Views
Blockchain Networks and European Private International Law
Written by Anton S. Zimmermann, Institute for Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws and International Business Law (Heidelberg)
Blockchain technology and its offspring have recently attracted considerable attention in both media and scholarship. Its decentralised nature raises several legal questions. Among these are, for example, the challenges that blockchain technology poses to data protection laws and the threats it creates with regard to the effective enforcement of legal claims.
This post sheds light on issues of private international law relating to blockchain networks from a European perspective.
The concept of blockchain technology and its fields of application
Blockchain technology – put simply – involves two fundamental concepts. Firstly, data is written into so-called “blocks”. Each block of data is connected to its respective predecessor using so-called “hashes” that are calculated for each individual block. Consequently, each block does not only include its own hash but also the hash of its predecessor, thereby fixating consecutive blocks to one another. The result is a chain of blocks – hence the name blockchain. Secondly, the entire blockchain is decentrally stored by the networks’ members. Whenever a transaction concerning the blockchain is requested, it isn’t processed by just one member. On the contrary: several members check the transaction and afterwards share their result with the other members in what can best be described as a voting mechanism: From among potentially different results provided by different members, the result considered correct by the majority prevails. This mechanism bears the advantage that any attempt to tamper with data contained in a blockchain is without consequence as long as only the minority of members is affected.
The potential fields of application for blockchain technology are manifold and far from being comprehensively explored. For example, blockchain technology can replace a banking system in the context of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or it can be used to de-personalize monitoring and sanctioning of non-performance within a contractual relation. In short: Blockchain technology is an option whenever data is to be stored unalterably in a certain order without a (potentially costly) centralised monitoring entity.
Applicable rules of private international law
The first issue regarding blockchain technology and private international law concerns the applicable conflict rules. Blockchain technology involves a technical voting mechanism and, hence, requires a certain degree of cooperation between the members of the network. One might, therefore, be tempted to assume that blockchain networks constitute some kind of company. If this were indeed the case, the written conflict rules, especially those of the Rome I Regulation, would not be applicable (cf. Art. 1(1) lit. f) Rome I Regulation) and the unwritten conflict rules relating to international companies would claim application instead. However, this approach presupposes that the factual cooperation within a blockchain network suffices to create a company in the sense of European private international law. This is, however, not the case. The constitution of blockchain networks is only cooperative in a technical way, not in a legal one. The network is not necessarily based on a (written or unwritten) cooperation agreement and, therefore, lacks an essential prequisite of a company. Consequently, the determination of the law applicable to blockchain technology is not necessarily a question of international company law. Parties are, however, not precluded from creating a company statute that reflects the decentral structures of blockchain technology, whereas the mere decision to engage in a blockchain network does not suffice to create such a company.
Thus, the private international law of blockchain technology must also take into account the Rome I Regulation as well as the Rome II Regulation. Unfortunately, blockchain networks per se are not suitable as connecting factors: firstly, a decentralised network naturally escapes the classical European principle of territorial proximity. Secondly, the use of blockchain technology is usually not an end in itself but functionally subordinate to the purpose of another act, e.g. a contract, a company or a tort. This factor should, however, not be seen as a problem, but as a hint at a potential solution: although a superordinate act may render a blockchain network insufficient to determine the substantive law, the superordinate act itself can serve as a connecting factor.
The following two examples illustrate the proposed method of accessory connection and show that the European legal framework relating to private international law is capable to cope with several questions raised by novel phenomena such as blockchain technology. The remaining questions have to be dealt with on the basis of the principle of proximity.
First scenario: blockchain networks within centralised contracts
Blockchain technology often serves to achieve the goal of a centralised act. In this case, legal questions regarding the use, misuse and abuse of blockchain technology, e.g. access rights and permissions to write regarding data contained in a blockchain, should be governed by the substantive law governing the superordinate act.
