Views
China’s innovative Internet Courts and their use of blockchain backed evidence
Written by Sophie Hunter
Since 2017, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) has established three internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing and Guangzhou which are major hubs for e-commerce, the internet industry and the headquarters of giant internet companies like Alibaba and Baidu. With an internet penetration of 54% and approximately 800 million internet users, the introduction of such courts helps to reduce the rising number of online disputes between citizens in a time and cost efficient way thanks to the admissibility of blockchain backed online data as evidence. China’s leading role in internet litigation comes at no surprise since regular courts favor documentary evidence over live testimony and already so much is done online. Read more
Just published: “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters” by Hans van Loon, former Secretary General of the HCCH
Hans van Loon, former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), has just published an article entitled “Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters” in the Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law, Niš, No 82, Year LVIII, 2019 (see pp. 15-36). The paper develops a lecture held at the Law Faculty.
The author has provided the following summary of his article (emphasis has been added):
The article traces the history of the “Judgments Project”, and provides background on the current negotiations at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which have resulted in the May 2018 draft Convention, and, it is hoped, will very soon culminate in the adoption of a Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. To that end, a Diplomatic Session has been convoked at the Peace Palace in The Hague (the Netherlands) from 18 June to 2 July 2019.
The article starts by recalling the interaction between, on the one hand, the 1971 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and its Supplementary Protocol, and, on the other, the 1968 Brussels Jurisdiction and Enforcement Convention (now: Brussels I recast). The 1968 Brussels Convention drew inspiration both from the 1971 Hague Convention and its Protocol (excluding exorbitant grounds of jurisdiction) and the 1965 Hague Choice of Court Convention. Yet, it went beyond those instruments by (1) providing uniform rules on original jurisdiction; (2) enabling recognition and enforcement generally without review of the original grounds of jurisdiction; and (3) benefitting from a mechanism of uniform interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The success of the Brussels Convention, however, contributed to a lack of interest in the 1971 Convention, which never came off the ground. Other reasons were the 1971 Convention’s alleged discriminatory effect vis-à-vis companies and persons not domiciled in Europe and the issue of bilateralisation – the 1971 Convention required for its operation a supplementary agreement between any two Contracting States, an issue that has come up again in the current negotiations.
In 1992, having considered the possibility of bilateral negotiations with EEC Member States, the USA made a proposal to the Hague Conference for a “mixed” Convention. The idea was that this instrument would provide a list of permitted grounds of jurisdiction and a list of prohibited grounds of jurisdiction, while leaving a “grey area” that would allow Contracting States to establish additional grounds of original jurisdiction and provisions on recognition and enforcement under national law. With the “mixed” Convention idea as a start, negotiations took place between 1996-2001.They ultimately led, via a preliminary draft Convention, to an “Interim text” adopted at a diplomatic conference in 2001. The dynamics of those negotiations were very much determined by the transatlantic dimension, with different, and as it turned out, incompatible strategic objectives (the US being interested in securing recognition and enforcement of its judgments in Europe, and non-discrimination regarding direct grounds of jurisdiction for US-based companies and persons, and Europe, in urging the US to reduce the reach of jurisdiction of its courts regarding Europe-based companies and persons). The resulting text left many issues unresolved, including: (1) (commercial) activity as a ground of jurisdiction (2) the use of the internet, including e-commerce, (3) the protection of weaker parties, in particular consumers and employees, (4) intellectual property (IP), (5) the issue of bilateralisation and (6) the relationship with the Brussels/Lugano texts. It was therefore decided to take a step back, and focus first, separately as with the 1965 Convention, on choice of court agreements.
The article then discusses how the 2005 Choice of Court Convention was able to avoid some of these six major issues, and how it dealt with the remaining ones. Importantly, the Choice of Court Convention found a solution for its relationship to the Brussels/Lugano texts (it also had a substantial impact on the Brussels I recast). In fact, the 2005 Convention provides an important source of inspiration for the 2018 draft, which can be seen, for example, in the definition of its substantive scope, and its provisions on recognition and enforcement, including of judgments awarding punitive damages. However, the coming negotiations are still faced with several of the aforementioned major issues, and some new ones.
Meanwhile, however, the dynamics of the negotiations have changed. Whereas in the past the transatlantic dimension was predominant, the current negotiations have taken on a much more global character, China and other (formerly) “emerging” States having become more actively involved. In some respects, this adds to the difficulty of reaching agreement (for instance regarding IP). On the other hand, the current negotiations are limited to recognition and enforcement only. Yet, indirectly, the difference in approach to judicial jurisdiction between the US – where this is a constitutional matter, with a focus on the relationship between the defendant and the forum (the article discusses recent developments in the case law of the US Supreme Court on international jurisdiction) – and most other States – where the focus is on the relationship between the subject matter of the litigation and the forum – has reappeared in the current negotiations.
