Views
Conflict of Law Rules in the Early 20th Century Ethiopia: A Brief Legal History
Guest post by Bebizuh Mulugeta Menkir, former Lecturer of Laws in University of Gondar, currently working as a Lawyer and Senior National Consultant for a legal reform project. E-mail: babimulugeta@gmail.com
The Ethiopian legal system is characterized by the absence of codified rules on conflict of laws. Though it cannot be considered as the exact period in which conflict of laws have emerged in Ethiopia, some elements of such rules can be found even in the early 1900s, which is long before the modern codes were developed in 1950s and 1960s.
A book written by Mersehazen Woledekirkos titled “Ye Hayagenawe Keflezemen Mebacha:Ye Zemen Tarik Tezetaye Kayehute ena Kesemahute 1896–1922”[1] is a record of historical events that happened in 20th century Ethiopia. One of the records is the “Trade Agreement (1908)” that was signed between Ethiopia and France. This agreement, among others, regulates the adjudication of disputes between Ethiopian and French nationals/dependents. This short piece aims to briefly discuss the salient conflict of laws rules that are incorporated in this trade agreement. Read more
US Supreme Court: Hearing in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico). Selling guns comparable to selling beer to teenagers?
Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University
The hearing in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) No. 23-1141 took place in March 2025 before the US Supreme Court. We have previously reported on this case here and here. The transcript and the audio files can be found here.
As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. Mexico alleges inter alia that defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Among the claims for relief are: Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act] and punitive damages.
Brexit and PIL – Belgian Supreme Court confirms the application of the 2005 Hague Convention to jurisdiction clauses designating UK courts concluded after 1 October 2015
By Guillaume Croisant (Linklaters LLP)
The United Kingdom deposited an instrument of accession to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Convention”) on 28 September 2020. This instrument of accession became effective after the Brexit’s transition period, on 1 January 2021, and gained binding force within the UK legal order following the adoption of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020.
As many readers will be aware, a controversy exists regarding the temporal scope of the Convention. It applies to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded after its entry into force for the State of the chosen court and to disputes initiated after its entry into force for the State of the seized court. EU Member States have been bound by the Hague Convention since its approval by the European Union on 1 October 2015, but what about the UK after its withdrawal from the EU?
According to a first viewpoint, reflected in the UK’s instrument of accession, ” In accordance with Article 30 of the 2005 Hague Convention, the United Kingdom became bound by the Convention on 1 October 2015 by virtue of its membership of the European Union, which approved the Convention on that date.”
Conversely, under a second viewpoint (apparently shared by the European Commission in its ‘Notice to stakeholders – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of civil justice and private international law’ dated 27 August 2020, p. 9), the Convention could only apply after the United Kingdom’s ‘independent’ ratification, which occurred on 1 January 2021. If this second perspective were accepted, jurisdiction agreements concluded before this date would not benefit from the mutual recognition system established by the Convention.
In a judgment (in French) dated 27 March 2025 (C.24.0012.F), the Belgian Supreme Court (Court de Cassation/Hof van Cassatie) ruled in favour of the first viewpoint, holding that “The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 has been applicable to the United Kingdom as a bound State, owing to the European Union’s approval of the Convention, from 1 October 2015 until 31 December 2020, and as a contracting party from 1 January 2021. The argument, in this regard, that the United Kingdom ceased to be bound by the Convention following its withdrawal from the European Union on 1 February 2020, is without legal basis.”
News
Virtual Workshop (in German) on January 13, 2026: Jens Kleinschmidt on “Zehn Jahre Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung – Stand und Perspektiven”
On Tuesday, January 13, 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). Jens Kleinschmidt (Trier University) will speak, in German, about the topic
“Zehn Jahre Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung – Stand und Perspektiven”
Seit zehn Jahren bestimmt die Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung die Planung und Abwicklung grenzüberschreitender Erbfälle in der EU. Eine Überprüfungsklausel (Art. 82 EuErbVO) sieht nach diesem Zeitraum einen Bericht über die Anwendung der Verordnung vor. Dies nimmt der Vortrag zum Anlass, aufbauend auf den Erfahrungen mit dem Rechtsakt über Zukunftsperspektiven nachzudenken. Den Ausgangspunkt bildet dabei das Europäische Nachlasszeugnis, dessen effet utile in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH wiederholt die Auslegung der gesamten Verordnung geleitet hat.
