Written by Matthias Lehmann, University of Vienna (Austria)

On 13 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts may not help arbitral tribunals sitting abroad in the taking of evidence. This is because in the opinion of the Court, such an arbitral tribunal is not a „foreign or international tribunal“ in the sense of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows federal district courts to order the production of evidence for use in proceedings before such tribunals.

The decision concerned an institutional and an ad-hoc arbitration. The first, ZF v. Luxshare, was a commercial arbitration between two companies under the rules of the German Arbitration Institution (DIS). The second, AlixPartners v. Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, was an investment arbitration involving a disgruntled Russian investor and a failed Lithuanian bank; it was conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

The opinion, written by Amy Coney Barrett, rejects assistance by U.S. courts in both cases, whether in the pre-arbitration phase or in the main arbitration proceedings. It was unanimously adopted by the Court.

The Supreme Court first relies on a dubious literal interpretation of § 1782. While it does not dispute that arbitral tribunals may be “tribunals”, this would change by the addition of the adjectives “foreign or international”, as this would require that one or several nations have imbued the tribunal with governmental authority. Alas, the drafters of the New York Convention on recognition and enforcement of “foreign” arbitral awards were wrong, and so apparently were the signatories – among them the U.S. As for the term “international”, numerous treatises on “international commercial arbitration” will now supposedly have to be rewritten or newly titled.

The opinion further argues that the “animating purpose” of § 1782 would be “comity” with other nations, and that it would be “difficult to see how enlisting district courts to help private bodies would help that end”. Yet other nations also have an interest in efficient arbitration proceedings, as evidenced by the New York Convention. This is even particularly clear for investment arbitration because of the involvement of a state party, but it is also true in commercial arbitration. What is decisive from the point of view of many countries is that arbitration as a dispute resolution method is equivalent to litigation, and should not be treated less favourably.

The Supreme Court further argues that if § 1782 were to be extended to commercial arbitral “panels”, it would cover everything, including even a university’s student disciplinary tribunal. Yet the absurdity of this argumentum ad absurdum lies not in the inclusion of arbitration in § 1782 but in the extension made by the Court, which was only asked about the former and not about the latter. If need be, it would have been easy to distinguish commercial and investment arbitral tribunals established under national or international rules and covered by international agreements such as the New York Convention from student disciplinary “tribunals” (rather: panels).

Finally, the Court notes that allowing district courts to proffer evidence to a foreign arbitral tribunal would create a mismatch with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which does not foresee such assistance for domestic arbitral tribunals. Yet the solution of this mismatch should have better been left to the legislator, who could either extend the  FAA to discovery or exclude foreign and international arbitral tribunals from the scope of § 1782. At any rate, the worse situation of domestic arbitral tribunals does not seem a sufficient justification to also deprive arbitral tribunals abroad, who may have particular difficulties in gathering evidence in the U.S., of assistance by U.S. courts.

All in all, this is disappointing news from Capitol Hill for international arbitration. Whether on arbitration or abortion, the current Supreme Court seems to be willing to upend legal precedent and to question customary legal terminology. At least for arbitration, the consequences will not be life-threatening, because the practice will be able to adapt. But one can already see the next questions coming to the Supreme Court. How about this one: Are ICSID tribunals imbued with governmental authority?

The fourth German Conference for Young Scholars in Private International Law, held on site at the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna on 23 and 24 February 2023 (we have posted about the event previously here), has issued a call for papers. Proposals are invited for conference presentations (20 min.; to be published) and short presentations (5-10 min.; non-published). Furthermore, the organizers proudly announced that the keynote lecture will be delivered by Professor Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po).

The organizers describe the purpose of these proposals and the goals of the conference as follows (emphasis added):

“The theme of the conference will be

Deference to the foreign
– empty phrase or guiding principle of private international law?

As part of any legal system, rules of private international law are determined by the principles of the respective national jurisdiction, but they also open up the national system to foreign rules. This creates the challenge of reconciling foreign law and foreign values with the national legal system. At the conference, we will seek to explore whether and to what extent deference to the foreign is a pervasive principle in private international law. In doing so, we will look at the methods of private international law as well as interdisciplinary approaches to the justification and implementation of said principle.

