Views
US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case concerning the determination of habitual residence under the Child Abduction Convention: Monasky v. Taglieri
On 10 June 2019, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Monasky v. Taglieri. By doing so, the US Supreme Court will finally resolve the split in the US Circuits regarding the standard of review and the best approach to follow in determining the habitual residence of a child under the HCCH Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Child Abduction Convention).
The questions presented are:
- Whether a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as seven circuits have held, under a deferential version of de novo review, as the First Circuit has held, or under clear-error review, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held.
- Where an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, whether a subjective agreement between the infant’s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
Regarding the first question, it is important to note that findings of facts are reviewed for clear error and issues of law are reviewed de novo. This is of crucial importance as this would determine the extent to which the decision of the US district court can be reviewed by the US court of appeals, as these standards confer greater deference for findings of fact. The question then arises as to whether the determination of habitual residence is a mixed question of law and fact or only a question of fact.
The second question deals with the case of newborn or young infants and whether a subjective agreement between the parents is necessary to establish a habitual residence under the Child Abduction Convention. Despite its simplicity, the Court may also take the opportunity to address the current split in the US circuits regarding the extent to which courts can rely on the parents’ last shared intent or the child’s acclimatization or both in determining the habitual residence of a child.
This is well summed up by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Redmond v. Redmond (2013): “In substance, all circuits – ours included – consider both parental intent and the child’s acclimatization, differing only in their emphasis. The crux of disagreement is how much weight to give one or the other, especially where the evidence conflicts.”
In my personal opinion, the hybrid approach, that is relying on both shared parental intent and the child’s acclimatization (without placing more emphasis on one or the other, except perhaps for the case of newborns or very young infants), as well as looking to all other relevant considerations arising from the facts of the particular case, is the right approach to follow. This would avoid that parents create artificial jurisdictional links in a State and thus engage in forum shopping. The flip side of this argument is that this would necessarily mean less party autonomy in these matters. By following this approach, the United States would align itself to case law in Canada (Balev case – Canadian Supreme Court, see our previous post here), the European Union (Mercredi v. Chaffe, confirmed in O.L.v. P.Q.) and the United Kingdom (A. v. A. (Children: Habitual Residence)).
To conclude with the words of the Balev case: “[…] the hybrid approach to habitual residence best conforms to the text, structure, and purpose of the Hague Convention. There is no reason to decline to follow the dominant trend in Hague Convention jurisprudence. The hybrid approach should be adopted in Canada”.
Singapore Court of Appeal Affirms Party Autonomy in Choice of Court Agreements
Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa), Yong Pung How Professor of Law at Singapore Management University, has kindly provided the following report:
“The Singapore Court of Appeal has recently affirmed the significance of giving effect to party autonomy in the enforcement of choice of court agreements under the common law in three important decisions handed down in quick succession, on different aspects of the matter: the legal effect of exclusive choice of court agreements, the interpretation and effect of non-exclusive choice of court agreements, and the effect of exclusive choice of court agreements on anti-suit injunctions.
In Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 65, proceedings were commenced in Singapore in respect of an alleged breach of a commercial sale contract containing an exclusive choice of English court agreement. The agreement was dated before the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements took effect in English law, so the Convention was not engaged. Like many other common law countries, the Singapore courts would give effect to the agreement unless strong cause can be demonstrated by the party seeking to breach the agreement. A complication arose because there had been four previous decisions of the Court of Appeal in the shipping context where proceedings had been allowed to continue in Singapore in the face of an exclusive choice of foreign court agreement because the court had found that the defence was devoid of merits. The claimant’s argument that based on these decisions the Singapore court should hear the case because there was no valid defence to its claim succeeded before the High Court.
Sitting as a coram of five on the basis of the significance of the issue, the Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the decision. It decided that the merits of the case were not a relevant consideration at the stage where the court was determining whether to exercise its jurisdiction, and departed from its previous decisions to the extent that they stood to the contrary. While affirming the continuing validity of the strong cause test, the court placed considerable emphasis on the element of contractual enforcement. Thus, factors that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting would generally carry little or no weight. In particular, the court recast one of the traditional factors in the strong cause test, “whether the defendants genuinely desire trial in the foreign country, or are only seeking procedural advantages”, as an inquiry into whether the party seeking to enforce the choice of court agreement was acting abusively in the context of cross-border litigation. In the view of the court, the genuine desire for trial in the contractual forum has been adequately expressed in the choice of court agreement itself, and it is legitimate to seek the procedural advantages in the contractual forum. The court considered that strong cause would generally need to be established by either proof that the party seeking trial in the contractual forum was acting in an abusive manner (which is said to be a very high threshold), or that the party evading the contractual forum will be denied justice in that forum (ignoring the foreseeable factors), for example if war had broken out in that jurisdiction.
The court left open the question whether the same approach would be taken if the choice of court agreement had not been freely negotiated, taking cognisance of situations, especially in the shipping context, where contracting parties may find themselves bound by clauses the contents of which they have had no prior notice. The court expressed the tentative view that as a matter of consistency, the same approach should be adopted.
In Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2019] SGCA 11, the Court of Appeal was faced with an unusual clause: “This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Singapore/or People’s Republic of China and each of the parties hereto submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Singapore/or People’s Republic of China.” The High Court found the choice of law agreement to be meaningless as a purported floating choice of law, and that the choice of court agreement was invalid as it could not be severed from the choice of law agreement. The court then applied the natural forum test and declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that China was the clearly more appropriate forum for the dispute. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the finding that the choice of law agreement was invalid, but held that the choice of court agreement could be severed from the choice of law agreement.
In a prior decision, the Court of Appeal in Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala [2012] SGCA 16, had considered a non-exclusive choice of court clause to be relevant at the very least as a factor in the natural forum test, and that the weight to be accorded to the factor depended on the circumstances of each case. It also considered that there was another possible approach to such clauses based on contractual enforcement principles, which it did not fully endorse as the parties had not raised arguments based on contractual intentions.
In Shanghai Turbo, the Court of Appeal had to face this issue squarely, and affirmed that if there is a contractual promise in the non-exclusive choice of court clause, the party seeking to breach the agreement had to demonstrate strong cause why it should be allowed to do so. The court went on to hold that, generally, where Singapore contract law is applicable, the “most commercially sensible and reasonable” construction of an agreement to submit, albeit non-exclusively, to a court is that the parties have agreed not to object to the exercise of jurisdiction by the chosen court. This inference does not depend on there being an independent basis for the chosen court to assume jurisdiction (eg, by way of choice of law agreement), or on the number of courts named in the clause. Conversely, there is generally no inference that the parties have agreed that the chosen court is the most appropriate forum to hear the case.
Thus, practically, where there is a non-exclusive choice of Singapore court clause, in general the Singapore will hear the case unless strong cause (the same test elucidated in Vinmar) is demonstrated by the party objecting to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Singapore court, but where there is a non-exclusive choice of foreign court clause, this is merely a factor in the natural forum test, as the party seeking trial in Singapore is not in breach of any agreement. On the facts, the court held that jurisdiction should be exercised because the defendant could not demonstrate strong cause.
It is to be noted these are canons of construction under Singapore law. Under Singapore private international law, the choice of court agreement is governed by the law that governs the main contract unless the parties have indicated otherwise. However, Singapore law will apply in default of proof of foreign law. Moreover, canons of construction may be displaced by evidence of contrary intention. The court left open the question – expressing no tentative view – whether the same approach would be taken for contracts which are not freely negotiated. However, as this is a question of interpretation, the context of negotiation could be a relevant indication of the true meaning of contractual terms.
The third case is on arbitration, but the Court of Appeal also made comments relevant to choice of court agreements. In Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] SGCA 10, an injunction was sought to prevent reliance on a foreign judgment obtained in proceedings commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement. The court correctly identified the remedy sought as an anti-enforcement injunction, but nevertheless also discussed the anti-suit injunction because the case was argued on the basis that the injunction sought followed from an entitlement to an anti-suit injunction. The court clarified that an anti-suit injunction would generally be granted to enforce a choice of court agreement unless strong cause is demonstrated why it should be denied, and that there is no need to demonstrate vexatious or oppressive conduct independently. Thus, the law in this area is the mirror image of Vinmar. This case is particularly significant for Singapore because statements in the previous Court of Appeal decision in John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US Inc [2009] SGCA 32 could be read as suggesting that the breach of contract is merely one factor to consider in determining whether the conduct of foreign proceedings abroad was vexatious.
