Views
No handshake, no citizenship – but with a second wife, everything’s fine?
Two recent judgments of European courts have highlighted the difficulty in finding the right balance between the cultural assimilation of Muslim immigrants demanded by national laws on citizenship and the necessary degree of tolerance towards foreign laws and customs. In a widely reported decision of 11 April 2018, the French Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) ruled that a naturalisation of an Algerian-born woman could be revoked because she had refused to shake hands with a male public servant during the naturalisation ceremony. Read more
Child Abduction and Habitual Residence in the Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada, in Office of the Children’s Lawyer v Balev (available here), has evolved the law in Canada on the meaning of a child’s habitual residence under Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The Convention deals with the return of children wrongfully removed from the jurisdiction of their habitual residence.
A majority of the court identifies [paras 4 and 39ff] three possible approaches to habitual residence: the parental intention approach, the child-centred approach, and the hybrid approach. The parental intention approach determines the habitual residence of a child by the intention of the parents with the right to determine where the child lives. This approach has been the dominant one in Canada. In contrast, the hybrid approach, instead of focusing primarily on either parental intention or the child’s acclimatization, looks to all relevant considerations arising from the facts of the case. A majority of the court, led by the (now retired) Chief Justice, holds that the law in Canada should be the hybrid approach [paras 5 and 48]. One of the main reasons for the change is that the hybrid approach is used in many other Hague Convention countries [paras 49-50].
The dissent (three of the nine judges) would maintain the parental intention approach [para 110]. One of its central concerns is the flexibility and ambiguity of the hybrid approach [para 111], which the judges worry will lead to less clarity and more litigation. Wrongful removal cases will become harder to resolve in a timely manner [paras 151-153].
The majority did not apply the law to the facts of the underlying case, it having become moot during the process of the litigation [para 6]. The court rendered its decision to provide guidance going forward. The dissent would have denied the appeal on the basis that the child’s habitual residence was in Germany (as the lower courts had held).
The court briefly addresses the exception to Article 3 in what is commonly known as “Article 13(2)” (since it is not numbered as such) – a child’s objection to return – setting out its understanding of how to apply it [paras 75-81 and 157-160].
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently adopted the practice of preparing summaries of its decisions (available here for this decision) to make them more accessible to the media and the public. These are called “Cases in Brief”.
The CJEU settles the issue of characterising the surviving spouse’s share of the estate in the context of the Succession Regulation
It has not been yet noted on this blog that the CJEU has recently settled a classic problem of characterisation that has plagued German courts and academics for decades (CJEU, 1 March 2018 – C-558/16, Mahnkopf, ECLI:EU:C:2018:138). The German statutory regime of matrimonial property is a community of accrued gains, i.e. that each spouse keeps its own property, but gains that have been made during the marriage are equalised when the marriage ends, i.e. by a divorce or by the death of one spouse. According to § 1371(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB), the equalisation of the accrued gains shall be effected by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate on intestacy by one quarter of the estate if the property regime is ended by the death of a spouse; it is irrelevant in this regard whether the spouses have made accrued gains in the individual case. How is this claim to be characterized? Read more
News
3rd edition – Cycle of seminars – Jean Monnet Module con Cross-Border Litigation – Università degli Studi, Milan – 8 March – 18 May 2023
On 8 March 2023, the latest edition of the cycle of seminars – entirely in English – on cross-border civil and commercial litigation will begin, as part of the European project Jean Monnet Module on Multilevel, Multiparty and Multisector Cross-Border Litigation in Europe, organized by the Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law of the University of Milan.
This year’s edition will focus on the following three topics:
– Binding effects and res iudicata in a multilevel dimension (seminars on 8-9-15-16-17-22-23 March 2023);
– Collective redress and group litigation (seminars on 29 March-12-13-19-20-26-27-28 April 2023);
– Main procedural issues of climate litigation (seminars on 3-4-10-11-17-18 May 2023).
The seminars (currently being accredited by the Milan Bar Council) can be followed both face-to-face and remotely, on the MS Teams platform.
All information on the program and how to register may be found here.
HCCH Monthly Update: February 2023
Conventions & Instruments
On 1 February 2023, the 1980 Child Abduction Convention entered into force for Botswana. The Convention currently has 103 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.
On 17 February 2023, Azerbaijan deposited its instrument of accession to the 1965 Service and 2007 Child Support Conventions. The 1965 Service Convention, which now has 80 Contracting Parties, will enter into force for Azerbaijan on 1 September 2023, subject to the Article 28 procedure. As for the 2007 Child Support Convention, with the accession of Azerbaijan 46 States and the European Union are now bound by it. It will enter into force for Azerbaijan on 28 February 2024. More information is available here.
Meetings & Events
On 7 and 8 February 2023, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH co-organised the Regional Conference “The HCCH and the relevance of its work for Southern Africa”, together with Finland and South Africa, with the participation of Namibia and Tanzania, as well as other Southern African Development Community States, and hosted by the University of Pretoria (South Africa). More information is available here.