To give an example: The parties of a supply chain decide to implement a blockchain in order to collectively store data concerning (1) when and in what quantity products arrive at their warehouse and (2) certificates of quality checks performed by them. As a result, production routes and quality control become more transparent and cost-efficient along the supply chain. Blockchain technology can thus be used e.g. to ensure the authenticity of drugs, food safety etc. The legal questions regarding the smart contract should in this scenario be governed by the substantive law governing the respective purchase agreement between the parties in question. The choice of law rules of the Rome I Regulation, hence, also determine the substantive law regarding the question how blockchain technology may or may not be used in the context of the purchase agreement. The application of blockchain technology becomes a part of the respective contract.
If one were to apply the substantive law governing the contract only to the contract itself but not to blockchain technology, one would create unjust distinctions: The applicable law should not depend on whether the parties pay an employee to regularly check on their warehouse and issue certificates in print, or whether they employ blockchain technology, achieving the same result.
Second scenario: blockchain networks within decentralised companies
The scenario described above shows that the decentralised nature of blockchain networks does not necessarily require special connecting criteria. This is a consequence of the networks’ primarily serving function to the respective superordinate entity.
Difficulties arise when parties agree on a company statute whose content reflects the decentralisation of blockchain technology. In this scenario, there is a decentral company that utilises only decentral technology as its foundation. A much-discussed case of this kind was “The DAO”, a former company based on blockchain technology. The DAO’s establishment was financed by investors providing financial resources in exchange for so-called tokens. These tokens can be described as the digital counterpart of shares and hence as an expression of the respective investor’s voting rights. Within the resulting investment community, voting rights were exercised in order to decide on investment proposals. The results of the votes were implemented automatically. The company thus consisted only of the investors and information technology but had no management body, no administrative apparatus, and no statutory seat.
Hence, the DAO did not only lack a territorial connection on the level of information technology, but also on the level of the companies’ legal constitution: it neither had an administrative seat nor a statutory seat. The connecting factors usually applied to determine the law applicable to companies were, therefore, ineffective. Because the DAO was a company, it was also exempt from the scope of the Rome I Regulation (cf. Art. 1 (2) lit. f. Rome I Regulation).
This vacuum of traditional conflict rules necessitates the development of new ones. There is no other valid connecting factor that could result in a uniform lex societatis: Especially the habitual residence or nationality of the majority of members is arbitrary as the company is built on a concept of decentralism and territorial detachment. Moreover, possible membership changes would lead to an intertemporally fluctuating statute whose current status could hardly be determined. The lack of a uniform connecting factor raises the question whether or not the ideal of a uniform lex societatiscan be upheld. The fact that members of the DAO do not provide a feasible uniform connecting factor suggests a fragmentation of the applicable law (dépeçage).
Assuming that there is no uniform lex societatis for the DAO and that the applicable substantive law has to be fragmented, acts by the company become conceivable connecting factors. One might, for example, assume that preliminary questions concerning the company, i.e. its legal capacity, are subject to the substantive law that would govern the act in question. If the DAO enters into a contract that – given its validity – is governed by German substantive law according to Art. 4 of the Rome I-Regulation, German law should also determine the legal capacity of the DAO with respect to this particular contract. One might object that the Rome I-Regulation exempts both companies and legal capacity from its scope of application. This, however, only means that the Regulation is not binding within those fields. As the conflict rules of International company law do not lead to conceivable results, the principle of proximity has to be the guiding factor in the search for a new unwritten conflict rule. As the closest territorial connections of decentral organisations are their respective acts, e.g. contracts, the principle of proximity suggests that the respective act is what determines the closest connection of the company. The resulting conflict rule states an accessory subjection of the lex societatis to the law governing the company’s respective acts. While the proposed solution does indeed lead to an indirect application of the Rome I Regulation, it nonetheless constitutes a self-reliant, unwritten conflict rule which is consequently not precluded by the catalogue of exemptions contained in the Rome I Regulation.