These common law developments are highly significant in bringing greater consistency with developments elsewhere where party autonomy has come to assume tremendous significance. One is the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements which took effect in Singapore law on 1 October 2016. Two critical aspects of this Convention are that a choice of the court of a Contracting State is deemed to be exclusive unless there are express provisions to the contrary, and that the chosen court should assume jurisdiction unless the choice of court clause is invalid. The second is the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) established in 2015. Where there is a choice (whether exclusive or not) of SICC clause, the SICC will assume jurisdiction unless the case is not an appropriate one having regard to the court’s character as an international commercial court. In addition, under the Rules of Court, a choice of the Singapore High Court made on or after 1 October 2016 is presumed to include the SICC unless expressly indicated otherwise. In both situations, the common law is not relevant, and to that extent, the practical effects of Vinmar and Shanghai Turbo will be limited. However, the extent to which anti-suit injunctions will be consistent with the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements remains an open question, and it is certainly an area for watch for further developments.”
A more detailed discussion of the cases mentioned above can be found at: https://cebcla.smu.edu.sg/sites/cebcla.smu.edu.sg/files/Paper2019.pdf
Hotel contracts and jurisdiction clauses before Greek courts
Dr Haris P. Meidanis – FCIArb, Meidanis, Seremetakis & Associates Law Firm, Athens, Greece
A recent judgment of the Mytilene Court of First Instance raised a very topical issue, related to the acceptance of international jurisdiction by Greek Courts in the case of hotel contracts, nothwistanding the prorogation clause in favour of the court of some other member state (in this case the courts of the Netherlands).
The guarantee contracts
The position of the court was that such a contract (a so-called guarantee) that essentially guarantees the payment of a certain number of hotel rooms by the tour operator, irrespective of the actual use of the reserved rooms, can be characterised as a lease contract for immovable property under the meaning of art. 24 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is that such a contract is predominantly a lease contract regarding immovable property and the services aspect that coexists with the lease character of the same contract is diluted into the latter. Under this line of arguments, the court found that, nothwistanding the prorogation clause in favour of the courts of the Netherlands, the court of the place of the immovable property (Greece and in particular Mytilene) should be the only competent to hear the case (art. 24 of Brussels Ia Regulation).
The allotment contracts
Interestingly, similar judgments of other courts of touristic destinations in Greece (Dodecanese islands, like Kos and Rhodes or of the Ionian island of Corfu) have issued similar judgments in the past, also in relation to the so-called allotment hotel contracts. Under them, the tour operator reserves rooms spanning from a minimum to a maximum pre-agreed number and agrees to use as many of them as it can and at the same time to lift by an agreed d-day, the reservation for the ones that are not to be used. Therefore, under the allotment contract, the reservation is not “guaranteed” for the totality of the rooms in question, as is the case with the “guarantee” contract. This point is generally downplayed by Greek courts who seem to be in favour of the application of art. 24 par. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation in every hotel contract, by emphasising on the fact that the primary character of such contracts is the lease.
Critique
This approach, although it does generally make sense, it also merits some qualification. To start with, the prorogation clause is a clause to be preserved by the parties. As is well known, one of the two ways to depart from such a clause in the context of Brussels Ia Regulation (the other is the tacit prorogation), is the case of the so-called exclusive jurisdiction of art. 24, the case of immovable property being one of them: This is the case among others “in proceedings which have as their object …tenancies of immovable property”. As explained, under Greek case law, it is admitted that this is the case and such contracts are predominantly lease of property contracts. Essentially, the question of pinpointing the legal nature of the guarantee and the allotment hotel contracts, is one of characterisation of private international law. It is generally submitted that characterisation should not be made lege fori and it should take into account the meaning of the relevant juridical categories in a wider/ international environment. This been said, it looks that Greek courts tend to do the characterisation lege fori in relation to hotel contracts, presumably in order to feel more comfortable with an argumentation made in the context of Greek law only. To be noted that this approach in relation to art. 24 of the Brussels Ia Regulation has a strong support also by the doctrine, which at least partly, supports the lege situs interpretation,[1] which in our case coincides with the lex fori. Nevertheless, the suggestion of approaching the matter without a strict lege situs or lege fori approach, that is under the so-called autonomous interpretation, widely used under the various EU PIL Regulations, should not be underplayed. The Hacker case (C-280/90) is also relevant, to the extent that it excludes the application of art. 24 par. 1 in the case of package holidays. Therefore, the predominantly lease dimension of the hotel contracts under Greek law, should not always be taken for granted. The main question is whether the above described hotel contracts are contracts for lease of property under the above points. As a matter of fact, in hotel contracts, the counter signatory of the hotel owner is not the actual user of the property, but a tour operator who then “sells” a package to the end user. On the other hand, from the hotel owner point of view, the contract is predominantly a lease contract. Another critical point is that in real life, the imbalance of powers between a north European tour operator and a local 25 rooms family hotel can be enormous. Especially In the case that the tour operator simply reserves the totality of the hotel rooms and cancels the reservation without good cause, it puts the hotel owner in the extremely burdensome situation to have to file an action somewhere in Europe, usually in “unknown territory” and under generally uncomfortable conditions. If, therefore the totality of the hotel rooms (or almost the totality) is involved, it can be said that the lease dimension of the agreement should indeed always prevail, and this should generally be the case in guarantee hotel contracts. This should be so no matter if the autonomous or the lege situs characterisation is followed. This is not necessarily the case if a small number of the rooms of hotels are reserved or in the case of allotment. In the latter case, perhaps the reservation of the totality of the rooms should again direct us towards the application of art. 24 par. 1, but following a closer examination of the terms of the hotel agreement in order for us to be able to examine if in casu the lease dimension again prevails and if the cancellation of the agreement should end up to a damage to the owner, similar to the one it would suffer in the case of cancellation of a guarantee contract. In this context, the rest of the facts of the case, i.e percentage of the rooms in relation to overall number of rooms of the hotel in question, the degree of power imbalance of the parties, the rest of the services involved (see for example Pammer case C-585/08) cannot be ignored.
[1] De Lima Pinheiro, in Magnus/ Mankowski Brussels I Regulation 2nd ed. Seller 2012, art. 22 par. 25.
News
MPI workshop on investment arbitration by Prof. Moura Vicente
MPI is sending an invitation to its virtual workshop on the topic of “Investment Arbitration – Lost in the Bermuda Triangle of EU Law, Public International Law and Private International Law?”, which will be presented by Professor Dário Moura Vicente, University of Lisbon.
As a part of the series “Current Research in Private International Law”, the workshop will take place online via Zoom, on Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 11:00 a.m. (CET). Registration for the workshop is possible at this LINK.
More information is available here.
Update: Repository HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention
In preparation of the Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 9/10 June 2023, taking place on campus of the University of Bonn, Germany, registration now open, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…
Update of 15 February 2023: New entries are printed bold.
Please also check the “official” Bibliography of the HCCH for the instrument.