From 13 to 15 February 2023, the International Transfer of Maintenance Funds Experts’ Group met for the fourth time. Pursuant to its mandate, the Experts’ Group continued its work discussing good practices in relation to the cross-border transfer of maintenance payments, with a view to identifying solutions that are cost-effective, transparent, prompt, efficient and accessible. More information is available here.
From 13 to 17 February 2023, the Working Group on Matters Related to Jurisdiction in Transnational Civil or Commercial Litigation met for the fourth time. Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group made further progress on the development of draft provisions for a possible future instrument on parallel litigation in civil or commercial matters. More information is available here.
Upcoming Events
Registrations are open for the conference “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones – Prospects – Outlook”, which will be held in person on 9-10 June 2023 at the University of Bonn in Germany. More information is available here.
Vacancies
Applications are now open for three- to six-month legal internships for the period from July to December 2023. The deadline for the submission of applications is 31 March 2023 (18:00 CEST). 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.
Reviewing Sanctions in Arbitration: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Private International Law Analysis
by Naimeh Masumy, [nmasumy@gmail.com]
The growing role of arbitration as a peaceful means for resolving investment, commercial and inter-state disputes is now impacted by an increasing number of sanction regimes borne out of the recent geopolitical conflicts. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many regulators across various jurisdictions sought to move towards greater coordination of sanction implementation and enforcement efforts. The recent tranche of sanctions has sparked a debate on the appropriate standards of review that arbitral tribunals ought to apply when dealing with disputes involving sanctions.
In this short note, we look at the case of Sofregaz v. NGSC, which provides a sobering exposition of the challenges faced by the adjudicative bodies when assessing the legality of unilateral Extra-territorial sanctions under international law. This case concerns the annulment of an arbitral award rendered in Paris 2018 in favor of NGSC, pursuant to the Rules of Arbitration of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Rules). In 2018, the ICC tribunal found against Sofregaz and awarded NGCS an amount of over USD 2.4 million for an unpaid invoice and down payment drawn by Sofregaz under certain guarantees. Sofregaz applied to set aside the award before the Paris Court of Appeal. It sought an annulment application based on NGSC’s exposure to US secondary sanction. Sofregaz argued, inter alia, that the tribunal had failed to carry out its mandate and had not considered the impact of sanctions against Iran on the performance of the contract. In Sofregaz’s view, this resulted in an award contrary to French international public policy in that it gave effect to a contract that could not be performed without breaching the designated sanctions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the annulment application brought by the Sofregaz, using private international law analysis to dismiss the legality of U.S. sanctions.
This note will highlight why invoking such a private international law analysis when determining the validity and the scope of applicable sanctions will undermine international arbitration. Then, it will show that such an analysis is inconsistent with the overriding objectives of international arbitration – arguably, the creation of an autonomous dispute resolution system for the effective and expeditious resolution of disputes in a delocalized fashion.
The Relevance of Private International Law Analysis to Arbitration
Private international law provides a judicial tool for courts to address the distinction between forum law and foreign law and promotes a smooth functioning of the international legal regime by mitigating jurisdictional conflicts, especially in a legal relationship involving several applicable laws. Courts weigh private and public policy concerns of the forum law and foreign law when determining whether to apply the laws of a foreign jurisdiction over the forum law.
Many scholars have strongly advocated the use of private international law analysis in international arbitration. The benefits of such analysis are particularly clear when arbitrators are faced with potentially conflicting laws, similar to the case of Sofregaz v. NGCS. where the tribunal was confronted with three different sets of laws: Iranian law governing the contract, French law as the law applicable at the seat of arbitration, and the U.S. law governing the sanctions regime, albeit extraterritorially imposed, which materially impacted on the performance of a contract. The tribunal did not consider the impact of US sanctions, and rendered an award in favor of NGSC due to the wrongful termination of a contract for the conversion of a gas field.
In such instances, private international law can operate as a mechanism of localization that permits tribunals to adjudicate in cases involving several legal orders by taking into account important considerations such as overriding mandatory rules at the seat of the arbitral tribunal.
Arbitrators are generally empowered to apply the law deemed “appropriate” or “applicable” in the absence of a governing law clause. Notably, Article 22(3) of the 2020 LCIA Rules also authorizes arbitrators, when determining the lex contractus, to apply the rules of law they deem appropriate. Such approaches can provide objective yardsticks for tribunals exercising their discretion to select the appropriate law. Having objective criteria aids predictability and efficiency and ensures tribunals do not act outside their designated mandates.
This is of particular significance as the uncertainty over the governing law may negatively affect the parties’ due process rights and may lead to the award being issued arbitrarily. Such concern was echoed in the Sofregaz application to set aside the award in 2019, in which it was claimed that the tribunal failed to take into account the impact of U.S. economic sanctions. Thus, that award recognition would be contrary to international public policy (“l’ordre public international”).