This fragmentation of applicable laws turns a membership in the DAO into a risky und legally uncertain endeavour, as – neglecting the tremendous practical and legal problems of the enforcement of claims – different legal orders impose different requirements for legal capacity, limitation of liability and other privileges.
Concluding thoughts
Blockchain technology is a novel phenomenon, but it does – in most cases – not necessitate new connecting factors or conflict rules. If, however, the legal entity in question mirrors the decentralised structure of a blockchain network, the legal assessment becomes more complicated.
In those cases, the usually uniformlex societatishas to be fragmented which leads to a high chance of personal liability of the members. Whether or not one accepts this fragmentation largely depends on the definition of the hierarchy of technical-economic progress and the lex lata. In my opinion, technical developments may and should act as an impetus to legislatorsfor legislative amendments but should not prevail over the existing rules of law. Those who desire legal advantages – such as a limitation of liability or even a uniform statute – must in exchange fulfil and adhere to the laws’ requirements.
This post is based on A. Zimmermann, Blockchain-Netzwerke und Internationales Privatrecht – oder: der Sitz dezentraler Rechtsverhältnisse, published in IPRax 2018, 568 ff. containing references to further literature.
Private International Law, Labour conditions of Hungarian truck drivers, and beyond
Written by Veerle Van Den Eeckhout
On 23 November 2018 the Dutch Supreme Court referred a question for preliminary ruling to the CJEU in a case with regard to labour conditions of Hungarian truck drivers, particularly with regard to the Posting of Workers Directive, 96/71/EC (see here for the Dutch version, see here for the decision of the same day).
The preliminary question will certainly attract the attention of many who have a particular interest in the specific theme of labour conditions of mobile East European workers – a theme in which rules of Private International Law matter.
“The Nature and Enforcement of Choice of Law Agreements” (2018) 14 Journal of Private International Law 500-531
This blog post presents a condensed version of Dr Mukarrum Ahmed’s (Lancaster University) article in the December 2018 issue of the Journal of Private International Law. The blog post includes specific references to the actual journal article to enable the reader to branch off into the detailed discussion. The journal article is a companion publication to the author’s recent book titled The Nature and Enforcement of Choice of Court Agreements: A Comparative Study (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2017).
The article examines the fundamental juridical nature, classification and enforcement of choice of law agreements in international commercial contracts. At the outset, it is observed that choice of law considerations are relegated to a secondary position in international civil and commercial litigation before the English courts as compared to international jurisdictional and procedural issues. (See pages 501-503 of the article) Significantly, the inherent dialectic between the substantive law paradigm and the internationalist paradigm of party autonomy is harnessed to provide us with the necessary analytical framework to examine the various conceptions of such agreements and aid us in determining the most appropriate classification of a choice of law agreement. (See pages 504-508 of the article and Ralf Michaels, ‘Party Autonomy in Private International Law – A New Paradigm without a Solid Foundation?’ (2013) 15 Japanese Yearbook of Private International Law 282) In binary terms, we are offered a choice between choice of law agreements as mere “factual” agreements on the one hand or as promises on the other. However, a more integrated and sophisticated understanding of the emerging transnationalist paradigm of party autonomy will guide us towards a conception of choice of law agreements as contracts, albeit contracts that do not give rise to promises inter partes. This coherent understanding of both the law of contract and choice of law has significant ramifications for the enforcement of choice of law agreements. It is argued that the agreement of the parties on choice of law will be successful in contracting out of the default choice of law norms of the forum and selecting the applicable law but cannot be enforced by an action for “breach” of contract.