I. Explanatory Reports
| Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco; Saumier, Geneviève |
„Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: Explanatory Report“, as approved by the HCCH on 22 September 2020 (available here) |
| Garcimartín Alférez, Francisco; Saumier, Geneviève |
“Judgments Convention: Revised Draft Explanatory Report”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 1 of December 2018 (available here) |
| Nygh, Peter; Pocar, Fausto |
“Report of the Special Commission”, HCCH Prel.-Doc. No. 11 of August 2000 (available here), pp 19-128 |
II. Bibliography
| Ahmed, Mukarrum | “Brexit and the Future of Private International Law in English Courts”, Oxford 2022 |
| Åkerfeldt, Xerxes | ”Indirekta behörighetsregler och svensk domsrätt – Analys och utredning av svensk domstols behörighet i förhållande till 2019 års Haagkonvention om erkännande och verkställighet” (Examensarbete inom juristprogrammet, avancerad nivå, Örebro Universitet, 2021 ; available here)
“Indirect jurisdiction and Swedish law – Analysis and inquiry of the jurisdiction of Swedish courts in relation to the 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement” |
| Al-Jubouri, Zina Hazem | “Modern trends for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters accordance the 2019 Hague Convention”, Tikrit University Journal for Rights (TUJR) 2022-03, pp. 79-109 (available here) |
| Amurodov, Jahongir | “Some issues of Ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019) by the Republic of Uzbekistan”, Uzbek Law Review 2020-03, pp. 11-116 (available here) |
| Arslan, Ilyas | “The 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Uluslararasi Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi 10 (2021), pp. 329-402 |
| Badr, Yehya Ibrahim | “The Hague 2019 Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions: A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Doctrine, Judiciary, and Legislation (IJDJL) 2 (2021), pp. 427-468 (available here) |
| Balbi, Francesca | “La circolazione delle decisioni a livello globale: il rogetto di convenzione della Conferenza dell’Aia per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere” (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2019; available: here) |
| Beaumont, Paul | “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2018, pp 433-447 |
| Beaumont, Paul R. | “Judgments Convention: Application to Governments”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 121-137 |
| Beaumont, Paul; Holliday, Jane (eds.) |
“A Guide to Global Private International Law”, Oxford 2022 |
| Biresaw, Samuel Maigreg | “Appraisal of the Success of the Instruments of International Commercial Arbitration vis-a-vis International Commercial Litigation and Mediation in the Harmonization of the Rules of Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution”, Journal of Dispute Resolution 2022-02, pp. 1-27 (preprint available here) |
| Blanquet-Angulo, Alejandra | “Les Zones d’ombre de la Convention de La Haye du 2 Juillet 2019”, Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé (RIDC), 73 (2021), pp. 53-71 |
| Blom, Joost | “The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Judgments and Jurisdictions Projects”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 55 (2018), pp 257-304 |
| Bonomi, Andrea | “European Private International Law and Third States”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2017, pp 184-193 |
| Bonomi, Andrea | “Courage or Caution? – A Critical Overview of the Hague Preliminary Draft on Judgments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 17 (2015/2016), pp 1-31 |
| Bonomi, Andrea; Mariottini, Cristina M. |
“(Breaking) News From The Hague: A Game Changer in International Litigation? – Roadmap to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 20 (2018/2019), pp 537-567 |
| Borges Moschen, Valesca Raizer; Marcelino, Helder |
“Estado Constitutional Cooperativo e a conficaçao do direito internacional privado apontamentos sobre o ’Judgement Project’ da Conferência de Haia de Direito Internacional Privado”, Revista Argumentum 18 (2017), pp 291-319
(Cooperative Constitutional State and the Codification of Private International Law: Notes on the “Judgment Project” of the Hague Conference on Private International Law) |
| Borisov, Vitaly Nikolaevich | “2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Global Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments (Review of the International Conference held in Hong Kong on September 9, 2019), Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law 2020-03, pp. 166-172 (available here) |
| Brand, Ronald A. | “The Circulation of Judgments Under the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2019-02, pp 1-35 |
| Brand, Ronald A. | “Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project”, in HCCH (ed.), A Commitment to Private International Law – Essays in honour of Hans van Loon, Cambridge 2013, pp 89-99 |
| Brand, Ronald A. | “New Challenges in Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments”, in Franco Ferrari, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (eds.), Private International Law – Contemporary Challenges and Continuing Relevance, Cheltenham/Northampton 2019, pp 360-389 |
| Brand, Ronald A. | “Jurisdiction and Judgments Recognition at the Hague Conference: Choices Made, Treaties Completed, and the Path Ahead”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 3-17 |
| Brand, Ronald A. | “The Hague Judgments Convention in the United States: A ‘Game Changer’ or a New Path to the Old Game?“, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), pp. 847-880 (available here) |
| Brannigan, Neil | “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. 83-112 |
| Cai, Ya-qi | “Feasibility Study on China’s Ratification of the HCCH Judgment Convention from the Perspective of Indirect Jurisdiction”, Journal of Taiyuan Normal University (Social Science Edition) 2021-04, pp. 74-80 |
| Çaliskan, Yusuf; Çaliskan, Zeynep |
“2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlarinin Taninmasi ve Tenfizine Iliskin Lahey Anlasmasinin Degerlendirilmesi”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp 231-245 (available here)
(An Evaluation of 2 July 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters) |
| Cardoso, Connor J. | “Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, New York University Law Review 97 (2022), pp. 1508-1545 (available here) |
| Celis Aguilar, María Mayela | “El convenio de la haya de 30 de junio de 2005 sobre acuerdos de elección de foro y su vinculación con el ‘proyecto sobre Sentencias’ (y viceversa)”, Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°40 (octubre de 2018), pp. 29-51 (available here) |
| Chai, Yuhong ; Qu, Zichao | “The Development and Future of the Hague Jurisdiction Project”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2021-05, pp. 27-52 (online first) |
| Chen, Shun-Hsiang | “Signed, Sealed, & Undelivered: Unsuccessful Attempts of Judgment Recognition Between the U.S. and China”, Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law 16 (2022), pp. 167-189 (available here) |
| Chen, Wendy | “Indirect Jurisdiction over the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments of Foreign Courts in Compulsory Counterclaims”, Journal of Xingtai University 2019-04, pp. 106-110 |
| Cheng, Xian-ping; Liu, Xian-chao | “On the Application of the Severable Clause in The Hague Judgments Convention”, Harbin Normal University Social Science Journal 2021-05, pp. 30-34 |
| Choi, Sung-Soo | “Review of the several issues of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Gachon Law Review 14 (2021), pp. 37-68 (available here) |
| Clavel, Sandrine ; Jault-Seseke, Fabienne | “La convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale : Que peut-on en attendre ?”, Travaux du comité français de Droit international privé, Vol. 2018-2020, Paris 2021 (Version provisoire de la communication présentée le 4 octobre 2019, available here) |
| Clover Alcolea, Lucas | “The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the New York Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, Mc Gill Journal of Dispute Resolution 6 (2019-2020), pp. 187-214 |
| Coco, Sarah E. | “The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, New York University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243 |
| Cong, Junqi | “Reinventing China’s Indirect Jurisdiction over Civil and Commercial Matters concerning Foreign Affairs – Starting from the Hague Judgment Convention” (Master’s Thesis, National 211/985 Project Jilin University; DOI: 10.27162/d.cnki.gjlin.2020.001343) |
| Contreras Vaca, Francisco José | “Comentarios al Convenio de la Haya del 2 de julio de 2019 sobre Reconcimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias Extranjeras en materia civil y comercial”, Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°45 (abril de 2021), pp. 110-127 (available here) |
| Cui, Zhenghao | “On the Coordination between the Draft Convention on Judicial Sale of Ships and the related Conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, China Ship Survey 2021-04, pp. 65-68 |
| Cuniberti, Gilles | “Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 56 (2020), pp 33-54 |
| DAV (German Bar Association) | “Position Paper on the EU’s possible accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Berlin 2020 (available here) |
| de Araujo, Nadia ; de Nardi, Marcelo ; Spitz, Lidia |
“A nova era dos litígios internacionais”, Valor Economico 2019 |
| de Araujo, Nadia ; de Nardi, Marcelo ; Lopes Inez ; Polido, Fabricio |
„Private International Law Chronicles“, Brazilian Journal of International Law 16 (2019), pp 19-34 |
| de Araujo, Nadia ; de Nardi, Marcelo |
„Consumer Protection Under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 67-79 |
| de Araujo, Nadia; de Nardi, Marcelo; Ribeiro, Gustavo; Polido, Fabricio; Lopes, Inez; Oliveira, Matheus | « Cronicas de Direito Internacional Privado: destaques do trabalho da HCCH nos ultimos dois anos », Revista De Direito Internacional 19 (2022), pp. 13-41
“Chronicles of Private International Law: highlights of HCCH’s work over the past two years”, Brazilian Journal of International Law 19 (2022), pp 13-41 |
| De Nardi, Marcelo | “The Hague Convention of 2019 on Foreign Judgments: Operation and Refusals”, in: Michael Underdown (ed.), International Law – A Practical Manual [Working Title], London 2022, pp. 1-10 (available here) |
| de Araujo, Nadia ; de Nardi, Marcelo |
„22ª Sessão Diplomática da Conferência da Haia e a Convenção sobre sentenças estrangeiras : Primeiras reflexões sobre as vantagens para o Brasil da sua adoção“, Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión 7 No. 14 (2019), páginas 198-221
(22nd Diplomatic Session of The Hague Conference and the Convention on Foreign Judgments: First Reflections on the Advantages for Brazil of their Adoption) |
| de Araujo, Nadia ; De Nardi, Marcelo |
