Views
Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd, Hague Service Convention and Judgment Enforcement in China
Jie (Jeanne) Huang, University of Sydney Law School, Australia
Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd. v. Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII is a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of California on April 2, 2020. The certiorari to the Supreme Court of the US was denied on 5 October 2020. It is a controversial case concerning the interpretation of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965 (the “Hague Service Convention”) for service of process in China.
- Facts:
Changzhou SinoType Technology Co. (SinoType) is based in China. Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII (Rockefeller) is an American investment firm. In February 2008, they signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which provided that:
“6. The parties shall provide notice in the English language to each other at the addresses set forth in the Agreement via Federal Express or similar courier, with copies via facsimile or email, and shall be deemed received 3 business days after deposit with the courier.
7. The Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts in California and consent to service of process in accord with the notice provisions above.
8. In the event of any disputes arising between the Parties to this Agreement, either Party may submit the dispute to the Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Service in Los Angeles for exclusive and final resolution pursuant to according to [sic] its streamlined procedures before a single arbitrator who shall have ten years judicial service at the appellate level, pursuant to California law, and who shall issue a written, reasoned award. The Parties shall share equally the cost of the arbitration. Disputes shall include failure of the Parties to come to Agreement as required by this Agreement in a timely fashion.”
Due to disputes between the parties, in February 2012, Rockefeller brought an arbitration against SinoType. SinoType was defaulted in the arbitration proceeding. According to the arbitrator, SinoType was served by email and Federal Express to the Chinese address listed for it in the MOU. In November 2013, the arbitrator found favorably for Rockefeller.
Instead of enforcing the award in China according to the New York Convention,[1] Rockefeller petitioned to confirm the award in State courts in California. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1290.4(a) provides that a petition to confirm an arbitral award “shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.” Therefore, Rockefeller transmitted the summons and its petition to SinoType again through FedEx and email according to paragraph 7 of the MOU. SinoType did not appear and the award was confirmed in October 2014. SinoType then appeared specially and applied to set aside the judgment. It argued that the service of the Californian court proceeding did not comply with the Hague Service Convention; therefore, it had not been duly served and the judgment was void.
- Decision
The California Supreme Court rejected SinoType’s argument.
The Court discerned three principles for the application of the Hague Service Convention. First, the Convention applies only to “service of process in the technical sense” involving “a formal delivery of documents”. The Court distinguished “service” and “notice” by referring to the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (‘Handbook’). The Court cited that
“the Convention cannot—and does not—determine which documents need to be served. It is a matter for the lex fori to decide if a document needs to be served and which document needs to be served. Thus, if the law of the forum states that a notice is to be somehow directed to one or several addressee(s), without requiring service, the Convention does not have to be applied.”[2]
Second, the law of the sending forum (i.e. the law of California) should be applied to determine whether “there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.”
Third, if formal service of process is required under the law of the sending forum, the Hague Convention must be complied for international transmission of service documents.
The court held that the parties have waived the formal service of process, so the Hague Service Convention was not applicable in this case.[3]
- Comments
The Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd has a number of interesting aspects and has been commented such as here, here and here.
First, the Hague Service Convention is widely considered as ‘non-mandatory’ but ‘exclusive’.[4] Addressing the non-mandatory nature of the Convention, the Handbook states that “the Convention can not—and does not—determine which documents need to be served. It is a matter for the lex fori to decide if a document needs to be served and which document needs to be served.”[5] However, this statement does not necessarily mean, when judicial documents are indeed transmitted from a member state to another to charge a defendant with notice of a pending lawsuit, a member state can opt out of the Convention by unilaterally excluding the transmission from the concept of service. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Schlunk decided by the Supreme Court of the US and Segers and Rufa BV v. Mabanaft GmbH decided by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) are the two most important cases on the non-mandatory nature of the Convention. Both cases concentrate on which law should be applied to whether a document needed to be transmitted abroad for service.[6] However, Rockefeller is different because it is about which law should be applied to determine the concept of service when the transmission of judicial documents takes place in the soil of another member state. The Handbook provides that the basic criterion for the Convention to apply is “transmission abroad” and “place of service is determining factor”.[7] When judicial documents are physically transmitted in the soil of a member state, allowing another member state to unilaterally determine the concept of service in order to exclude the application of the Convention will inappropriately expand the non-mandatory character of the Convention. This will inevitably narrow the scope of the application of the Convention and damage the principle of reciprocity as the foundation of the Convention. The Hague Convention should be applied to Rockefeller because the summons and petitions were transmitted across border for service in China.