The court dismissed the claim observing that the Tribunal did not violate international public policy in failing to consider the impact of U.S. economic sanctions. To this end, the French court defined international public policy as “the body of rules and value whose violation the French legal order cannot tolerate, even in the international context.” In its reasoning, the court heavily endorsed French conflict-of-laws rules to determine the contour of mandatory rules. This approach means that if a tribunal relies on objective criteria to take into account essential regulations of the forum such as domestic and international mandatory law, the final award may remain immune from potential challenges. In other words, private international law analysis may be a desirable straight jacket to ensure that tribunals comply with regulatory provisions of the forum. As such, it may enable courts to establish trust in arbitration and refrain from inquiring into the merits of final awards.
Conflict of Rules Analysis: Undermining the Delocalization Theory
The delocalization theory of arbitration is a part of the much broader, which posits that international arbitration ought to be completely detached from the procedural and substantive law of the place of arbitration or the seat, or lex loci arbitri, and from national law in general. According to this theory, arbitration is a private activity, which can be considered favorably or unfavorably, but certainly does not need to be empowered by any state ex ante. While this theory found a firm grounding under the French law of international arbitration, in reality, this theory usually carries little weight, especially in enforcing an award that has been challenged. The theory of delocalization begins to wane, as the legal system of the forum country will be the primary source relevant to ascertaining the legal relationship of the final award and the mandatory provisions of the lex fori.
In addition, the New York Convention muddies the waters by making reference to domestic public policy in article V (2) (b) as a ground for non-recognition or enforcement of an award., Based on the literal reading of the Convention, the law of the seat of arbitration usually delineates. Thus, to contextualize international arbitration through the prism of absolute delocalization, a system wholly emancipated from the forum law will pose practical challenges.
The above is of relevance to the role of sanctions for arbitral awards. Private international law is predicated on the notion that the world is divided into nation states and national legal orders. This approach dramatically contrasts with what international arbitration delocalisation theory arguably has long sought: to free arbitration from national orders. According to this view, examining the validity and scope of sanctions through the prism of private international law analysis forces the arbitrator to draw upon domestic law. This, in turn, contravenes the main tenet of delocalization theory, which confirms that arbitration has no forum. Further, the arc of modern arbitration laws arguably negates the relevance of private international law analysis. Modern arbitration laws are mostly substantive laws, and the notions embedded in arbitration are substantially transnational rather than international, which undermines the viability of the private international law analysis.
Private International Law Analysis: A False Aura of Objectivity
Despite the widespread view that private international law provides a roadmap towards a more predictable and objective outcome for disputes involving sanctions, such framework is prone to inconsistent and divergent results. Private international law provides a basis of jurisdiction to apply foreign law when several laws may concurrently apply to the dispute. In doing so, private international law approaches balance competing interests according to notions such as reciprocity, expectation of courtesy and comity. The exact contours of these notions have remained imprecise, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in the case of Hilton v. Guyot. Courts often draw upon their ideology and values explicitly and implicitly to ascertain comity. Such assessment will inadvertently lead to adjudicators interposing ad hoc political judgments about foreign relations, opening a door for arbitrators to endorse parochial domestic policies to ascertain the legal orders involving international components. This is evident in the French Court’s reasoning, in which the court heldthat “[t]he unilateral sanctions taken by U.S. authorities against Iran cannot be regarded as the expression of an international consensus, since the French authorities dispute the extraterritorial reach of these sanctions”. This assessment was drawn by balancing the interests of French national policies, which denotes that relying on political considerations rather than legitimate international considerations concerning the legality of sanctions will open the door for domestic idiosyncratic views and interpretations, which in turn, will bar this concept to be applied hegemonically across different jurisdictions.
If the governing law of sanctions is determined by private international law, it may pose conceptual difficulties. Sanctions are international instruments hinging on the notion of sovereign equality. The underpinning principle of sovereign equality of states is deeply embedded in one of the main tenants of international law. Any actions impinging on that principle would therefore need to involve considerations of public policy. Public international law must impose limits to the scope and validity of sanctions and to governing law. To this end, using private international law approaches to ascertain the validity of sanctions will negate the character (or nature) of sanctions as a public international law instrument transcending national boundaries
Conclusion
This post has called into question the viability of a private international law analysis in reviewing the scope of the application of sanctions. It has contended that a private international law analysis borrows its genesis from the domestic law of the forum (state). Private international law analysis needs to have sufficient normative weight to scrutinize or inquire into the substance of sanction regimes. Further, invoking private international law principles does not preclude arbitrators from engaging in subjective assessments to examine the applicability of a sanctions regime. By abandoning a private international law analysis, the interpretation and enforceability of sanctions will become more anachronistic and predictable.