“International Jurisdiction in Civil or Commercial Matters: HCCH’s New Challenge”, in Magdalena Pfeiffer, Jan Brodec, Petr Bríza, Marta Zavadilová (eds.), Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerová, Prague 2021, pp. 1-11 |
| Dlmoska, Fani | “Would the Judgments Convention lead to unification of the ratification and enforcement of foreign judgments in the SEE Countries: The possible impact of the Judgments Convention”, SEELJ Special Edition No. 8 (2021), pp. 81-103 |
| Dordevic, Slavko | “Country Report Serbia”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 180-202 |
| Dotta Salgueiro, Marcos | “Article 14 of the Judgments Convention: The Essential Reaffirmation of the Non-discrimination Principle in a Globalized Twenty-First Century”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 113-120 |
| Douglas, Michael; Keyes, Mary; McKibbin, Sarah; Mortensen, Reid |
“The HCCH Judgments Convention in Australian Law”, Federal Law Review 47 (2019), pp 420-443 |
| Du, Tao | “Frontiers of Private International Law Around the World: An Annual Review (2019-2020)”, Chinese Review of International Law 2021-04, pp. 103-128 (available here) |
| Dyrda, Lukasz | “Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters in the Context of the European Union’s Planned Accession to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention after Brexit”, Europejski Przeglad Sadowy 2022-5, pp. 22-29 |
| Echegaray de Maussion, Carlos Eduardo | “El Derecho Internacional Privado en el contexto internacional actual : Las reglas de competencia judicial indirecta en el Convenio de la Haya de 2 de Julio de 2019 y el accesso a la justicia” Revista mexicana de Derecho internacional privado y comprado N°45 (abril de 2021), pp. 128-139 (available here) |
| Efeçinar Süral | “Possible Ratification of the Hague Convention by Turkey and Its Effects to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40 (2020), pp. 775-798 (available here) |
| EGPIL/GEDIP | Observations on the possible accession of the European Union to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Text adopted on 9 December 2020 following the virtual meeting of 18-19 September 2020 (available here) | Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 2021, pp. 474-476 |
| Ermakova, Elena ; Frovola, Evgenia ; Sitkareva, Elena | “International Economic Integration and the Evolution of the Principles of Civil Procedure”, in Elena G. Popkova, Bruno S. Sergi, Modern Global Economic System, Basel 2021, pp. 1589-1597 |
| European Union (EU)/ European Commission | “Proposal for a Council Decision on the accession by the European Union to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, COM(2021) 388 final (available here) |
| Fan, Jing | “On the Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-02, pp. 313-337 |
| Fan, Jing | “Reconfiguration on Territoriality in Transnational Recognition and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Judgments”, Chinese Review of International Law 2021-01, pp. 90-112 (available here) |
| Fankai, Chen | “On the Impacts of Two Hague Conventions on the International Commercial Arbitration”, Beijing Arbitration Quaterly 2021-04, pp. 55-77 |
| Farnoux, Étienne | “Reconnaissance et exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civil ou commerciale : À propos de la Convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019”, La Semaine Juridique 2019, pp. 1613-1617 |
| Forner Delaygua, Joaquim-Joan | “El Convenio de La Haya de 2 julio 2019 como nuevo marco normativo de las sentencias en materia de contractual comercial”, in Pérez Vera et al. (eds.), El Derecho internacional privado entre la tradición y la innovación – Obra homenaje al Profesor doctor José María Espinar Vicente, Madrid 2020, pp. 307-325 |
| Franzina, Pietro; Leandro, Antonio
|
“La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere : una prima lettura”, Quaderni di SIDIblog 6 (2019), pp 215-231 (available here)
(The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments: A First Appraisal) |
| Fuchs, Felix | “Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile in Zivil- oder Handelssachen“, Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsrecht (GWR) 2019, pp 395-399 |
| Garcimartín, Francisco | “The Judgments Convention: Some Open Questions”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 19-31 |
| Garnett, Richard | “The Judgments Project: fulfilling Assers dream of free-flowing judgments”, in Thomas John, Rishi Gulati, Ben Koehler (eds.), The Elgar Companion to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Cheltenham/Northampton 2020, pp. 309-321 |
| Gawron, Karol | “Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments under the 2019 Hague Convention from a Polish perspective” (Master Thesis, Jagiellonian University Kraków, 2022) |
| Goddard, David | „The Judgments Convention – The Current State of Play”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 473-490 |
| González Pedrouzo, Carmen | “La Convención de La Haya de 2 de juliio de 2019 sobre el Reconocimiento y la Ejecución de Sentencias Extranjeras en Materia Civil y Comercial y su impacto en la legislación uruguaya”, UCLAEH Revista de Derecho 2022-01, pp. 73-88 (available here) |
| Grodl, Lukas | “Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine – post Brexit Applicability in Transnational Litigation”, Casopis pro právní vedu a praxis 30 (2022), pp. 285-303 (available here) |
| Gu, Weixia | “A Conflict of Laws Study in Hong Kong-China Judgment Regionalism: Legal Challenges and renewed Momentum”, Cornell International Law Journal 52 (2020), pp. 591-642 |
| Guez, Philippe ; de Berard, François ; Malet-Deraedt, Fleur ; Roccati, Marjolaine ; Sinopoli, Laurence ; Slim, Hadi ; Sotomayor, Marcelo ; Train, François-Xavier |
“Chronique de droit international privé appliqué aux affaires, Revue de droit des affaires internationales – 1 décembre 2018 au 31 décembre 2019”, Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales 2020, pp. 237-274 |
| Gugu Bushati, Aida | “Country Report Albania”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 16-41 (available here) |
| Guide, Jia [Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China] |
“Address by the Director of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jia Guide at the Opening Ceremony of the International Symposium on the Hague Judgment Convention (9 September 2019)”, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 2019, pp. 503-505 |
| Gusson Said, Enza ; Quiroga Obregón, Marcelo Fernando | “Homologação de sentenças estrangeiras e o Judgements
Project”, Derecho y Cambio Social N.º 60 (2020) en línea, |
| Häggblom, Annie | ”2019 ars Haagkonvention om erkannande och verkstallighet av utlandska domar pa privatrattens omrade: Ett framgangsrikt internationellt instrument pa den internationella privatrattens omrade?” (Examensarbete i internationell privat- och processrätt, Uppsala Universitet, 2021; available here)
“The Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters : A successful international instrument in the field of private international law?” |
| He, Qisheng | “The HCCH Judgments Convention and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments pertaining to a State”, Global Law Review 3 (2020), pp 147-161 (available here) |
| He, Qisheng | “Unification and Division: Immovable Property Issues under the HCCH Judgement Convention”, Journal of International Law 1 (2020), pp 33-55 |
| He, Qisheng | “The HCCH Judgments Convention and International Judicial Cooperation of Intellectual Property”, Chinese Journal of Law 2021-01, pp. 139-155 |
| He, Qisheng | “Latest Development of the Hague Jurisdiction Project”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2020-04, pp. 1-16 |
| He, Qisheng | “ ’Civil or Commercial Matters’ in International Instruments Scope and Interpretation”, Peking University Law Review 2018-02, pp. 1-25 (available here) |
| He, Qisheng | “A Study on the Intellectual Property Provisions in the ’Hague Convention on Judgment’ – On the Improvement of Transnational Recognition and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Judgments in China”, Journal of Taiyuan University (Social Science Edition) 2020-05, pp. 40-47 |
| He, Qisheng | “Negotiations of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on State Immunity and Its Inspirations”, Chinese Review of International Law 2022-02, pp. 40-52 |
| He, Qisheng | “Dilemma and Transformation of the Hague Jurisdiction Project”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2022-02, pp. 36-58 |
| He, Qisheng | “The Territoriality of Intellectual Property in International Judicial Cooperation”, Modern Law Science 2022-04, pp. 78-88 |
| Herrup, Paul; Brand, Ronald A. |
“A Hague Convention on Parallel Proceedings”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2021-23, pp. 1-10 (available here) |
| Herrup, Paul; Brand, Ronald A. |
“A Hague Parallel Proceedings Convention: Architecture and Features”, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2022-7, pp. 1-15 (available here) |
| Himmah, Dinda Rizqiyatul | “The Hague 2019 Foreign Judgments Convention: An Indonesian Private International Law Perspective”, Mimbar Hukum 34 (2022), pp. 618-648 (available here) |
| Huang, Jie (Jeanne) | “Enforcing Judgments in China: Comparing the Conference Minutes of the Supreme People’s Court with the Hague 2019 Judgments Convention”, ASIL:insights 2022-11, pp. 1-7 (available here) |
| Huber, Peter | “Blütenträume – Die Haager Konferenz und Haimo Schack”, in Sebastian Kubis, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Benjamin Raue, Malte Stieper (eds.), Ius Vivum: Kunst – Internationales – Persönlichkeit, Festschrift für Haimo Schack, Tübingen 2022, pp. 451-463 |
| Jacobs, Holger | “Der Zwischenstand zum geplanten Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen – Der vorläufige Konventionsentwurf 2016“, Zeitschrift für Internationales Privatrecht & Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) 2017, pp 24-30 |
| Jacobs, Holger | “Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen vom 2. Juli 2019 – Eine systematische und rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung“, Tübingen 2021 |
| Jang, Jiyong | “Conditions and Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2021-01, pp. 399-430 |
| Jang, Junhyok | “The Public Policy Exception Under the New 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 97-111 |
| Jang, Junhyok | “2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2019-02, pp. 437-510. |
| Jang, Junhyok | “Practical Suggestions for Joining the 2019 Judgments Convention and Its Implications for Korean Law and Practice”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 141-217 |
| Jovanovic, Marko | Thou Shall (Not) Pass – Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 309 – 332 |
| Jueptner, Eva | “The Hague Jurisdiction Project – what options for the Hague Conference?”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 247-274 |
