Views
‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading as choice of law under Rome I – the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines
In Airgas USA v Universal Africa Lines (7/11/2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1665), the Supreme Court of the Netherlands considered the interpretation of a so-called ‘Paramount clause’ in a bill of lading. Such clauses commonly signpost which rules govern the international carriage of goods by sea. The Court addressed such clause as a choice of law and held that article 3(1) of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude the parties from agreeing on such clause. Read more
“Without Regard to Principles of Conflict of Laws”
It is common to see some variation of the phrase “without regard to conflict of laws principles” appear at the end of a choice-of-law clause. Here are some examples:
“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China, without regard to its principles concerning conflicts of laws.”
“This Agreement and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law.”
“This Note is being delivered in and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflict of laws provisions thereof.”
Although this phrase is common, its purpose and origin are poorly understood. In 2020, I published an article, A Short History of the Choice of Law Clause, that attempted to demystify these issues.
Court-to-court referrals and reciprocity between Chinese and Singapore courts
By Catherine Shen, Asian Business Law Institute
In 2023 Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 dated March 14, 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province in China (Suzhou Court) recognized and enforced civil judgment HC/S194/2022 under file number HC/JUD47/2023 by the Supreme Court of Singapore (Singapore Judgment). The judgment by the Suzhou Court (Suzhou Judgment) was announced in September 2025 by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) as among the fifth batch of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) model cases. Read more
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.