The theme invites discussion of fundamental questions:

• What is the history of deference to the foreign in private international law?
• Does European Union law lead to a new understanding of the foreign and, in particular, to a stronger delineation from third countries?
• To what extent does mutual trust function as a basis of deference to the foreign in the pro- cess of internationalisation and Europeanisation?
• What is the relationship between deference to the foreign and escape clauses, overriding mandatory provisions, preliminary questions, local data theory (Datumtheorie), renvoi, and public policy clauses?
• What is the role of fundamental and human rights in the context of deference to the foreign?
• Are there tendencies in private international law, specific to or across different areas of law, towards a decline of the principle of deference to the foreign?
• Which levels of acceptance, integration, or assimilation are recognised in private interna- tional law?
• What is the importance of deference to the foreign in the European area of justice?

Contributions can also focus on the relationship between deference to the foreign and the methods of private international law:

• What is the role of methods and private international law concepts in implementing the principle of deference to the foreign (e.g. substitution or recognition)?
• Which insights does legal pluralism offer in relation to deference to the foreign?
• What are the insights of interdisciplinary approaches to the justification and methodological implementation of the principle of deference to the foreign?
• Are there parallels between the conflict of laws approach to deference to the foreign and approaches in other sciences or arts?

Various examples can serve as illustrations of whether and how private international law imple- ments the principles of deference to the foreign in specific areas, for instance:

• The influence of EU freedom of movement on the recognition of legal situations or a per- son’s status, such as same-sex marriages or parenthood
• The recognition of foreign citizenship of multinationals
• The importance of deference to the foreign in the regulation of international supply chains
• Deference to the foreign in economic law within the EU, g. by means of the European Passport in banking and capital market law

We are looking forward to contributions which take up the theme of deference to the foreign. The examples given above are mere suggestions and should not limit the scope of suitable topics. We welcome contributions from all areas of private international law and international civil procedure as well as from international arbitration and uniform law.

Formalities

Speakers are invited to give a presentation of approximately 20 minutes (in either German or English). The written contributions will later be published in a conference volume with Mohr Siebeck.

The conference programme will also include smaller discussion rounds in which short presentations of approximately 5-10 minutes can be given. These contributions will not be published. We are also looking forward to abstracts for such short presentations.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 12 September 2022. Please send your proposal to ipr@sfu.ac.at. The proposal should contain:

• an anonymised abstract (not exceeding 800 words) in pdf format, and
• a short cover letter, preferably in the e-mail, containing the speaker’s name, address, and institutional affiliation, as well as
• the indication whether the abstract proposes a conference presentation (20 minutes)

and/or a short presentation in the smaller discussion rounds.

Please do not hesitate to contact us, if you have any further questions (ipr@sfu.ac.at).

We are very much looking forward to your proposals.

Kind regards:
Andreas Engel | Florian Heindler | Katharina Kaesling | Ben Köhler
Martina Melcher | Bettina Rentsch | Susanna Roßbach | Johannes Ungerer

More information is available at https://tinyurl.com/YoungPIL.”

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

(These abstracts can also be found at the IPRax-website under the following link: https://www.iprax.de/en/contents/)

P. Hay: On the Road to a Third American Restatement of Conflicts Law

American private international law (Conflict of Laws, “Conflicts Law”) addresses procedure (jurisdiction of courts, recognition of judgments) as well as the choice of the applicable law. The last of these has been a mystery to many scholars and practitioners – indeed, even in the United States. Since 2014 the American Law Institute now seeks to draft a new “Restatement” – the Third – of the subject, with the aim to clarify and perhaps to bring more uniformity to the resolution of conflict-of-laws problems. The following comments first recall the role of restatements in American law. The second part provides some historical background (and an assessment of the current state of American conflicts law, as it relates to choice of law) in light of the Second Restatement, which was promulgated in 1971. The third part addresses the changes in methodology adopted and some of the rules so far proposed by the drafters of the future new Restatement. Examples drawn from existing drafts of new provisions may serve to venture some evaluation of these proposed changes. In all of this, it is important to bear in mind that much work still lies ahead: it took 19 years (1952–1971) to complete the Second Restatement.