The article discusses how this is reflected in the draft, in particular in art. 5, in its provisions on contracts, torts, the internet, intellectual property and consumers and employees.
It is noted, with some regret, that as a result, the torts jurisdiction provision is very limited, indeed even narrower than its predecessor in the 2001 Interim text. It is hoped that the final text will make room for recognition and enforcement of judgments emanating from the court of the place where the injury arose, at least if the defendant could reasonably foresee that its conduct would give rise to the harm in that State. This would be important, for example, concerning civil judgments resulting from cross-border environmental litigation. Regarding IP, the May 2018 draft does not take a firm position, and it even leaves open the possibility of a complete exclusion. That would be a step back in comparison with the Choice of Court Convention, so hopefully it will be possible to avoid such a far-reaching result.
Finally, a number of other, including novel, features of the draft are highlighted. Some concern is expressed about the addition of “situations involving infringements of security or sovereignty of [the requested] State” as a ground of refusal of recognition and enforcement (art. 7 (1) (c)), because that may invite a review of the merits of the judgment, which is in principle, rightly, prohibited (art. 4(2)). Interesting novelties include a provision which gives the requested court a certain flexibility in dealing with judgments that are subject to review in the State of origin (art. 4 (4)); the exclusion of forum non conveniens at the stage of recognition and enforcement (art. 14 (2)), and a tentative provision dealing with “common courts”, such as the future Unified Patent Court art. 4 (5).
The article concludes by expressing the hope that the Convention will avoid the complexity of its 1971 predecessor, notably by avoiding its bilateralisation system, or at least by drafting it in such a manner that it does not make the ratification unattractive or its application unduly difficult. In any event, the Convention will fulfill a long-felt need for a global multilateral framework for the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments, and thereby contribute to the global transnational legal order.
First Meeting of the Young Private International Law Research Network
Maximilian Schulze, an assistant of Dr. Susanne Gössl, LL.M. (Tulane), University of Bonn, has kindly provided us with the following report.
On 5 April 2019, the first meeting of the newly established research network “Young Private International Law in Europe” took place at the University of Würzburg, Germany. The network intends to create a Europe-wide exchange at ‘junior faculty’ level (predoc/postdoc) in the context of various comparative Private International Law (PIL) projects. The first research project and meeting in Würzburg deal with the “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations”. This topic was selected in view of the recent series of decisions by the CJEU regarding international name law (see, e.g. CJEU C-148/02 – Garcia Avello) and, most recently, same-sex marriage (CJEU C-673/16 – Coman)) and a parallel discussion which evolved in the context of the case law of the ECtHR, in particular regarding the recognition of adoptions, same-sex marriages and surrogacy. In order to contribute to a pan-European understanding of ‘acceptance’ of legal situations related to a person’s status in a cross-border context to enhance the free movement of EU citizens and protect their fundamental rights regarding private and family life, the aforementioned first project of the research network compares the reception and implementation of the CJEU and ECtHR case law in 16 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden).
The meeting, organised by Susanne Lilian Gössl, Bonn, and Martina Melcher, Graz, comprised a public and a workshop session. The meeting was kindly supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG) as well as by the prior meeting of the German “Conference for Young PIL scholars” at the University of Würzburg.
The public session
Martina Melcher and Susanne Lilian Gössl opened the public session with an overview of the project and outlined the results of the comparative study. Martina Melcher highlighted the aim of the project as an “academic offspring” for young scholars to facilitate their comparative law and PIL research interests by setting up a network for young scholars. Methodologically, the network selects a specific topic – in this project/meeting the “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations” – on which participants first submitted national reports, which then led to a comprehensive comparative report and analysis, which will be finalized and published in 2020. Susanne Gössl further specified the network’s approach on how the individual reports are to be composed. This is to take CJEU and ECtHR case law in all fields of the law where member states’ awareness is high (e.g. name law, surrogacy and same-sex marriage) as a starting point and then look at the individual states’ implementations, including in particular the recognition by judgments and by rules of PIL. As the network is not limited to international family law, future meetings and comparative reports will also deal with commercial law topics.
Marion Ho-Dac, Valenciennes, then set out the methodological approaches to recognition. She highlighted the increasing importance of cross-border continuity of status in view of the circulation of people and recent refugee movements. When looking at the Member States’ approaches, she stressed two considerations one has to bear in mind: the legal technique of recognition and the underlying legal policy thereof. She then set of the three different approaches: traditional PIL methods, procedural recognition and alternative methods (e.g. uniform law on supranational level or a mutual recognition system at EU level). However, she concluded that none of these were perfect methods. In his responsio, Tamás Szabados, Budapest, doubted that legislators always have a clear methodology in mind. He exemplified this by the Hungarian PIL Act, in effect since 2018, in which no general theory of recognition is followed, although the responsible committee was aware of the recognition questions discussed.