| Jueptner, Eva | “A Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments: why did the Judgments Project (1992-2001) fail?”, (Doctoral Thesis, University of Dundee, 2020) |
| Kasem, Rouzana | “The Future of Choice of Court and Arbitration Agreements under the New York Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and the Draft Hague Judgments Convention”, Aberdeen Student Law Review 10 (2020), pp. 69-115 |
| Kessedjian, Catherine | “Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities?“, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 19-33 |
| Khanderia, Saloni | „The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law”, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 44 (2018), pp 452-475 |
| Khanderia, Saloni | “The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Should South Africa Endorse it?”, Journal of African Law 63 (2019), pp 413-433 |
| Khanderia, Saloni | “The prevalence of ‘jurisdiction’ in the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments in India and South Africa: a comparative analysis”, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 2021 |
| Kindler, Peter | “Urteilsfreizügigkeit für derogationswidrige Judikate? – Ein rechtspolitischer Zwischenruf auf dem Hintergrund der 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention“, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 241-253 |
| Konieczna, Kinga | “Overview of the Ongoing Activities of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Gdanskie Studia Prawnicze 2022-01, pp. 67-77 (available here) |
| Korkmaz, Abdullah Harun | “Tanima-Tenfiz Hukukunda Yeni Egilimler: 2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Hukuki veya Ticari Konularda Yabanci Mahkeme Kararlar?nin Taninmasi ve Tenfizi Hakkinda Lahey Sözlesmesi”, Istanbul 2021
(New Trends in Recognition and Enforcement Law: The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters) |
| Kostic-Mandic, Maja | “Country Report Montenegro”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 114-137 (available here) |
| Krotkov, I. A.; Sidorova, A.P. |
“On the Concept of the possible Ratification by the Russian Federation of the Convention of July 2019”, in Perm State University (ed.), First All-Russian Conference of Young Scientists on Actual Issues of the Development in Private Law and Civil Procedure (Perm 12 December 2020), Perm 2020, pp. 140- 142 (available here) |
| Landbrecht, Johannes | “Commercial Arbitration in the Era of the Singapore Convention and the Hague Court Conventions”, ASA Bulletin 37 (2019), pp. 871-882 (available here) |
| Lee, Gyooho | “The Preparatory Works for the Hague Judgment Convention of 2019 and its Subsequent Developments in terms of Intellectual Property Rights”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 85-140 |
| Leible, Stefan; Wilke, Felix M. | „Der Vertragsgerichtsstand im HAVÜ – Lehren aus Brüssel und Luxemburg?“, in Sebastian Kubis, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Benjamin Raue, Malte Stieper (eds.), Ius Vivum: Kunst – Internationales – Persönlichkeit, Festschrift für Haimo Schack, Tübingen 2022, pp. 710-722 |
| Linton, Marie | “Bristande delgivning som hinder för erkännande och verkställighet av utländska domar enligt 2019 års Haagkonvention”, in Marie Linton, Mosa Sayed (eds.), Festskrift till Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg, Uppsala 2022, pp. 189-203
“ Lack of service as an obstacle to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention” |
| Liu, Guiqiang | “Limitation Period for the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 109-124 |
| Liu, Yang | “Controversies over International Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Hague Jurisdiction Project and China’s Response”, Present Day Law Science 2022-05, pp. 91-102 |
| Liu, Yang; Xiang, Zaisheng | “The No Review of Merit Clause in the Hague Judgments Convention”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2020-05, pp. 44-65 |
| Maistriaux, Léonard | « La Convention de La Haye sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale. Lignes de force, état des lieux et perspectives pour la Belgique », Journal des Tribunaux (JT) 2022-12, pp. 181-187 |
| Malachta, Radovan | “Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview”, in Jirí Valdhans (ed.), COFOLA International 2020: Brexit and its Consequences – Conference Proceedings, Brno 2020, pp. 39-67 (available here) |
| Malatesta, Alberto | “Circolazione delle sentenze tra Unione europea e Regno Unito : a favore di una cooperazione in seno alla Conferenza dell’Aja”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale (RDIPP) 57 (2021), pp. 878-898 |
| Mammadzada, Aygun | “Enhancing party autonomy under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005: Comparative analysis with the 2012 EU Brussels Recast Regulation and 1958 New York Arbitration Convention”, (Doctoral Thesis, University of Southampton, 2022, available here) |
| Mariottini, Cristina | „Establishment of Treaty Relations under The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp. 365-380 |
| Mariottini, Cristina | “The Exclusion of Defamation and Privacy from the Scope of the Hague Draft Convention on Judgments, YbPIL 19 (2017/2018), pp 475-486. |
| Martiny, Dieter | “The Recognition and Enforcement of Court Decisions Between the EU and Third States”, in Alexander Trunk, Nikitas Hatzimihail (eds.), EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries – Which Way Forward?, Baden-Baden 2021, pp 127-146 |
| Maude, L. Hunter | “Codifying Comity: The Case for U.S. Ratification of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, Wisconsin International Law Review 38 (2021), pp. 108-138 |
| Meier, Niklaus | “Notification as a Ground for Refusal”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 81-95 |
| Muir Watt, Horatia | “Le droit international privé au service de la géopolitique : les enjeux de la nouvelle Convention de la Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2020, pp. 427-448 |
| Neels, Jan L. | “Preliminary remarks on the Draft Model Law on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in the Commonwealth” ” in Engela C Schlemmer and PH O’Brien (eds) Liber Amicorum JC Sonnekus, published as 2017 volume 5 (special edition) Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg / Journal of South African Law, pp. 1-9 |
| Nielsen, Peter Arnt | “The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention – from failure to success”, Journal of Private International Law 16 (2020), pp 205-246 |
| Nielsen, Peter Arnt | “A Global Framework for International Commercial Litigation”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 415-433 |
| Nishimura, Yuko | “Indirect Jurisdiction at the Place where the Immovable Property is situated in HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Seinan Gakuin University Graduate School Research Review N°13, pp. 1-20 (available here) |
| North, Cara | “The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective”, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 202-210 |
| North, Cara | “The Exclusion of Privacy Matters from the Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 33-48 |
| Oestreicher, Yoav | “ ’We’re on a Road to Nowhere’ – Reasons for the Continuing Failure to Regulate Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, The International Lawyer 42 (2008), pp 59-86 |
| Öhlund, Jonas | ”2019 års Haagkonvention – ett globalt regelverk om erkännande och verkställighet av domar”, Svensk Juristtidning 2020, pp. 350-360 (available here) |
| Okorley, Solomon | “The possible impact of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters on Private International Law in Common Law West Africa”, (Master’s Dissertation, University of Johannesburg, 2019; available: here) |
| Okorley, Solomon | “The possible impact of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters on the Grounds of International Competence in Ghana”, University of Cape Coast Law Journal (UCC L. J.) 2022-01, pp. 85-112 (available here) |
| Pasquot Polido, Fabrício B. | “The Judgments Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: a way forward for a long-awaited solution”, in Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Maria Blanca Noodt Taquela (eds.), Diversity and integration in Private International Law, Edinburgh 2019, pp. 176-199 |
| Payan, Guillaume | “Convention de La Haye du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale”, in Hubert Alcarez, Olivier Lecucq (eds.), L’exécution des décisions de justice, Pau 2020, pp 167-183 |
| Pertegás Sender, Marta | “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Its Conclusion and the road ahead”, in Asian Academy of International Law (publ.), Sinergy and Security: the Keys to Sustainable Global Investment: Proceedings of the 2019 Colloquium on International Law, 2019 Hong Kong, pp 181-190 (available here) |
| Pertegás, Marta | “Brussels I Recast and the Hague Judgments Project”, in Geert Van Calster (ed.), European Private International Law at 50: Celebrating and Contemplating the 1968 Brussels Convention and its Successors, Cambridge 2018, pp 67-82 |
| Pocar, Fausto | “Riflessioni sulla recente convenzione dell’Aja sul riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere”, Rivista di diritto internazionale private e processuale 57 (2021), pp. 5-29 |
| Pocar, Fausto | “Brief Remarks on the Relationship between the Hague Judgments and Choice of Court Conventions”, in in Magdalena Pfeiffer, Jan Brodec, Petr Bríza, Marta Zavadilová (eds.), Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerová, Prague 2021, pp. 345-353 |
| Pocar, Fausto | “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: A Step into the Future or a Restatement of the Present?”, in Jonathan Harris, Campbell McLachlan (eds.), Essays in International Litigation for Lord Collins, Oxford 2022, pp. 71-84 |
| Poesen, Michiel | “Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Uniform Law Review 26 (2021), pp. 1-13 |
| Popov, Vasiliy | “Grounds for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Russia”, Issues of Russian Justice 15 (2021), pp. 137-152 |
| Povlakic, Meliha | “Country Report Bosnia and Herzegovina”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 42-81 (available here) |
| Qerimi, Donikë | “Country Report Kosovo”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 82-113 (available here) |
| Qian, Zhenqiu | “On the Common Courts Provision under the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2019-01, pp. 59-74 (available here) |
| Qian, Zhenqiu; Yang, Yu |
“On the Interpretation and Application of the Cost of Proceedings Provision under the Hague Judgment Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 96-108 |
| Reisman, Diana A. A. | “Breaking Bad: Fail –Safes to the Hague Judgments Convention”, Georgetown Law Journal 109 (2021), pp. 880-906 |
| Revolidis, Ioannis | « From the ashes we will rise – recognition and enforcement of international judgments after the revival of the Hague Convention », Lex & Forum 4/2021 |