L. Hübner: Climate change litigation at the interface of private and public law – the foreign permit

The article deals with the interplay of private international law, substantive law, and public law in the realm of international environmental liability. It focuses on the question, whether the present dogmatic solution for the cognizance of foreign permits in “resident scenarios” can be extended to climate change scenarios. Since there exists significant doubts as to the transferability of this concept, the article considers potential solutions under European and public international law.

C. Kohler: Recognition of status and free movement of persons in the EU

In Case C-490/20, V.M.A., the ECJ obliged Bulgaria to recognise the Spanish birth certificate of a child in which two female EU citizens, married to each other, were named as the child’s parents, as far as the implementation of the free movement of persons under EU law was concerned, but left the determination of the family law effects of the certificate to Bulgarian law. However, the judgment extends the effects of the recognition to all rights founded in Union law, including in particular the right of the mobile Union citizen to lead a “normal family life” after returning to his or her country of origin. This gives the ECJ the leverage to place further effects of recognition in public law and private law under the protection of the primary and fundamental rights guarantees of EU law without regard to the law applicable under the conflict rules of the host Member State. The author analyses these statements of the judgment in the light of European and international developments, which show an advance of the recognition method over the traditional method of referral to foreign law in private international law.

W. Hau: Interim relief against contracting authorities: classification as a civil and commercial matter, coordination of parallel proceedings and procedural autonomy of the Member States

After a Polish authority awarded the contract for the construction of a road to two Italian companies, a dispute arose between the contracting parties and eventually the contractors applied for provisional measures in both Poland and Bulgaria. Against this background, the ECJ, on a referral from the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation, had to deal with the classification of the proceedings as a civil and commercial matter and the coordination of parallel interim relief proceedings in different Member States. The case also gave the ECJ reason to address some interesting aspects of international jurisdiction under Article 35 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the relationship between this provision and the procedural laws of the Member States.

M. Thon: Jurisdiction Clauses in General Terms and Conditions and in Case of Assignment

Choice of court agreements are one of the most important instruments of international civil procedure law. They are intended to render legal disputes plannable and predictable. The decision under discussion comes into conflict with these objectives. In DelayFix, the CJEU had to deal with the question of whether (1.) Art. 25 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation is to be interpreted as precluding a review of unfairness of jurisdiction clauses in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC and whether (2.) an assignee as a third party is bound by a jurisdiction clause agreed by the original contracting parties. The first question is in considerable tension between consumer protection and the unification purpose of the Brussels Ibis Regulation considering that the Member States may adopt stricter rules. For the latter question, the CJEU makes it a prerequisite that the assignee is the successor to all the initial contracting party’s rights and obligations, which regularly occurs in the case of a transfer of contract, but not an assignment. In this respect, too, the CJEU’s decision must be critically appraised.

C.F. Nordmeier: International jurisdiction and foreign law in legal aid proceedings – enforcement counterclaims, section 293 German Code of Civil Procedure and the approval requirements of section 114 (1) German Code of Civil Procedure

The granting of legal aid in cases with cross-border implications can raise particular questions. The present article illustrates this with a maintenance law decision by the Civil Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken. With regard to international jurisdiction, a distinction must be made between an enforcement counterclaim and a title counterclaim. The suspension of legal aid proceedings analogous to section 148 of the German Code of Civil Procedure with pending preliminary ruling proceedings before the European Court of Justice in a parallel case is possible. When investigating foreign law in accordance with section 293 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, the court may not limit itself to “pre-ascertaining” foreign law in legal aid proceedings. In principle, the party seeking legal aid is not obliged to provide information on the content of foreign law. If the desired decision needs to be enforced abroad and if this is not possible prospectively, the prosecution can be malicious. Regardless of their specific provenance, conflict-of-law rules under German law are not to be treated differently from domestic norms in legal aid proceedings.