Sarah den Haese, Gent, then referred to a 2014 academic proposal on the recognition of names that was not acted upon by the Commission and analysed its weaknesses which need addressing for a future proposal to be successful. Firstly, any proposal would require a harmonisation of conflict of laws rules. Secondly, she proposed recognition without a conflict of laws test and no control of the substantive law subject to a very narrow public policy exception only. Tena Hoško, Zagreb, responded by setting out the conflict rules implemented in Croatia. Although academic proposals had been submitted, the Croatian legislator did not follow them but rather opted to copy the German conflicts rule (Art. 10 EGBGB). Although she exemplified certain weaknesses in this newly implemented approach (i.e. the issues of dual citizenship and renvoi), she concluded that the new rules are a huge step forward.
The workshop session
The public session was followed by a workshop session in which the preliminary results of the draft comparative report on “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations” were discussed among the project participants and a few other interested parties. The workshop contained four parts, each initiated by a short introduction summarising the major findings and followed by an in-depth discussion among the participants.
In the first part, the general awareness was addressed. In her introduction, Giulia Vallar, Milan, pointed out an academic awareness in many Member States that a comprehensive overhaul of the rules of PIL is required. This awareness is also registered by the legislator, however mostly by countries that were involved in CJEU cases. She went on to set out the areas of law in which awareness for recognition is high (e.g. name law and same-sex marriages or partnerships). She concluded that based on their awareness of the issue, the analysed Member States can be subdivided into those involved in CJEU cases, those indirectly influenced by CJEU case law and those influenced by the ECtHR.
The second part, focusing to the legal methodology employed for recognition, was introduced by Katarzyna Miksza, Vilnius. She pointed out and illustrated the huge variety of methods of recognition detected by the draft comparative report by reference to national laws. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that it would be rather difficult to reconcile the different kinds of approaches to recognition.
Thirdly, the substantive requirements for recognition were discussed. In their presentation, María Asunción Cebrián Salvat and Isabel Lorente Martínez, Murcia, highlighted the (general) prohibition of a revision au fond as a starting point before outlining three hotspots of the public policy exception (surrogacy, same sex marriages or civil partnerships, and name law) and further challenges for recognition, in particular fraus legis and the legitimate expectations of the parties, in the various countries. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that the comparative report also shows that the public policy exception does not only function as a bar to recognition, but can, as well as human rights, require and facilitate recognition.
Finally, the formal requirements for recognition were discussed. Florian Heindler, Vienna, initially drew attention to the difficulty of distinguishing between formal and substantive requirements and stated the definition of the comparative report of the former as requirements relating to form (i.e. of documents) as well as procedural requirements (regarding certain additional procedural steps). Also in the subsequent discussion the challenging identification and categorisation of requirements was brought up.
In the final discussion, it was immediately agreed that the project was until now only able to scratch the surface of the issues and further work and discussions were required and promising. Therefore, a continuation of the project was agreed on and a further meeting is already being planned.
News
RabelsZ: New issue alert (1/2023)
The latest issue of RabelsZ has just been published. It contains the following articles:
Holger Fleischer: Große Debatten im Gesellschaftsrecht: Fiktionstheorie versus Theorie der realen Verbandspersönlichkeit im internationalen Diskurs, pp. 5–45, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2023-0003
Great Debates in Company Law: The International Discourse on Fiction Theory versus Real Entity Theory. – This article opens a new line of research on great debates in domestic and foreign company law. It uses as a touchstone the classical debate on the nature of legal personhood, which was moribund for a time but has recently experienced an unexpected renaissance. The article traces the scholarly fate of fiction theory and real entity theory over time and across jurisdictions. It describes the origins of both theories, explores the processes of their reception in foreign legal systems, and through selected case studies illustrates the areas in which both courts and doctrine to this day have continued to draw on their body of arguments.
Sabine Corneloup: Migrants in Transit or Under Temporary Protection – How Can Private International Law Deal with Provisional Presence?, pp.46–75, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2023-0004
An increasing number of migrants are provisionally present in the territory of a State other than their State of origin, be it because they are granted temporary protection until they can return to their country of origin or because migration policies– notably externalization measures– prevent them from accessing the territory of their State of destination. As a result, many migrants are stuck for months, if not years, in transit countries at the external borders of Europe before being able to resume their migratory route. Their provisional presence, which initially was meant to remain transitional and short-term, often becomes indefinite. In the meantime, life goes on: children are born, couples marry and divorce, parental child abductions take place, etc. How can private international law deal with these situations? The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, which requires that the personal status of refugees be governed by the law of domicile or residence, does not provide an answer to all difficulties. The paper aims to explore PIL connecting factors, such as nationality, habitual residence, and mere presence, and assess their appropriateness for migrants on the move or under temporary protection.