It is argued that the emerging transnationalist paradigm of party autonomy supports a conception of choice of law agreements which borrows from both the internationalist and substantive law paradigms of party autonomy but cannot be comprehensively justified by either. This assimilated and coherent understanding of choice of law and the law of contract has led to the conclusion that the choice of law clause is a procedural contract but a contract nonetheless. (See Jürgen Basedow, The Law of Open Societies: Private Ordering and Public Regulation in the Conflict of Laws (Brill Nijhoff 2015) 145 and Maria Hook, The Choice of Law Contract (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2016) Chapter 2)
Professor Briggs’ promissory analysis of choice of law agreements is a seminal contribution to legal scholarship. (See Adrian Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (OUP 2008) Chapter 11) However, it is unlikely that the parallel existence of choice of law agreements as privately enforceable agreements will attract the attention of the CJEU and the EU legislature. The common law judicial authority coupled with the preponderance of opposing academic opinion has meant that the conventional “declaratory” classification of choice of law agreements has prevailed over the “promissory” approach. (See pages 508-517 of the article; Ace Insurance v Moose Enterprise Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 724 (Brereton J); Navig8 Pte Ltd v Al-Riyadh Co for Vegetable Oil Industry (The Lucky Lady) [2013] EWHC 328 (Comm), [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 104, [2013] 2 CLC 461 (Andrew Smith J)) In assessing the relevance and significance of attributing an obligation to adhere to the chosen law in a choice of law agreement, the internationalist paradigm’s understanding of the fundamental nature of private international law rules and their inherent function has helped develop the counterargument.
If the choice of law regime of the forum is conceptualised as a set of secondary rules for the allocation of regulatory authority, the descriptive, normative and interpretive narrative of the promissory perspective loses its perceived dominance and coherence as it fails to yield a complete and satisfactory justification for what we really understand by those rules. In the mantle of secondary power conferring rules as opposed to primary conduct regulating rules, choice of law rules perform a very significant public function of allocating regulatory authority. From this perspective, it is misplaced and misconceived to interpret choice of law clauses as promissory in essence. The promissory justification does not adequately account for the authorisation of party autonomy by the choice of law rules of the forum, the supervening application of the laws of the forum and other states and ultimate forum control. (See pages 517-524 of the article) Moreover, the pragmatic attractiveness of anti-suit injunctions and claims for damages for breach of choice of law agreements may be unsound in principle from the standpoint of a truly multilateral conception of private international law based on mutual trust or a strong notion of comity. An international private international law will always seek to promote civil judicial cooperation between legal systems rather than encourage the clash of sovereign legal orders by interfering with the jurisdiction, judgments and choice of law apparatus of foreign courts. (See pages 524-529 of the article)
To reiterate, the more reconciled transnationalist paradigm of party autonomy strikes a balance between the competing demands of the internationalist and the substantive law paradigms. It is argued that a conception of a choice of law agreement as a contract, albeit one that does not give rise to any promises inter partes provides an appropriate solution.
On the one hand, the choice of law agreement is a legally binding contract as opposed to a mere “factual” agreement. On the other hand, the function of this agreement is not to regulate private law rights and obligations inter partes: it is to contract out of the forum’s default choice of law norms and to select the applicable law. Such a contract will not contradict the intrinsic logic of choice of law rules because the international allocative function remains paramount and is not compromised in any way by promises inter partes. The fact that the choice of law agreement is a contract which only gives rise to procedural consequences does not mean that it is not a contract per se. (See pages 530-531 of the article)
News
Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2021
Professor HE Qisheng has published the annual report, Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2021, now in its 9th year. The article has been published by the Chinese Journal of International Law, a journal published by Oxford University Press..