R.A. Schütze: Security for costs under the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America

The judgment of the Regional Court of Appeal Munich deals with the application of the German-American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation as regards the obligation to provide security of costs in German civil procedure, especially the question whether a branch of plaintiff in Germany reliefs him from his obligation under section 110 German Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has based its judgment exclusively on article VI of the Treaty and section 6 and 7 of the protocol to it and comes to the conclusion that any branch of an American plaintiff in Germany reliefs him from the obligation to put security of costs.

Unfortunately, the interpretation of the term “branch” by the Court is not convincing.

The court has not taken into regard the ratio of section 110 German Code of Civil Procedure. The right approach would have been to distinguish whether the plaintiff demands in the German procedure claims stemming from an activity of the branch or from an activity of the main establishment.

P. Mankowski: Whom has the appeal under Art. 49 (2) Brussels Ibis Regulation to be (formally) lodged with in Germany?

Published appeal decisions in proceedings for the refusal of enforcement are a rare breed. Like almost anything in enforcement they have to strike a fine balance between formalism and pragmatism. In some respects, they necessarily reflect a co-operative relationship between the European and the national legislators. In detail there might still be tensions between those two layers. Such a technical issue as lodging the appeal to the correct addressee might put them to the test. It touches upon the delicate subject of the Member States’ procedural autonomy and its limits.

K. Beißel/B. Heiderhoff: The closer connection under Article 5 of the Hague Protocol 2007

According to Article 5 of the Hague Protocol 2007 a spouse may object to the application of the law of the creditor’s habitual residence (Article 3 of the Protocol) if the law of another state has a “closer connection” with the marriage. The Local Court of Flensburg had to decide whether there was a “closer connection” to the law of the state, in which the spouses had lived together for five years in the beginning of their marriage. The criteria which constitute a “closer connection” in the sense of Article 5 of the Protocol have received comparatively little discussion to date. However, for maintenance obligations, the circumstances at the end of marriage are decisive in order to ascertain the claim. Therefore, they should also have the greatest weight when determining the closest connection. This has not been taken into account by the Local Court of Flensburg, which applied the law of the former common habitual residence, the law of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The authors also take a critical stance towards the Court’s assessment of public policy under Article 13 of the Protocol. As the law of the UAE does not provide for any maintenance obligations of the wife (as opposed to maintenance obligations of the husband), the Court should not have denied a violation.

M. Lieberknecht: Transatlantic tug-of-war – The EU Blocking Statute’s prohibition to comply with US economic sanctions and its implications for the termination of contracts

In a recent preliminary ruling, the European Court of Justice has fleshed out the content and the limitations of the EU’s Blocking Statute prohibiting European companies from complying with certain U.S. economic sanctions with extraterritorial reach. The Court holds that this prohibition applies irrespective of whether an EU entity is subject to a specific order by U.S. authorities or merely practices anticipatory compliance. Moreover, the ruling clarifies that a termination of contract – including an ordinary termination without cause – infringes the prohibition if the terminating party’s intention is to comply with listed U.S. sanctions. As a result, such declarations may be void under the applicable substantive law. However, the Court also notes that civil courts must balance the Blocking Statute’s indirect effects on contractual relationships with the affected parties’ rights under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

E. Piovesani: The Falcone case: Conflict of laws issues on the right to a name and post-mortem personality rights

By the commented decision, the LG Frankfurt dismissed the action of two Italian claimants, namely the sister of the anti-mafia judge Falcone and the Falcone Foundation, for protection of their right to a name and the said judge’s postmortem personality right against the owner of a pizzeria in Frankfurt. The decision can be criticized on the grounds that the LG did not apply Italian law to single legal issues according to the relevant conflict of laws rules. The application of Italian law to such legal issues could possibly have led to a different result than that reached by the court.