| Reyes, Anselmo | „Implications of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments of the Singapore International Commercial Court”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 695-709 |
| Ribeiro-Bidaoui, João | “The International Obligation of the Uniform and Autonomous Interpretation of Private Law Conventions: Consequences for Domestic Courts and International Organisations”, Netherlands International Law Review 67 (2020), pp 139 – 168 |
| Rumenov, Ilija | “Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 3 (2019), pp 385-404 |
| Rumenov, Ilija | “Country Report North Macedonia”, in GIZ (ed.), Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions in South East Europe and Perspectives of HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, Skopje 2021, pp. 138-179 (available here) |
| Rumenov, Ilija | “The indirect jurisdiction of the 2019 Hague Convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters – Is the “heart” of the Convention”, SEELJ Special Edition No. 8 (2021), pp. 9-45 |
| Sachs, Klaus; Weiler, Marcus |
“A comparison of the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions under the 1958 New York Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 763-781 |
| Saito, Akira | “Advancing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Developments of Inter-Court Diplomacy and New Hague Judgments Convention”, Kobe Law Journal 2019-03, pp. 59-110 (available here) |
| Salim, Rhonson | “Quo Vadis Consumer Dispute Resolution? – UK & EU Cross Border Consumer Dispute Resolution in the Post Brexit Landscape”, Revista Ítalo-Española De Derecho Procesal 2022-01, pp. 97-121 (available here) |
| Sánchez Fernández, Sara | “El Convenio de la Haya de Reconocimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias”, Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 73 (2021), pp. 233-252 |
| Saumier, Geneviève | “Submission as a Jurisdictional Basis and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) 67 (2020), pp 49-65 |
| Schack, Haimo | “Wiedergänger der Haager Konferenz für IPR: Neue Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens?“, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZeuP) 2014, pp 824-842 |
| Schack, Haimo | „Das neue Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 1-96 |
| Schroeter, Ulrich G. | “Rechtsschutz am Erfüllungsort im grenzüberschreitenden Warenhandel nach Lugano-Übereinkommen und Haager Übereinkommen 2019” (Jurisdiction of the courts at the place of performance in cross-border trade under the 2007 Lugano Convention and the 2019 Hague Convention – in German) in: Claudia Seitz/Ralf Michael Straub/Robert Weyeneth (eds.), Rechtsschutz in Theorie und Praxis: Festschrift for Stephan Breitenmoser, Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn (2022), 497–508 (available here) |
| Senicheva, Marina | “The Relevance and Problems of the Hague Convention of July 2, 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ratification by the Russian Federation”, Advances in Law Studies 8 (2020), online (available: here) |
| Shan, Juan | “A study on the Anti-trust Provisions in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 318-335 |
| Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich | “Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 1)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-07, pp. 170-186 (available here) |
| Shchukin, Andrey Igorevich | “Indirect International Jurisdiction in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 2019 (Part 2)”, Journal of Russian Law No. 2020-11, pp. 140-54 (available here) |
| Shen, Juan | “Further Discussion on the Drafts of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and Considerations from Chinese Perspective”, Chinese Review of International Law 2016-06, pp. 83-103 (available here) |
| Silberman, Linda | “Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review 52 (2002), pp 319-349 |
| Silberman, Linda | “The 2019 Judgments Convention: The Need for Comprehensive Federal Implementing Legislation and a Look Back at the ALI Proposed Federal Statute”, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 21-19 (available here) |
| Skvortsova, Tatyana Aleksandrovna; Denyak, Victoria Yurievna |
“On the issue of Recognition and Enforcement of Court Decisions of a Foreign State in the Russian Federation”, Collection of selected Articles of the International Scientific Conference, Saint Petersburg (2021), pp. 258-261 |
| Solomon, Dennis | “Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen von 2019 und die internationale Anerkennungszuständigkeit“, in Rolf A. Schütze, Thomas R. Klötzel, Martin Gebauer (eds.), Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2020, pp 873-893 |
| Song, Jianli | “ ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Civil and Commercial Judgments’ and its influence on my country”, People’s Judicature (Application) 2020-01, pp. 88-92 (available here) |
| Song, Lianbin; Chen, Xi | “The Judicial Difference and International Coordination of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Punitive Damages Judgements: Also on China’s Corresponding Measures Under the Frame of HCCH Convention”, Jiang-Huai Tribune 2021-03, pp. 111-113 |
| Spitz, Lidia | „Homologação De Decisões Estrangeiras No Brasil – A Convenção de Sentenças da Conferência da Haia de 2019 e o contrôle indireto da jurisdição estrangeira”, Belo Horizonte 2021 |
| Spitz, Lidia | „Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Public Policy Grounds in the Hague Judgments Convention – A Comparison with The 1958 New York Convention“, YbPIL 21 (2019/2020), pp 333-364 |
| Stamboulakis, Drossos | “Comparative Recognition and Enforcement”, Cambridge 2022 |
| Stein, Andreas | „Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019 – Was lange währt, wird endlich gut?“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2020, pp 197-202 |
| Stewart, David P. | „Current Developments: The Hague Conference adopts a New Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 113 (2019), pp 772-783 |
| Stitz, Olivia | “Comity, Tipping Points, and Commercial Significance: What to expect of the Hague Judgments Convention”, Corporate and Business Law Journal (Corp. & Bus. L.J.) 2 (2021), pp. 203-236 (available here) |
| Storskrubb, Eva | “The EU Commission’s Proposal for the EU to Accede to the Hague Judgments Convention”, EU Law Live Weekend Edition No. 75 (2021), pp. 10-16 (available here) |
| Suk, Kwang-Hyun | “Principal Content and Indirect Jurisdiction Rules of the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019”, Korea Private International Law Journal 2020-02, pp. 3-83 |
| Sun, Jin; Wu, Qiong |
“The Hague Judgments Convention and how we negotiated it”, Chinese Journal of International Law 19 (2020) (available here) |
| Sun, Xiaofei; Wu, Qiong |
“Commentary and Outlook on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Journal of International Law 2019-01, pp. 155-164+170 |
| Symeonides, Symeon C. | “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: The Hague Convention of 2019”, in Symeon C. Symeonides, Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights via the Internet, Leiden 2021, pp. 130-144 |
| Symeonides, Symeon C. | « The Hague Treaty for the Recognition of Foreign Decisions-The Lowest Common Denominator », Lex & Forum 4/2021 |
| Taghipour Darzi Naghibi, Mohammadhossein; Soleimani Andarvar, Ali | “Comparative Study of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments in The Hague Convention Judgments 2019 and Iranian Law”, Comparative Law Review 13 (2022), pp. 493-514 (available here) |
| Takeshita, Keisuke | “The New Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Analysis on its Relationship with Arbitration”, Japanese Commercial Arbitration Journal (JCA) 2020-02, pp. 10-15 (available here) |
| Takeshita, Keisuke | “The New Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Japanese Commercial Arbitration Journal
Part 1: JCA 2020-04, pp. 40-45 (available here) Part 2: JCA 2020-05, pp. 40-45 (available here) Part 3: JCA 2020-06, pp. 42-49 (available here) Part 4: JCA 2020-10, pp. 40-46 (available here) Part 5: JCA 2020-11, pp. 35-41 (available here) Part 6: JCA 2020-12, pp. 43-48 (available here) Part 7: JCA 2021-02, pp. 50-56 (available here) Part 8: JCA 2021-04, pp. 45-51 (available here) Part 9: JCA 2021-07, pp. 46-53 (available here) Part 10: JCA 2021-09, pp. 40-46 (available here) Part 11: JCA 2021-10, pp. 48-54 (available here) Part 12: JCA 2022-01, pp. 45-52 (available here) Part 13: JCA 2022-03, pp. 44-51 Part 14: JCA 2022-05, pp. 58-55 Part 15 JCA 2022-07, pp. 49-55 Part 16 JCA 2022-09, pp. 36-44 Part 17 JCA 2022-12, pp. 53 et seq. |
| Taquela, María Blanca Noodt ; Abou-Nigm, Verónica Ruiz | “News From The Hague: The Draft Judgments Convention and Its Relationship with Other International Instruments”, Yearbook of Private International Law 19 (2017/2018), pp 449-474 |
| Teitz, Louise Ellen | “Another Hague Judgments Convention? – Bucking the Past to Provide for the Future”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 29 (2019), pp 491-511 |
| Tian, Hongjun | “The Present and Future of the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments in Northeast Asia: From the Perspective of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 300-317 |
| Tian, Xinyue; Qian, Zhenqiu; Wang, Shengzhe |
“The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Draft) and China’s Countermeasure – A Summary on the Fourth Judicial Forum of Great Powers”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2018-01, pp. 377-388 |
| Trooboff, Peter D.; North, Cara; Nishitani, Yuko; Sastry, Shubha; Chanda, Riccarda |
“The Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague Convention: Introductory Remarks”, Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 114 (2020), pp. 345-357 |
| Tsang, King Fung; Wong, Tsz Wai |
“Enforcement of Non-Monetary Judgments in Common Law Jurisdictions: Is the Time Ripe?”, Fordham International Law Journal 45 (2021), pp. 379-428 (available here) |
| van der Grinten, Paulien; ten Kate, Noura |
„Editorial: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 1-3 |
| van Loon, Hans | “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 4-18 |
| van Loon, Hans | “Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš 82 (2019), pp 15-35 |
| van Loon, Hans | “Le Brexit et les conventions de La Haye”, Revue critique de droit international privé (Rev. Crit. DIP) 2019, pp. 353-365 |
| Viegas Liquidato, Vera Lúcia | “Reconhecimento E Homologação De Sentenças Estrangeiras : O Projeto De Convenção Da Conferência da Haia”, Revista de Direito Brasileira 2019-09, pp. 242-256 |
| Vishchuprapha, Shayanit | “Thailand’s Possibility of Becoming a Party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 2019”, Mae Fah Luang University Law Journal 2023-01, pp. 185-228 (available here) |