This survey contains materials reflecting the Chinese practice of Chinese private international law in 2021. Firstly, regarding changes in the statutory framework of private international law in China, six legislative acts, one administrative regulation on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-Territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures, and six judicial interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) were adopted or amended in 2021, covering a wide range of matters, including punitive damages, online litigation, online mediation, and international civil procedure. Secondly, five typical cases on Chinese courts’ jurisdiction are selected to highlight the development of Chinese judicial practice in respect of consumer contracts, abuse of dominant market position, repeated actions and other matters. Thirdly, this survey considers 18 cases on choice-of-law issues relating, in particular, to capacities of legal persons, proprietary rights, employee contracts, mandatory rules, gambling and public policy. Fourthly, two significant decisions on punitive damages of intellectual property are reported. Fifthly, several key decisions in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, international arbitration agreements and foreign settlement agreements, are reproduced. Lastly, this survey also covers the Summaries of the National Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts published by the SPC, an official document which represents the current judicial practices in the Chinese courts, and which is expected to provide guidance in the adjudication of foreign-related matters in the future.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Overview
II.A. Report on the Work of the SPC in 2021
II.B. Laws and the SPC’s interpretations
III. Jurisdiction
III.A. Rules in the SPC Summaries on Foreign-related Trials
III.B. Consumer contract
III.C. Different courts agreed upon in the principal and accessory contract
III.D. Jurisdiction over abuse of dominant market position
III.E. Repeated actions
- Choice of law
IV.A. Rules in the SPC Summaries on Foreign-related Trials
IV.B. Capacity of legal person
IV.C. Rights in rem
IV.D. Obligations
IV.E. Mandatory rules
IV.E.i. Foreign exchange guarantee
IV.E.ii. Share transfer
IV.F. Gambling and public order
- Intellectual property
V.A. New rules on punitive damages
V.B. Selected cases on punitive damages in Chinese courts
- Foreign judgments
VI.A. Rules in the SPC Summaries on Foreign-related Trials
VI.B. Cases about recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
VII. International arbitration and foreign awards
VII.A. Rules in the SPC Summaries on Foreign-related Trials
VII.B. Arbitration clause and a lien dispute over the subject matter
VIII. Confirmation of the validity of foreign settlement agreement
Here are the links to the article:
- Standard link:
https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmac041/6988730?utm_source=advanceaccess&utm_campaign=chinesejil&utm_medium=email - Free-access link:
https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/advance-article/doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmac041/6988730?utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=chinesejil&utm_medium=email&guestAccessKey=01d9c811-e555-4366-8b93-3259516005d8
Bonn University / HCCH Conference — The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones – Prospects – Outlook, 9 and 10 June 2023
Registration now open
Dates:
Friday and Saturday, 9 and 10 June 2023
Venue:
Universitätsclub Bonn, Konviktstraße 9, D – 53113 Bonn
Registration:
sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de
| Registration Fee: | € 220.- |
| Young Scholars Rate (limited capacity): | € 110.- |
| Dinner (optional): | € 60.- |
Registration: Please register with sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de. Please communicate your full name and your postal address (for accounting purposes). Clearly indicate whether you want to benefit from the young scholars’ reduction of the conference fees and whether you want to participate in the conference dinner. You will receive an invoice invoice per email for the respective conference fee and, if applicable, for the conference dinner. Please make sure that we receive your payment at least two weeks in advance to the conference (26 May 2023 at the latest). After receiving your payment we will send out a confirmation of your registration. This confirmation will allow you to access the conference hall and the conference dinner.
Please note: Access will only be granted if you are vaccinated against Covid-19. Please confirm in your registration that you are, and attach an e-copy of your vaccination document. Please follow further instructions on site, e.g. prepare for producing a current negative test, if required by University or State regulation at that moment. We will keep you updated. Thank you for your cooperation.
Accommodation: We have blocked a larger number of rooms in the newly built hotel “MotelOne Bonn-Beethoven”, https://www.motel-one.com/de/hotels/bonn/hotel-bonn-beethoven/, few minutes away from the conference venue. The hotel’s address is: Berliner Freiheit 36, D – 53111 Bonn. The contact details are: bonn-beethoven@motel-one.com, +49 228 9727860. These rooms need to be booked on your own initiative and account by making reservation with the Hotel and by referring to „Universität Bonn“. These rooms will be blocked until 22 April 2023 at the latest. As there will be several larger events in town at the date of our conference we recommend making arrangements for accommodation quickly.