Hannes Wais: Digitale Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen und anwendbares Recht, pp.76–117, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2023-0005
Digital Infringement of Personality Rights and the Applicable Law. – Under art. 4 para. 1 Rome II Regulation, the law applicable to torts is the law of the state in which the damage occurred. With respect to the violation of personality rights, however, art. 40 para. 1 EGBGB points to the law of the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred (sent. 1) or, should the victim so decide, the place where the damage occurred (sent. 2). This essay demonstrates that this approach entails an element of unequal treatment and is inconsistent with German substantive law, which tends to favour the tortfeasor over the victim in personality rights cases. These findings give reason to subject the German conflict-of-law rules regarding the infringement of personality rights (which almost exclusively take place online) to an expansive review. The article first discusses the exclusion of personality rights infringements in art. 1 para. 2 lit. g Rome II Regulation and the dormant reform initiative, followed by an analysis of the shortcomings of the solution laid down in art. 40 para. 1 EGBGB. Alternative approaches are subsequently discussed before concluding with a proposal de lege ferenda.
Zheng Sophia TANG: Smart Courts in Cross-Border Litigation, pp. 118–143, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2023-0006
Smart courts use modern technology to improve the efficiency of trials, enabling the parties to access court proceedings from a distance. This advantage is particularly important in cross-border litigation, which is characterised by the cost and inconvenience for at least one party to take part in proceedings abroad. However, although technology can significantly improve procedural efficiency, legal obstacles make efficiency impossible to achieve. This article uses service of proceedings, collecting evidence and virtual hearing as examples to show how the current law, especially the old-fashioned concept of sovereignty, hampers the functioning of technology. In the age of technology, it is necessary to reconceptualise sovereignty. This article argues that private autonomy may be utilised to reshape sovereignty in cross-border litigation procedures and reconcile the conflict between sovereignty and technology.
IEAF Call for Papers: The Perpetual Renewal of European Insolvency Law
The INSOL Europe Academic Forum (IEAF) is inviting submission for its 19th annual conference, taking place from Wednesday 11 – Thursday 12 October 2023 in Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Expressions of interest are invited for the delivery of research papers within the overall theme of the academic conference: “The Perpetual Renewal of European Insolvency Law”.
The conference is intended to focus on, inter alia, the following overall topics:
- Public and social policy and the impact on corporate rescue, and vice versa
- Cross-border issues (recognition, coordination)
- Asset tracing (including crypto assets)
- Competition for cases as a driving force for legislative reform
- International organisations update
- Sustainability and corporate restructuring
- Environmental claims in insolvency
- Transaction avoidance eclipsed in preventive restructuring procedures
- Pre-packs rehabilitated
- Asset partitioning: prudent entrepreneurship or manifestation of opportunism
- Modern issues surrounding directors’ duties to file for insolvency
- The impact and benefit (or not) of creditors’ committees
- EU Preventive Restructuring Directive
The IEAF board also invites submissions on other topics that fall with in the scope of the overall theme of the conference.
Conference methodology
In line with the practice established in our past academic conferences, the intention for the autumn conference is to have research papers that challenge existing approaches, stimulate debate and ask, and attempt to answer, comparative and interdisciplinary questions within the above broadly defined theme. Accordingly, proposals are invited that do more than just outline a topic of interest in respect of any given jurisdiction, but seek to understand, analyse and critique the fundamentals of insolvency and restructuring systems in ways that are relevant across jurisdictions and across fields of academic inquiry. Contributions must be in English.
Presenting at the IEAF conference
Expressions of interest in delivering a paper should be sent by email on or before 1 March 2023 to the IEAF’s Deputy Chair, Dr. Jennifer Gant.
Authors of papers selected for presentation will benefit from a waiver of the participation fee for the academic conference, however, they will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs. A limited number of travel grants are available for junior scholars invited to present.
For further information, see: www.insol-europe.org/academic-forum-events
The New Age of Dispute Resolution: Digitization & Evolving Norms
The New Age of Dispute Resolution: Digitization & Evolving Norms
Time: 18:30 – 20:30 pm
Venue: Bracewell LLP New York
When: 13 February Monday 2023
Organized with New York International Arbitration Centre, New York State Bar Association, and American Society of International Law
The event will be held in relation to UNCITRAL’s project on the Stocktaking of Dispute Resolution in the Digital Economy. As part of its stocktaking activities to seek inputs from different parts of the world, the Secretariat is organising this discussion with practitioners and academics in New York on two respective issues: (1) the use of technology in arbitration; and (2) online mediation. Presenters: (Panel 1) Christina Hioureas, Emma Lindsay, Hagit Muriel Elul, Martin Guys and Sherman W. Kahn; (Panel 2) Jackie Nolan-Haley and Sherman W. Kahn.