| Wagner, Rolf | “Ein neuer Anlauf zu einem Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen“, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2016, pp 97-102 |
| Wang, Quian | “On Intellectual Property Right Provisions in the Draft Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, China Legal Science 2018-01, pp. 118-142 (available here) |
| Wang, Yahan | “No Review of the Merits in Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Judgments”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence 2020-04, pp. 78-95 |
| Weidong, Zhu | “The Recognition and Enforcement of Commercial Judgments Between China and South Africa: Comparison and Convergence”, China Legal Science 2019-06, pp 33-57 (available here) |
| Weller, Matthias | “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management?”, in Christoph Benicke, Stefan Huber (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Kronke zum 70. Geburtstag, Bielefeld 2020, pp 621-632 |
| Weller, Matthias | “The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – The Jurisdictional Filters of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Yearbook of Private International Law 21 (2019/2020), pp 279-308 |
| Weller, Matthias | “Das Haager Übereinkommen zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile”, in Thomas Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht, Munich, 5th ed. 2022 |
| Weller, Matthias | „Die Kontrolle der internationalen Zuständigkeit im Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen 2019“, in Christoph Althammer/Christoph Schärtl (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Roth, Tübingen 2021, pp. 835-855 |
| Wilderspin, Michael; Vysoka, Lenka |
“The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses”, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) 2020, pp 34-49 |
| Wu, Qiong | “The Overview of the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 2019, pp. 337-338 |
| Xie, Yili | “Research on the Intellectual Property Infringment System of the Hague Judgments Convention”, China-Arab States Science and Technology Forum 2021-09, pp. 190-194 |
| Xu, Guojian | “Comment on Key Issues Concerning Hague Judgment Convention in 2019 “, Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law 35 (2020), pp 1-29 |
| Xu, Guojian | “To Establish an International Legal System for Global Circulation of Court Judgments”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2017-05, pp 100-130 |
| Xu, Guojian | “Overview of the Mechanism of Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements Established by HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence No. 2020-02, pp 65-77 |
| Xu, Guojian | “On the Scope and Limitation of the Global Circulation of Court Judgments: An Analysis on the Application Scope of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”, Chinese Yearbook of Private International Law and Comparative Law 2019-01, pp. 269-299 |
| Xu, Pengju | “A Study on the Interpretation of Non-substantive Review Clauses in the Hague Convention on Judgments”, Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management (FBEM) 2022-03, pp. 79-81 (available here) |
| Yang, Liu | “The Applicable Conditions of the Lis Pendens Rule under the Hague Judgments Convention”, Journal of Ocean University of China (Social Sciences) 2022-05, pp. 99-111 |
| Yang, Yujie | “On the Rules of indirect Jurisdiction responding to Litigation – Based on Article 5, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters” (Master Thesis China Foreign Affairs University Beijing 2021) |
| Yekini, Abubakri
|
“The Hague Judgments Convention and Commonwealth Model Law – A Pragmatic Perspective”, Oxford 2021. |
| Yeo, Terence | “The Hague Judgments Convention – A View from Singapore”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal (e-First) 3rd August 2020 (available here) |
| Yuzhakov, D.A. | “Legal Regulation of the Procedures for Enforcement of Decisions of Foreign Courts in Economic Disputes”, Urgent Issues of the Entrepreneurship Law, Civil Litigation and Arbitration (Perm State University) No. 4 (2021), pp. 119-123 (available here) |
| Zasemkova, Olesya Fedorovna | “ ‘Judicial Convention’ as a New Stage in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Lex Russica 2019-10, pp. 84-103 (available here) |
| Zasemkova, Olesya Fedorovna | “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Context of the Adoption of the « Judicial Convention » 2019”, in Zhuikov V.M., Shchukin A.I. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Natalia Ivanovna Marysheva, pp. 196-211 |
| Zernikow, Marcel | “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions in MERCOSUR Letters Rogatory (Carta Rogatória) and National Civil Procedure” Yearbook of Private International Law 22 (2020/2021), pp. 353-380 |
| Zhang, Chunliang; Huang, Shan |
“On the Common Courts Rules in Hague Judgments Convention – China’s way for the Judicial Assistance under Belt and Road Initiative”, Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law 2020-05, pp. 103-113 |
| Zhang, Lizhen | “On the Defamation Problem in the Hague Judgments Project: Ever In and Now out of the Scope”, Wuhan University International Law Review 2019-01, pp. 41-58 (available here) |
| Zhang, Wenliang | “The Finality Requirement of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, Wuhan University Law Review 2020-02, pp. 19-38 |
| Zhang, Wenliang; Tu, Guangjian | “The Hague Judgments Convention and Mainland China-Hong Kong SAR Judgments Arrangement: Comparison and Prospects for Implementation”, Chinese Journal of International Law 20 (2021), pp. 101-135 |
| Zhang, Wenliang; Tu, Guangjian |
“The 1971 and 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions: Compared and Whether China Would Change Its Attitude Towards The Hague”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement (JIDS), 2020, 00, pp. 1-24 |
| Zhang, Zhengyi; Zhang, Zhen |
“Development of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters and Its Implication to China”, International and Comparative Law Review 2020, pp. 112-131 |
| Zhao, Ning | “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, adding essential components for an effective international legal framework on recognition and enforcement”, in UIHJ (ed.), David Walker (dir.), Cyberjustice, de nouvelles opportunités pour l’huissier de justice / Cyberjustice, New Opportunities for the Judicial Officer – XXIVe Congrès de l’Union Internationale des Huissiers de Justice – Dubai – 22 au 25 Novembre 2021, Bruxelles 2021, pp. 120-133 |
| Zhao, Ning | “Completing a long-awaited puzzle in the landscape of cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments: An overview of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) 30 (2020), pp 345-368 |
| Zirat, Gennadii | “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters: A new Contribution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to the Unification of International Civil Procedure”, Ukrainian Journal of International Law 2020-03, pp. 105-112 (available here) |
III. Recordings of Events Related to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention
| ASADIP; HCCH | “Conferencia Internacional: Convención HCCH 2019 sobre Reconocimiento y Ejecución de Sentencias Extranjeras”, 3 December 2020 (full recording available here and here) |
| ASIL | “The Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague Convention”, 25-26 June 2020 (full recording available here and here) |
| CILC; HCCH; GIZ; UIHJ | “HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for the Western Balkans”, Regional Forum 2022, 30 June-1 July 2022 (short official video available here) |
| CIS Arbitration Forum | “CIS-related Disputes: Treaties, Sanctions, Compliance and Enforcement, Conference, Keynote 2: Russia’s accession to the Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, 25-26 May 2021 (recording available here) |
| CUHK | “Latest Development of Hague Conference on Private International Law and the Hague Judgments Convention”, Online Seminar by Prof. Yun Zhao, 25 March 2021 (full recording available here) |
| Department of Justice Hong Kong; HCCH | “Inaugural Global Conference – 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: Global Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments”, 9 September 2019 (recording available here) |
| GIAS | “Arbitration v. Litigation: Can the Hague Foreign Judgments Convention Change the Game?, Panel 2, 10th Annual International Arbitration Month, Commercial Arbitration Day”, 25 March 2022 (full recording available here) |
| HCCH | “HCCH a|Bridged: Innovation in Transnational Litigation – Edition 2021: Enabling Party Autonomy with the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention”, 1 December 2021 (full recording available here) |
| HCCH | “22nd Diplomatic Session of the HCCH: The Adoption of the 2019 Judgments Convention”, 2 July 2020 (short documentary video available here) |
| JPRI; HCCH; UNIDROIT; UNCITRAL | “2020 Judicial Policy Research Institute International Conference – International Commercial Litigation: Recent Developments and Future Challenges, Session 3: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”, 12 November 2020 (recording available here) |
| Lex & Forum Journal; Sakkoula Publications SA | « The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the European Union – Latest developments », 3 December 2021 (full recording available here) |
| UIHJ; HCCH | “3rd training webinar on the Hague Conventions on service of documents (1965) and recognition and enforcement of judgements (2019)”, 15/18 March 2021 (full recording available here in French and here in English) |
| University of Bonn; HCCH | “Pre-Conference Video Roundtable on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters between the EU and Third Countries”, 29 October 2020 (full recording available here) |
Giustizia consensuale No 2/2022: Abstracts
The second issue of 2022 of Giustizia Consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:
Ferruccio Auletta and Alberto Massera, Giustizia consensuale e p.a.: l’accordo bonario per i lavori, i servizi e le forniture nel quadro degli ‘altri rimedi alternativi all’azione giurisdizionale’ (Consensual Justice and Public Administration: The Amicable Agreement for Jobs, Services and Supplies in the Framework of ‘Other Alternative Remedies to Court Proceedings’; in Italian)
The paper examines the present state of the Amicable Agreement. Along with other alternative dispute resolution tools, such as the technical advisory board, arbitration, and negotiated settlements, the Amicable Agreement provides an alternative to litigation in the area of public procurement. Thanks to their experience in the field of public procurement within the Arbitration Chamber of public contracts of the Italian National Anticorruption Authority, the authors incorporate a practitioner’s perspective into their analysis of the Amicable Agreement by referring to case law and to a broad range of doctrinal and legal sources.