Second, as part of its accession to the Hague Convention, China expressly stated that it does not agree to service by mail. Indeed, the official PRC declarations and reservations to the Hague Convention make it clear that, with the limited exception of voluntary service on a foreign national living in China by his country’s own embassy or consulate, the only acceptable method of service on China is through the Chinese Central Authority. Therefore, although China has recognized monetary judgments issued in the US according to the principle of reciprocity, the judgment of Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd probably cannot be recognized and enforced in China.
The California Supreme Court decision has important implications. For Chinese parties who have assets outside of China, they should be more careful in drafting their contracts because Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd shows that a US court may consider their agreement on service by post is a waiver of China’s reservation under the Hague Service Convention. For US parties, if Chinese defendants only have assets in China for enforcement, Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co, Ltd is not a good case to follow because the judgment probably cannot be enforced in China.
[1] China is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Jun. 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (“New York Convention”).
[2] Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention (4th ed. 2016) par. 54, p. 23, fn. Omitted.
[3] The Court emphasized that their conclusions should be limited to Section 1290.4, subdivision (a): “Our conclusions as to California law are narrow. When parties agree to California arbitration, they consent to submit to the personal jurisdiction of California courts to enforce the agreement and any judgment under section 1293. When the agreement also specifies the manner in which the parties “shall be served,” consistent with section 1290.4, subdivision (a), that agreement supplants statutory service requirements and constitutes a waiver of formal service in favor of the agreed-upon method of notification. If an arbitration agreement fails to specify a method of service, the statutory service requirements of section 1290.4, subdivisions (b) or (c) would apply, and those statutory requirements would constitute formal service of process. We express no view with respect to service of process in other contexts.”
[4] Martin Davies et al., Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia 36 (10th ed. 2020).
[5] Paragraph 54 of the Handbook.
[6] Ibid., paragraphs 31-45, and 47.
[7] Ibid., paragraph 16.
The Contractual Function of a Choice of Court Agreement in Nigerian Jurisprudence
Many international commercial parties usually provide for a choice of court agreement as a term of their contract. This is done to enhance predictability, certainty and reduction of costs in the event a dispute arises between the parties. Since a choice of court agreement is a term of the contract, does the principle of contract law apply to determine a choice of court agreement? Though this is a matter of controversy in Nigerian law,[1] some recent appellate courts (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) have given a foreign choice of court agreement a contractual function.[2]
Kashamu v UBN Plc[3] is a most recent Court of Appeal decision that analyses a foreign choice of court agreement exclusively from the principles of contract law. In this case, The Banque International Du Benin (“BIDB”), a limited financial institution in Benin Republic, granted medium term loan facilities, in different sums, to the Societe d’ Egrenage Industrial De Cotonu du Benin (“SEIC-B”), a private limited company registered in Benin Republic, for construction of its Cotton Ginning factory. The facilities were secured by, inter alia, SEIC-B’s goodwill, factory and land. In addition, the defendant/appellant, the alter ego of SEIC-B, personally guaranteed the facilities in a personal guarantee agreement. The loan agreement between BIDB and SEICB provided that the law and courts of Benin Republic should determine their dispute. However, the guarantee agreement between BIDB and the defendant/appellant did not explicitly provide for a choice of court agreement.
SEIC-B defaulted in the repayment of the loans despite repeated demands. As a result, BIDB appointed the plaintiff/respondent, a public limited financial institution in Nigeria, as its attorney to recover the outstanding facility. Further to the donated power of attorney, the plaintiff/respondent claimed recovery of the debt from the defendant/appellant in the Lagos High Court, Nigeria. The defendant/appellant counter-claimed and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court as being the wrong forum to institute the action. The Lagos High Court held that it had jurisdiction.
The defendant/appellant was dissatisfied with this decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The defendant/appellant argued that the proper forum for the action was the Courts in Benin Republic, given that the loan agreement between BIDB and SEICB provided that the law and courts of Benin Republic should determine their dispute. He argued that the choice of court agreement in the loan contract should also be incorporated into the guarantee agreement, so that it was the intention of the parties that the courts of Benin Republic should determine their dispute. He also argued that the execution and performance of the contract were to be in Benin Republic hence the agreement was in French Language.