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.
Revisiting the Internationality of Contracts: Conference in Paris, 9 February 2026
The international character of contracts is currently undergoing significant transformations. Whether deliberately chosen by the parties, rejected by domestic courts, endured in certain regulatory contexts, or even rendered obsolete, the notion of internationality – long considered a cornerstone of private international law – calls for renewed analysis. Against this background, a conference entitled “Revisiting the Internationality of Contracts” will be held on Monday, 9 February 2026 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Grand Chamber of the French Court of Cassation.
List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments [2025 Update]
As the new year begins, it’s a good time for a fresh start. One timely occasion to do so is the release, on 31 December 2025, of the annual update of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments (Case List), prepared since 2019 by China Justice Observer (CJO), founded by Guodong Du and Meng Yu (updates for the years 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024 were also previously posted on this blog).
The Case List is compiled on the basis of a collection of “all Chinese court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ), as well as foreign decisions concerning the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments.” The stated intention behind this endeavor is to “build reasonable expectations on REFJ in China.”
The Case List constitutes a particularly valuable source of information on judicial practice relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China, both under international treaties concluded by China (for a full list, see here) and under domestic law, namely the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2023 Amendment), Articles 298–303.
According to the 2025 update, a total of 120 cases involving China and 26 foreign States and regions, excluding foreign divorce judgments, have now been collected. This represents an increase of 11 cases compared to the previous update (109 cases in the 2024 update).
Key features of the 2025 update include the following:
-
The List comprises 26 concise reports for each jurisdiction, together with a chart of bilateral judicial assistance treaties which China has concluded with 39 States, of which 35 bilateral treaties include judgment enforcement clauses.
-
A total of eleven newly added cases involve one treaty jurisdiction – Uzbekistan (one case), and five non-treaty jurisdictions, namely, Australia (one case), New Zealand (four cases), Singapore (two cases), South Korea (two cases), and the United States (one case).
-
Please note that Tian v Xu [2023] NZHC 3259 marks the first reported instance of a New Zealand court recognizing and enforcing a Chinese civil settlement statement (also known as a mediation judgment). By treating such instruments as equivalent to consent judgments, the New Zealand High Court has adopted a pro-enforcement approach consistent with precedents in Canada (Wei v Li 2019 BCCA 114) and Australia (Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749), providing a clear contrast to the earlier restrictive view expressed in Singapore (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).
-
Another noteworthy case is Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3, where a Chinese court refused to enforce a U.S. default judgment rendered in breach of a valid arbitration agreement. By holding that a defendant’s absence does not constitute an implied waiver, the Chinese court shielded arbitration clauses from being bypassed via foreign default judgments.
-
Other newly added cases, be it foreign judgments to be enforced in China or Chinese judgments to be enforced in foreign jurisdictions, provide a valuable comparative perspective on key issues in the eyes of courts from different jurisdictions, such as reciprocity ( e.g., the de jure reciprocity applied by a Beijing court in enforcing a South Korean IP judgment, the reciprocal consensus confirmed by a Shanghai court in enforcing a Singapore monetary judgment), natural justice (New Zealand), ascertainment and interpretation of foreign law (Singapore, Australia).
-
Each case has been reviewed, and more details, such as the grounds, the case numbers, and causes of action, have been added.
-
Case analyses have been aggregated under the country tags since 2022, so it is now easier to track down relevant cases, together with their information and analyses, in each country/region report. For example, under the tag ‘US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’, one can find relevant case analyses involving mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the US and China.
For further details see here and here.
Happy New Year to all!