M. Reimann: Jurisdiction in Product Liability Litigation: The US Supreme Court Finally Turns Against Corporate Defendants, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court / Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer (2021)

In March of 2021, the US Supreme Court handed down yet another important decision on personal jurisdiction, once again in a transboundary product liability context. In the companion cases of Ford Motor Co. v. Eighth Montana District Court and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, the Court subjected Ford to jurisdiction in states in which consumers had suffered accidents (allegedly due to a defect in their vehicles) even though their cars had been neither designed nor manufactured nor originally sold in the forum states. Since the cars had been brought there by consumers rather than via the regular channels of distribution, the “stream-of-commerce” theory previously employed in such cases could not help the plaintiffs (see World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 1980). Instead, the Court predicated jurisdiction primarily on the defendant’s extensive business activities in the forum states. The problem was that these in-state activities were not the cause of the plaintiffs’ harm: the defendant had done nothing the forum states that had contributed to the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Court nonetheless found the defendant’s business sufficiently “related” to the accidents to satisfy the requirement that the defendant’s contacts with the forum state be connected to the litigation there. The consequences of the decision are far-reaching: product manufacturers are subject to in personam jurisdiction wherever they are engaged in substantial business operations if a local resident suffers an accident involving merely the kind of product marketed in the forum state, regardless how the particular item involved arrived there. This is likely to apply against foreign corporations, especially automobile manufacturers, importing their products into the United States as well. The decision is more generally remarkable for three reasons. First, it represents the first (jurisdictional) victory of a consumer against a corporation in the Supreme Court in more than half-a-century. Second, the Court unanimously based in personam jurisdiction on the defendant’s extensive business activities in the forum state; the Court thus revived a predicate in the specific-in-personam context which it had soundly rejected for general in personam jurisdiction just a few years ago in Daimler v. Baumann (571 U.S. 117, 2014). Last, but not least, several of the Justices openly questioned whether corporations should continue to enjoy as much jurisdictional protection as they had in the past; remarkably these Justices hailed from the Court’s conservative camp. The decision may thus indicate that the days when the Supreme Court consistently protected corporations against assertions of personal jurisdiction by individuals may finally be over.

R. Geimer: Service to Foreign States During a Civil War: The Example of an Application for a Declaration of Enforceability of a Foreign Arbitral Award Against the Libyan State Under the New York Convention

With the present judgment, the UK Supreme Court confirms a first-instance decision according to which the application to enforce an ICC arbitral award against the state of Libya, and the later enforcement order (made ex parte), must have been formally served through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office under the State Immunity Act 1978, despite the evacuation of the British Embassy due to the ongoing civil war. The majority decision fails to recognize the importance of the successful claimant’s right of access to justice under Art 6(1) ECHR and Art V of the 1958 New York Convention.

K. Bälz: Arbitration, national sovereignty and the public interest – The Egyptian Court of Cassation of 8 July 2021 (“Damietta Port”)

The question of whether disputes with the state may be submitted to arbitration is a recurrent topic of international arbitration law. In the decision Damietta Port Authority vs DIPCO, the subject of which is a dispute relating to a BOT-Agreement, the Egyptian Court of Cassation ruled that an arbitral award that (simultaneously) rules on the validity of an administrative act is null and void. The reason is that a (private) arbitral tribunal may not control the legality of an administrative decision and that the control of the legality of administrative action falls into the exclusive competency of the administrative judiciary. This also applies in case the legality of the administrative decision is a preliminary question in the arbitral proceedings. In that case, the arbitral tribunal is bound to suspend the proceedings and await the decision of the administrative court. The decision of the Egyptian Court of Cassation is in line with a more recent tendency in Egypt that is critical of arbitration and aims at removing disputes with the state from arbitration in order to preserve the “public interest”.

Two recent private international law articles were published by International and Comparative Law Quarterly:

B Marshall, “Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses and the Anomaly created by Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation”

The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender’s option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings

TD Grant, “Arbitration, Corruption and Post-Award Control in French and English Courts”

In September 2021, the French Cour de Cassation reversed the annulment that the Paris Cour d’appel earlier had granted in regard to an arbitral award in Alexander Brothers v Alstom on grounds of corruption. This brought French courts in line with their English counterparts, at least in that one case, the latter having accepted the Alexander Brothers award as enforceable. Noteworthy beyond the welcome consistency that the recent French judgment imparts in one case, that and other recent judgments cast light on several issues in international arbitration, including the arbitrability of allegations of fraud or corruption, the relevance of evidence of corruption ‘downstream’ from a contract, and the legal effects (if any) on third parties of internal compliance regimes that enterprises adopt in response to national regulatory and enforcement actions in respect of corruption.