Programme
Friday, 9 June 2023
8.30 a.m. Registration
9.00 a.m. Welcome notes
Prof Dr Matthias Weller, Director of the Institute for German and International Civil Procedural Law, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn;
Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General, HCCH
Moderators: Prof Dr Moritz Brinkmann, Prof Dr Nina Dethloff, Prof Dr Matthias Weller, University of Bonn; Prof Dr Matthias Lehmann, University of Vienna; Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Former First Secretary, HCCH; Melissa Ford, Secretary, HCCH
Part I: Cornerstones
- Scope of application
Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
- Judgments, Recognition, Enforcement
Prof Dr Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, Germany
- The jurisdictional filters
Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan, Italy
- Grounds for refusal
Adj Prof Dr Marcos Dotta Salgueiro, University of the Republic, Montevideo; Director of International Law Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uruguay
- Article 29: From a Mechanism on Treaty Relations to a Catalyst of a Global Judicial Union
Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Former First Secretary, HCCH
Dr Cristina Mariottini, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Law, Luxembourg
1.00 p.m. Lunch Break
- The HCCH System for choice of court agreements: Relationship of the HCCH Judgments Convention 2019 to the HCCH 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements
Prof Dr Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling, United Kingdom
Part II: Prospects for the World
- European Union
Dr Andreas Stein, Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”, European Commission
- Perspectives from the US and Canada
Professor Linda J. Silberman, Clarence D. Ashley Professor of Law, Co-Director, Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law, New York University School of Law, USA
Professor Geneviève Saumier, Peter M. Laing Q.C. Professor of Law, McGill Faculty of Law, Canada
- Southeast European Neighbouring and EU Candidate Countries
Prof Dr Ilija Rumenov, Associate Professor at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, North Macedonia
8.00 p.m. Conference Dinner (€ 60.-)
Dinner Speech
Prof Dr Burkhard Hess, Director of the Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Law, Luxembourg
Saturday, 10 June 2023
9.00 a.m. Part II continued: Prospects for the World
- Perspectives from the Arab World
Prof Dr Béligh Elbalti, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law and Politics at Osaka University, Japan
- Prospects for Africa
Prof Dr Abubakri Yekini, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Prof Dr Chukwuma Okoli, University of Birmingham, The Netherlands
- Gains and Opportunities for the MERCOSUR Region
Prof Dr Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of External Relations, Professor of Private International Law, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Perspectives for ASEAN
Prof Dr Adeline Chong, Associate Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, Singapore
- China
Prof Dr Zheng (Sophia) Tang, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
1.00 p.m. Lunch Break
Part III: Outlook
- Lessons Learned from the Genesis of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention
Dr Ning Zhao, Principal Legal Officer, HCCH
- International Commercial Arbitration and Judicial Cooperation in civil matters: Towards an Integrated Approach
José Angelo Estrella-Faria, Principal Legal Officer and Head, Legislative Branch, International Trade Law Division, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations; Former Secretary General, UNIDROIT
- General Synthesis and Future Perspectives
Hans van Loon, Former Secretary General, HCCH
Download poster as a PDF Document.
HCCH Monthly Update: January 2023
Conventions & Instruments
On 1 December 2022, the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol entered into force for Ukraine. At present, 31 States and the European Union are bound by the Protocol. More information is available here.
On 7 December 2022, the 1961 Apostille Convention entered into force for Saudi Arabia. The Convention currently has 124 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.
On 1 January 2023, the 1980 Child Abduction Convention entered into force for Cabo Verde. The Convention currently has 103 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.
On 19 January 2023, El Salvador deposited its instrument of accession to the 1970 Evidence Convention. The Convention, which currently has 65 Contracting Parties, will enter into force for El Salvador on 20 March 2023. More information is available here.
Publications & Documentation
On 20 December 2022, the Permanent Bureau published the Practitioners’ Tool: Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Agreements Reached in the Course of Family Matters Involving Children. More information is available here.
On 18 January 2023, the Permanent Bureau published the second edition of the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Apostille Convention. More information is available here.
Other
On 13 December 2022, the Permanent Bureau celebrated the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the HCCH Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. More information is available here.
These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.