The plaintiff/respondent argued that the loan agreement and guarantee agreement were distinct. It observed that the parties were bound by the terms in the guarantee agreement. It added that the parties in the guarantee agreement did not agree that the court in Benin Republic would have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from it. It asserted that the guarantee agreement was not expressly incorporated in the loan agreement. It opined that the defendant/appellant was not privy to the loan agreement and would not take a benefit from or enforce it for want of privity of contract. It claimed that the content of the guarantee agreement was clear and must be given its literal meaning.
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. In construing the loan and guarantee agreement to determine if the parties chose the courts of Benin Republic, it applied the principles of Nigerian contract law to the effect that courts are allowed to read a document holistically so as to reach and garner harmonious results of its content. In construing a document, the court is enjoined or mandated by law to apply the literal rule as a canon of interpretation, that is, to accord the words employed there in their ordinary grammatical meaning without any embellishment.[4] It then held that for the document of parties to a private contract to confer jurisdiction on a court, the words used must be clear and explicit and devoid of woolliness and ambiguity. In the instant case, the guarantee contract did not precisely confer jurisdiction on the Benin Republic court.[5] It further held that loan contract did not in any way allude to the guarantee to benefit from the doctrine of incorporation by reference. The doctrine of incorporation could not be invoked because of the want of connection between the two documents.[6]
Kashamu’s case demonstrates the recent attitude of some Nigerian appellate courts to treat choice of court agreements as a term of the contract which should be construed strictly according to the literal and ordinary words used in the contract. In effect in the absence of vitiating circumstances, the parties are bound by the terms of a choice of court agreement, and a Nigerian court will not add or subtract from the way the parties drafted the contract. The Court of Appeal’s approach in Kashamu reflected Nigeria’s law that interprets contractual documents strictly. Kashamu is a modern approach that applies the principles of contract law to choice of court agreements.
[1]For an extended analysis see generally CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (Hart, 2020) 107 – 125.
[2]Nika Fishing Company Ltd v Lavina Corporation (2008 ) 16 NWLR 509, 542 (Tobi JSC); Conoil Plc
v Vitol SA ( 2018 ) 9 NWLR 489 – 490 (Nweze JSC); 497 (Kekere-Ekun JSC); 500 (Okoro JSC); 501 – 2
(Eko JSC); Captain Tony Nso v Seacor Marine ( Bahamas) Inc ( 2008 ) LPELR-8320 (CA); Megatech Engineering Limited v Sky Vision Global Networks Llc (2014) LPELR-22539 (CA); Beaumont Resources Ltd v DWC Drilling Ltd ( 2017 ) LPELR-42814 (CA); Kashamu v UBN Plc (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 90. See also Felshade International (Nig.) Ltd v Trafugura Beheer BV Amsterdam (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1743) 107, 144.
[3]Kashamu (Ibid)
[4] Kashamu (Ibid) 114-5 (Ogbuinya JCA).
[5] Kashamu (Ibid) 115 (Ogbuinya JCA).
[6] Kashamu (Ibid) 116 (Ogbuinya JCA).
Chris Thomale on the EP Draft Report on Corporate Due Diligence
Professor Chris Thomale, University of Vienna and Roma Tre University, has kindly provided us with his thoughts on the recent EP Draft Report on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability.
In recent years, debate on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has picked up speed, finally reaching the EU. The Draft Report first and foremost contains a draft Directive on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, which seems a logical step ahead from the status quo developed since 2014, which so far only consists of reporting obligations (see the Non-Financial Reporting Directive) and sector specific due diligence (see the Regulations on Timber and Conflict Minerals). The date itself speaks volumes: Precisely, to the very day (!), 8 years after the devastating fire in the factory of Ali Enterprises in Pakistan, which attracted much international attention through its follow-up litigation against the KiK company in Germany, the EU is taking the initiative to coordinate Member State national action plans as required under the Ruggie Principles. Much could be said about this new Directive in terms of company law and business law: The balancing exercise of on the one hand, assuring effective transparency of due diligence strategies and, on the other hand, avoiding overregulation in particular with regard to SMEs still appears somewhat rough and ready and hence should see some refinement in due course. The same applies to the private enforcement of those due diligence duties: By leaving the availability and degree of private enforcement entirely to the Member States (Art. 20), the Directive seems to gloss over one of the most pressing topics of comparative legal debate. The question of availability, conditions and extent of private liability imposed on parent companies for human rights violations committed in their value chains abroad, must be addressed by the EU eventually.