(This post is provided by Zeyu Huang & Wenhui Chi. Mr. Huang practises law as a Shenzhen-based associate at Hui Zhong Law Firm. He holds LLB (Renmin U.), LLM & PhD (Macau U.). Ms. Chi is now working as a legal counsel at the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) and the South China International Arbitration Center (Hong Kong) (SCIAHK). She holds BA (PKU), LLM & JD (PKU School of Transnational Law). The authors may be contacted at huangzeyu@huizhonglaw.com or chiwenhui@scia.com.cn.)

The People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China” or “PRC”) deposited its instrument of ratification for the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter “CISG”) on 11 December 1986. Since its entry into force in 1988, it is beyond doubt that CISG applies to the territory of Mainland China albeit with some reservations and/or declarations (e.g. Article 96). However, businesspeople, courts, practitioners and scholars are split, uncertain and inconsistent over the issue whether the CISG should extend to Hong Kong and Macau after their returns respectively in 1997 and 1999. [1]

This issue stemed from the unclear intentions of China when it submitted the diplomatic notes to the United Nations, which purported to inform the Secretary-General of the status of Hong Kong and Macau in relation to deposited treaties. [2] However, China did not mention CISG in the Diplomatic Notes at all. As a result, whether China had expressed its intention of extending or excluding CISG to Hong Kong and Macau has been subject to inconsistent interpretations and enquires conducted by different non-Hong Kong fora. [3]

To solve this problem, China, after seeking the views of Hong Kong SAR Government, determined to actively remove the uncertainty by depositing a declaration of extension of the territorial application of CISG to Hong Kong on 5 May 2022. [4] On and after 1 December 2022, CISG will apply to both Hong Kong and Mainland China. It should be noted that the declaration that China is not bound by Article 1(1)(b) CISG does not apply to Hong Kong. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the Macau SAR government will follow suit on this matter, requesting the Central Government to extend the application of CISG to Macau.

Extension of International Treatises Ratified by China to Hong Kong and Macau

The issue of whether international treaties ratified by China ‘automatically’ applies to the territory of the Hong Kong and Macau SARs was once hotly debated in the investor-State arbitration cases of Tza Yap Shum v. Peru [5] and Sanum v. Laos-I [6]. Contrary to international tribunals and the Court of Appeal of Singapore’s confirmative and liberal stances, Chinese government and commentators said no. [7] They all insist that China has made its intentions clear in the Diplomatic Notes that the treaty to which China is or will become a party applies to Hong Kong and Macau only after China has decided so and carried out separately the formalities for such application. [8] Moreover, the extension of territorial application to Hong Kong and Macau must be in line with the “One Country, Two Systems” policy and the Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macau. [9] Accordingly, the PRC Central People’s Government in Beijing has the final say over whether the international treaty to which China is or will be a party applies to Hong Kong and Macau after consulting with the two SARs’ governments.

The same problem stays with the applicability of CISG in the Hong Kong and Macau SARs. On the one hand, no mention of CISG in the Diplomatic Notes submitted by China, at least on the side of Hong Kong, demonstrates China’s true intentions in public international law that the CISG shall not apply in the SAR. [10] In this view embraced by some French and US courts, China’s Diplomatic Notes not mentioning CISG qualify as Article 93(1) CISG reservation indicating that CISG does not apply to Hong Kong and Macau. [11] On the other hand, some other foreign courts considered the Diplomatic Notes did not constitute an Article 93(1) CISG reservation and therefore the default rule in Article 93(4) applies, saying that CISG ‘automatically’ applies to all territorial unites of China. [12] This interpretive approach is similar to the confirmative and liberal approach adopted by the tribunals in Tza Yap Shum v. Peru and Sanum v. Laos-I on the issue whether Chinese investment treaty absent in the Diplomatic Notes extends to territory of the Hong Kong and Macau SARs. However, such approach was often criticized as contrary to China’s expressed intentions. [13]

What Does It Mean for Hong Kong?

Legally speaking, the act of China’s depositing the declaration of extension of CISG to Hong Kong has three implications.

