of the child’s best interests. These differing approaches can lead to legal friction in practice.
Through a detailed analysis of legal instruments and supranational case law, the book explores how these conflicts arise and how they might be resolved.
Offering clear recommendations for lawmakers, international organisations, and courts, the book provides a roadmap for fostering constructive relationships between legal fields. It is an essential resource for scholars of private international law, judges and practitioners in cross-border family law, and policymakers working at the intersection of international law and children’s rights.
Tine Van Hof is a legal researcher at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Jun 2026 | 9781509977055 | 288pp | Hbk | RRP: £90
Discount Price: £72
Order online at www.hartpublishing.co.uk – use the code GLR BD8 to get 20% off!
Sign up to our email list to receive updates about our new titles.
New Empirical Study in Comparative Law: “The Reasons Highest Courts Give: England, France, Germany; 1880–89 and 2007–16”
This post has kindly been provided by Markus Lieberknecht (University of Osnabrück).
It is our great pleasure to bring to readers’ attention the publication of the article “The Reasons Highest Courts Give: England, France, Germany; 1880–89 and 2007–16”, co-authored by Holger Spamann (Harvard Law School), Stefan Vogenauer and Jasper Kunstreich (MPI Hamburg), Heinrich Nemeczek (Scalable Capital) and Markus Lieberknecht (Osnabrück University), in The Journal of Legal Studies.
One of the core debates in comparative law concerns the characteristics, extent, and development of the common/civil law divide. In this context, it is a familiar trope that common and civil lawyers reason differently, but that the systems are converging. However, the empirical basis for such claims is thin to nonexistent. To address this paucity of data-backed research, we present the first systematic quantitative comparison of three paragon jurisdictions of common law (England) and civil law (France and Germany), and across two centuries (1880–89 vs. 2007–16). Specifically, we analyze the use of legal authorities (cases, statutes, and literature) in 40 representative opinions of each apex court in each of the two decades we surveyed.
Perspectives Contentieuses Internationales (PCI), Volume 6
The following announcement was kindly shared with us by Fabienne Jault-Seseke.
The 6th issue of Perspectives contentieuses internationales has been released and is online.
It contains seven articles related to the consolidation of cross-border litigation. These articles form the first part of the proceedings of a conference held in Toulouse in November 2025. The second part will be published in Volume 7. Volume 6 also includes two further articles, one on the law applicable to air transport and one of theclassification, and three short notes (focus).
Here is the list of papers, along with their abstracts.