Paolo Duret, Soft law, ADR, sussidiarietà: una triade armonica (Soft Law, ADR, Subsidiarity: A Harmonic Triad; in Italian)
The present era is witnessing the simultaneous development of two phenomena: on the one hand, the steady increase in the use of the called soft law, which has expanded from the domain of international law to domestic legal systems; on the other hand, the widespread resort to instruments of dispute resolution that are alternative to litigation (ADR). The paper aims at assessing and examining the connection between soft law and ADR, both in a retrospective and prospective view, focusing in particular on emerging issues such as the recourse to ‘nudging’ and new technologies, along with forms of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). The principle of subsidiarity acts as a common denominator between the two aforementioned phenomena. In particular, it allows shedding light on the meaning and implications of the relationship between soft law and ADR within the framework of a novel understanding of the State and public administration.
Roberto Bartoli, Una breve introduzione alla giustizia riparativa nell’ambito della giustizia punitiva (A Brief Introduction to Restorative Justice in the Context of Punitive Justice; in Italian)
Restorative justice and punitive justice belong to different paradigms. Therefore, understanding this paradigm shift is key to the understanding of restorative justice itself. Through a ‘close’ comparison between these two paradigms, the author aims to capture the distinctive features of restorative justice in the context of criminal offences, i.e. community justice, dialogic justice, justice that attempts to heal the pain caused by criminal wrongdoing, and non-violent justice. Restorative justice has the potential to foster revolutionary change, especially in instances where restorative justice can provide a procedural tool that is complementary to punitive justice and a material alternative to punishment.
Beatrice Zuffi, Azione di classe e ADR: un binomio in via di definizione (Class Action and ADR: A Pairing in the Making; in Italian)
The paper provides a comparative review of selected legal systems (namely: the U.S.A., the Netherlands, and Belgium) which are at the forefront of fostering the use of ADR in compensatory class actions through laws and regulations. The author then analyses the Italian legislation on class action introduced by Law No 31 of 2019, focusing in particular on the solutions adopted to promote settlement agreements and assessing the feasibility of other alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, negotiation, and arbitration in connection with or in lieu of the three-phase trial under Art. 840 bis ff. of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
Observatory on Legislation and Regulations
Mauro Bove, I verbali che concludono la mediazione nel d.lgs. n. 149 del 2022 (Mediation Reports under Legislative Decree No 149 of 2022; in Italian)
The paper analyses the discipline of mediation reports under Legislative Decree No 149 of 2022, highlighting its conformity to the provisions of Legislative Decree No 28 of 2010. The author outlines the features and scope of the procedures applicable to instances where a mediated settlement is not achieved and instances where mediation results in a settlement agreement to be included in the mediation report. In particular, the author examines the innovative regulation of mediation reports, which requires the use of digital signatures where mediation takes place online.
Alberto M. Tedoldi, La mediazione civile e commerciale nel quadro della riforma ovvero: omeopatia del processo (Civil and Commercial Mediation in the Framework of the Reform: Homeopathy of the Process; in Italian)
The essay focuses on and looks to expand the knowledge of civil and commercial mediation as regulated by Legislative Decree No 28 of 2010 amended by Legislative Decree No 149 of 2022. The legislative provisions appear to foster the use and development of mediation as a full-fledged dispute resolution process, beyond its function as a tool complementary to litigation. In this, mediation provides an appropriate and comprehensive dispute resolution instrument which addresses the legal relationship in its entirety, rather than the single components of res in judicium deducta, and allows achieving an all-round, durable settlement. ‘The civil process is dead, long live the mediation!’.
Pietro Ortolani, The Resolution of Content Moderation Disputes under the Digital Services Act
Online content on social media platforms gives rise to a wide range of disputes. Content moderation can thus be understood as a form of online dispute resolution, whereby the platforms often balance legal entitlements against each other. This article looks at content moderation through the lens of procedural law, providing an overview of the different dispute resolution avenues under the Digital Services Act (DSA). First, the article sets the scene by describing the overall architecture of the DSA. Against this background, specific provisions are scrutinized, dealing with notice and action mechanisms, statement of reasons, internal complaint handling, and out-of-court dispute settlement. Furthermore, the article considers the interplay between the DSA and the European regime of cross-border litigation. Finally, some general conclusions are drawn regarding the DSA’S ‘procedure before substance’ regulatory approach.
Observatory on Practices
Antonio Briguglio, Conciliazione e arbitrato. Contaminazioni (Conciliation and Arbitration. Cross-fertilization; in Italian)
In this paper, the author addresses the topic of the interplay between conciliation and arbitration. In spite of the former being a non-adjudicative ADR procedure and the latter a fully adjudicative ADR process, there are some aspects of cross-fertilization between the two. The author pays particular attention to ‘conciliatory’ elements, whose relevance is greater in arbitral awards than in judicial decisions. In the second part of the paper, the author focuses in detail on the recent Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, which introduces a different element of cross-fertilization between arbitration and conciliation. In particular, the author investigates the meaning and practical implications of the Convention, which basically puts settlement agreements on an equal footing with arbitral awards for purposes of international recognition and enforcement.
Silvana Dalla Bontà, La (nuova) introduzione e trattazione della causa nel processo di prime cure e i poteri lato sensu conciliativi del giudice. Un innesto possibile? (The (New) Introduction and Handling of the Case in the First-Instance Proceedings and the Court’s Conciliatory Powers Lato Sensu. A Possible Graft?; in Italian)
After providing an overview of the new Italian regulation on pleadings and hearings in civil cases before the courts of first instance as introduced by Legislative Decree No 149 of 2022, the paper focuses on the conciliatory powers of the courts, i.e. court-ordered mediation, judicial conciliation, and judicial offer to settle. In particular, the analysis aims to explore if, when, and how these judicial conciliatory powers could be effectively exercised at the new pleading and hearing stages. While uncovering the weaknesses of the recent reform of Italian civil procedure, the author argues that the development of good practices would provide a solution to most of the issues raised by the new legislation. To that end, Civil Justice Observatories could play a pivotal role in achieving lasting solutions through a bottom-up approach that fosters the interaction of different civil justice actors.
Carolina Mancuso and Angela M. Felicetti, Sistemi di dispute resolution per le università: primi spunti di riflessione (Dispute Resolution Systems for Universities: First Considerations; in Italian)
The paper aims to explore some innovative foreign teaching and research experiences (namely, in Spain and in the United States) concerning the dissemination of mediation, conflict management techniques and, more broadly, the culture of alternative dispute resolution in academia. The analysis intends to connect such initiatives with the vibrant Italian panorama, which is rich in experiential teaching initiatives and infused with its own developing tradition of conflict management through student ombudspersons. The ultimate goal of the investigation is to identify new directions for the dissemination of the ADR culture in Italian high education institutions.
In addition to the foregoing, this issue features the following book review by Luciana Breggia: Tommaso GRECO, La legge della fiducia. Alle radici del diritto (The Law of Trust. At the Roots of Law; in Italian), Bari-Roma, Editori Laterza, (2021; reprint 2022), VII-XVI, 1-171.