To this forum, however, the private international implications of the Draft Report would appear even more important:
As regards the conflicts of laws solution, the proposed Art. 6a Rome II Regulation seeks to make available, at the claimant’s choice, several substantive laws as conveniently summarized by Geert van Calster in the terms of lex loci damni, lex loci delicti commissi, lex loci incorporationis and lex loci activitatis. Despite my continuous call for a choice between the first two de regulatione lata, to be reached by applying a purposive reading of Art. 4 para 1 and 3 Rome II (see JZ 2017 and ZGR 2017), the latter two, lex loci incorporationis and lex loci activitatis, seem very odd to me. First, they are supported, to my humble knowledge, by no existing Private International Law Code or judicial practice. Second, the lex loci incorporationis has no convincing rationale, why it should in any way be connected with the legal relationship as created by the corporate perpetrator’s tort. Lex loci activitatis is excessively vague and will create threshold questions as well as legal uncertainty. Third, I would most emphatically concur with Jan von Hein’s opinion of a quadrupled choice being excessive and impractical in and of itself.
The solution proposed in terms of international jurisdiction, I will readily admit, looks puzzling to me. I fail to see, which cases the proposed Art. 8 para 5 Brussels Ibis Regulation is supposed to cover: As far as international jurisdiction is awarded to the courts of the “Member State where it has its domicile”, this adds nothing to Art. 4, 63 Brussels Ibis Regulation. In fact, it will create unnecessary confusion as to whether this venue of general jurisdiction is good even when there is no “damage caused in a third country [which] can be imputed to a subsidiary or another undertaking with which the parent company has a business relationship.” Thus, we are left with the courts of “a Member State […] in which [the undertaking] operates.” As already pointed out, this term itself will trigger a lot of controversy regarding certain threshold issues. But there is more: Oftentimes this locus activitatis will coincide with the locus delicti commissi, e.g., when claimants want to rely on an omission of oversight by the European parent company. In that case, Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation offers a venue at the very place, i.e. both in terms of international and local jurisdiction, where that omission was committed. How does the new rule relate to the old one? And, again, which cases exactly are supposed to be captured by this provision? In my view, this is a phantom paragraph that, if anything, can only do harm to the fragile semantic and systematic architecture built up by the Brussels Ibis Regulation and CJEU case law.
The same seems true of the proposed Art. 26a Brussels Ibis: First, there is no evident need for such a forum necessitatis, rendering Member State courts competent to hear foreign-cubed cases with no connection to the EU whatsoever. To the contrary, recent development of the US Alien Torts Statute point in the opposite direction. Second, the EU might be overreaching its legislative jurisdiction: Brussels Ibis Regulation is based on the EU’s competence to legislate on judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art. 81 para 2 TFEU). Such a global long-arm statute may not be covered by that competence, if it is legal at all under the public international confines incumbent upon civil jurisdiction (for details, see here). Third, it will be virtually anybody’s guess what a court seized with a politicised and likely emotional case like the ones we are talking about will deem a “reasonable” Third State venue. In fact, this would be a forum non conveniens test with inverted colours, i.e. the very test the CJEU, in 2005, deemed irreconcilable with the exigencies of foreseeability and legal certainty within the Brussels Ibis Regulation.
News
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.
ASADIP: Call for papers – Annual Conference on 25-27 September 2024 (in Spanish)
The American Association of Private International Law (ASADIP) will be holding its annual XVII conference entitled “A Private International Law more intelligent and less artificial” from 25 to 27 September 2024 in Buenos Aires and Pilar (Argentina). This Conference is being organised together with the Jornadas Nacionales de Derecho Civil at the Universidad Austral (Argentina).
A call for papers has been extended to 15 August 2024. The topic is party autonomy in Private International Law. For more information, click here.
To register, click here (ASADIP members have 40 % discount, early bird registration possible).