Views
Conference Report: Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content and Digital Services, A legal debate on the proposed directive, ERA Brussels, 22 November 2017
Written by Antonella Nolten, Research Fellow at the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany
On 22 November 2017 the Academy of European Law (ERA) hosted a conference on the recent developments on the Proposal for a Digital Content Directive in Brussels. Read more
Bob Wessels, International Insolvency Law: Part II European Insolvency Law, 4th edition 2017, Wolters Kluwer
Written by Lukas Schmidt, Research Fellow at the Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) of the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany
With International Insolvency Law Part II having been published, Bob Wessels’ 10 volume series ‘Insolventierecht’ (Insolvency Law) is now completed in its 4th edition. The publication comprehensively deals with the European Insolvency Regulation Recast as entered into force on 26 June 2017, while International Insolvency Law: Part I Global Perspectives on Cross-Border Insolvency Law, already published at the end of 2015, covers the core concepts of Cross-Border Insolvency Law, other regional frameworks than the EIR and relevant instruments of soft law. Read more
Deference to Foreign Sovereign Submissions
As previously reported here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in 2016 reversing a $147.8 million price-fixing judgment against two Chinese manufacturers of Vitamin C. The plaintiffs alleged that the Chinese manufacturers engaged in price fixing and supply manipulation in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. In its first ever appearance as an amicus before a U.S. court, the Chinese government filed a formal statement asserting that Chinese law required the Chinese manufacturers to set prices and reduce the quantities of Vitamin C sold abroad. Relying on this statement, the Second Circuit held that because the Chinese manufacturers could not comply with both Chinese law and the U.S. antitrust laws, principles of international comity compelled dismissal of the case.
This case raises a host of interesting questions. First, did the Second Circuit reach the right result? Second, is this a comity case or a foreign sovereign compulsion case? Third, what level of deference is due to a foreign sovereign that appears in private litigation to explain their country’s laws? Fourth, should U.S. judges defer to such an explanation?
In June 2017, the United States Supreme Court called for the views of the United States. This past Tuesday, the Solicitor General (SG) filed this brief in response to the Court’s order.
In this submission, the SG explains that the Court should grant review of the Second Circuit’s decision in order to review the court of appeals’ holding that the Chinese government’s submission conclusively established the content of Chinese law. According to the SG, “a foreign government’s characterization of its own law is entitled to substantial weight, but it is not conclusive.” The SG argues that the case warrants the Court’s review because “[t]he degree of deference that a court owes to a foreign government’s characterization of its own law is an important and recurring question, and foreign sovereigns considering making their views known to federal courts should understand the standards that will be applied to their submissions.”
Should the Court grant review, the question of what standard should be applied to foreign sovereign submissions will be key. This is a question I have explored here.
It will be interesting to see whether the Court accepts the SG’s request to review the Second Circuit’s decision.
News
Out Now: Torts in UK Foreign Relations by Dr Ugljesa Grusic
Oxford University Press officially released the recent book authored by Dr Ugljesa Grusic (Associate Professor at UCL Laws) titled Torts in UK Foreign Relations.
The book offers a comprehensive account of private international law aspects of tortious claims arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority.
Can English courts hear tortious claims for wrongs allegedly committed by British armed forces and security services during their overseas operations? Should English courts hear such claims? What law governs issues raised by such claims? Can foreign judgments given on such claims be recognised and enforced in the UK?
Many questions such as these have arisen in relation to cases dealing with the tortious liability of the UK government and its officials for extraterritorial public acts committed during the conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the ‘war on terror’. Torts in UK Foreign Relations examines the English courts’ treatment of such issues and offers a better understanding of this contested area of private international law. It shows that a defining characteristic of such tortious claims is that they are often subjected to the choice-of-law process and lead to the application of foreign law. Further, Dr Grusic clarifies the nature of the doctrines operating in this field, maps out the relationship between different jurisdictions and rules that are engaged, and criticises the current approach to choice-of-law, while arguing that English tort law should play a more prominent role.
Torts in UK Foreign Relations will appeal widely to academics, practitioners, and students in the fields of private international law, foreign relations law, tort law, and public law.
Torts in UK Foreign Relations:
- Offers the first comprehensive account of private international law aspects of tortious claims arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority
- Segregates issues raised by such tortious claims and clarifies the principles, rules and practice that determine the law governing these issues
- Maps out the relationship between different jurisdictions and rules that are engaged
- Discusses important developments and case law affecting the field, including the Supreme Court judgments in Rahmatullah, Belhaj, Maduro and Brownlie
Torts in UK Foreign Relations is available to order on the OUP website.
Lancaster Workshop on Challenges in Contemporary International Litigation – 21 June 2023
The University of Lancaster has organised a workshop on Challenges in Contemporary International Litigation on Wednesday, 21 June 2023, 12.30 – 5 pm UK time (in person and online via Teams). Some well established and emerging experts will discuss cutting edge issues of practical significance in private international law (broadly understood).
12.30 pm
Welcome remarks by Dr Mukarrum Ahmed and Professor David Milman (Co-chairs – University of Lancaster)
Professor Paul Beaumont FRSE (University of Stirling), ‘HCCH Jurisdiction Project’
Professor Paul Torremans (University of Nottingham), ‘CJEU case law on Article 7.2 Brussels I Regulation and its application to online copyright cases’
Dr Kirsty Hood KC (Discussant)
1.45 pm – 3.00 pm
Professor Zheng Sophia Tang (Wuhan University), ‘The challenge of emerging technology to International litigation’
Professor Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), ‘Sustainability and Private International Law’
Dr Mihail Danov (University of Exeter), ‘Private International Law and Competition Litigation in a Global Context’
3.00 pm – 3.15 pm Break
3.15 pm – 5.00 pm
Dr Jayne Holliday (University of Stirling), ‘The non-recognition of transnational divorces’
Dr Chukwuma Okoli (University of Birmingham), ‘Implied Jurisdiction Agreement in International Commercial Contracts’
Dr Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen), ‘The interaction between UK private international law and liability arising out of the use of artificial intelligence’
Mr Denis Carey (University of Lancaster), ‘The Consultation on the Reform of the Arbitration Act 1996’
The workshop is free to attend, but registration is required via email. A Teams link will be provided for remote attendees.
No Recognition in Switzerland of the Removal of Gender Information according to German Law
This note has been kindly provided by Dr. Samuel Vuattoux-Bock, LL.M. (Kiel), University of Freiburg (Germany).
On 8 June 2023, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht) pronounced a judgment on the removal of gender markers of a person according to German Law and denied the recognition of this removal in Switzerland. Read more