Views
XLK v XLJ: Comity Beyond the Child Abduction Convention
By Haoxiang Ruan, PhD candidate at Hitotsubashi University (Tokyo, Japan). Haoxiang Ruan consistently maintains an interest in international family law, which led him to undertake the 2024-2025 academic stay at Kyoto University (Kyoto, Japan).
From the perspective of state participation, the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Child Abduction Convention”) stands as one of the most successful instruments of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), boasting 103 Contracting Parties to date. This widespread adherence is largely driven by the pervasive—and increasingly difficult-to-ignore—problem of international child abduction, which affects even non-Contracting States. China, a populous country deeply engaged in globalization, exemplifies this reality. A recent custody ruling in Singapore concerned a child who had been brought to the country by his father in breach of an order issued by a Chinese court—an incident underscoring how cross-border family disputes transcend the formal boundaries of the Convention.
Conflict of laws in the South African courts: a recent missed opportunity
Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
It’s rare for conflict of laws to come up in South African courts (with the notable exception of the Turkcell litigation from earlier this year; see the summary on this site at https://conflictoflaws.net/2025/south-africa-grapples-with-the-act-of-state-doctrine-and-choice-of-law-in-delict/).
Reciprocity and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Egypt – A Critical Assessment of a Recent Supreme Court Decision
I. Introduction
Reciprocity is probably one of the most controversial requirements in the field of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. While its legitimacy appears to be on the wane (see Béligh Elbalti, “Reciprocity and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: A Lot of Bark but Not Much Bite,” 13 JPIL 1 (2017) 184), reciprocity can still strike hard – particularly when it is applied loosely and without sufficient consideration.
The case presented here, decided by the Egyptian Supreme Court (Appeal No. 11434 of 21 June 2025), provides a good illustration. Despite the Court’s well-established case law imposing certain restrictions on the use of the reciprocity requirement, this recent judgment shows that, when not applied with the necessary rigor, reciprocity can still produce significant effects that undermine the legitimate expectations of the parties.
News
Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2026/1
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)
The first issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2026 has just come off the press and is available online. It contains three articles, nine case notes, and eight book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).
Read more
Foreign Judgment Enforcement: Zimbabwean High Court holds that a Confirmed Mareva Injunction is a Final Judgment
In the Zimbabwe High Court decision of Ser and Another v Yong and Another (92 of 2026; HC/SUM 1957/2025) [2026] ZWHHC 137 (8 April 2026), the applicant obtained a freezing (Mareva) injunction from a foreign court in Singapore against assets linked to the respondents and then sought to have that order registered and enforced in Zimbabwe. The respondents resisted enforcement, arguing that the order should not be recognised because it was interlocutory in nature and because a relevant foreign defendant had not been joined to the original proceedings. The dispute therefore arose in the context of an attempt to extend the effect of a foreign asset-preservation order into Zimbabwe against parties and assets within its jurisdiction.
Virtual Workshop (in German) on May 5, 2026: Thomas Pfeiffer on „Anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare im Internationalen Privatrecht“
On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST).
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer (Universität Heidelberg) will speak, in German, about the topic
“Anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare im Internationalen Privatrecht”
In Deutschland dürfte zum juristischen Allgemeinwissen zählen, dass anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare in den USA (und manchen anderen Rechtsordnungen) zulässig und vielfach sogar üblich sind, in Deutschland hingegen früher generell als unzulässig galten und auch heute noch deutlichen rechtlichen Grenzen unterliegen. Im IPR wird meist angenommen, dass sich diese Grenzen auch international zwingend durchsetzen, soweit es um deutsche Anwälte geht. Die schon früher relevante Frage nach Differenzierungen im Einzelnen hat durch die spürbaren Lockerungen der maßgebenden sachrechtlichen Regeln in jüngerer Zeit nochmals an Bedeutung gewonnen.
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.