Firstly, and most obviously, on and after 1 December 2022 it would be correct for any foreign court or international tribunal to hold that CISG applies to Hong Kong. This will wipe out the “confusion and conflict as to whether or not China’s diplomatic notes for Hong Kong and Macao, deposited in 1997 and 1999 respectively, are sufficient to exclude the application of the CISG” to Hong Kong and Macau under Article 93 CISG. [14] Indeed, they are sufficient; but China has now decided to reverse its previous intention.

Secondly, China has impliedly confirmed that the Diplomatic Notes qualify as Article 93(1) CISG reservation, which means CISG would not automatically apply to territorial units of China such as Hong Kong and Macau unless China has determined so. In other words, China’s Central People’s Government has the final say on whether a Chinese international treaty applies to Hong Kong and Macau or not.

Thirdly, any construction of the Diplomatic Notes by foreign courts or arbitral tribunals which leads to the ‘automatic’ application of CISG or other international treaties (including Chinese investment agreements) to Hong Kong and Macau would be incorrect and in disregard of China’s true intentions expressed in the Diplomatic Notes. This will possibly prevent foreign courts or investment arbitration tribunals from easily reaching the decision that CISG or Chinese international investment agreement ‘automatically’ applies to Hong Kong and Macau. It also means Hong Kong might need seek the views of Central People’s Government on whether or not to extend Chinese international investment agreement to the Hong Kong SAR, especially in cases where the Hong Kong investors intend to rely on these international instruments to safeguard their rights and interests in investments made overseas.

In parallel with the ongoing Reform and Opening-up within and beyond China, China’s accession to CISG has fundamentally shaped the legislative and judicial landscape of codifying Chinese contract law. It is believed that the Ordinance [15] implementing the CISG in Hong Kong would for sure reshape the legislative and judicial landscape of Hong Kong law. [16]

Conclusion: Shall Macau Follow Suit?

The answer is of course yes. As another major player in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Greater Bay Area (GBA) in China, Macau is now confronted with the same “confusion and conflict” issue once faced by Hong Kong before 5 May 2022. As mentioned earlier, such “confusion and conflict” as to whether the Diplomatic Notes are sufficient to exclude the application of CISG and other international treaties not mentioned therein to Hong Kong and Macau has been removed. China impliedly reiterated itself through this act of extending CISG to Hong Kong that the Diplomatic Notes are sufficient to do so.

Hence, whether CISG or Chinese investment treaty extends to Macau is likewise subject to the final decision of China’s Central People’s Government. Despite divergent opinions and interpretations, Chinese government’s stance has been consistent – CISG or Chinese international investment agreement outside the Diplomatic Notes does not ‘automatically’ applies to Hong Kong and Macau, and such extension needs the Central People’s Government’s final approval. Therefore, according to Article 138(1) of the Macau Basic Law, Macau should follow up on future consultations with the Central People’s Government in Beijing to decide whether the CISG (and Chinese investment treaty) should apply to the Macau SAR, and if so, how they should apply. It is foreseeable that China would probably also deposit another separate instrument of extending the application of CISG to Macau. By then, perhaps we can see the dawn of unifying the sales law as key part of inter-regional private laws within the PRC. 

——

Endnotes

[1] See the Department of Justice of Hong Kong, Consultation Paper titled “Proposed Application of The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (hereinafter “Consultation Paper”), Consultation Period expired by 30 December 2020, paras. 3.33-3.44. It is available at https://www.gov.hk/en/residents/government/publication/consultation/docs/2020/CISG.pdf.

[2] See United Nations, ‘Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General’ (hereinafter “Diplomatic Notes”), China: Notes 2 and 3, which informed the Secretary-General of the status of Hong Kong and Macau in relation to treaties deposited with the Secretary-General. The diplomatic notes laid out the deposited treaties that would respectively apply to Hong Kong and Macau.

[3] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, paras. 3.38-3.39.

[4] For Press Release, see https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2022/unisl327.html.

[5] See Tza Yap Shum v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Award, 7 July 2011, where a Hong Kong resident having Chinese nationality relied upon the Peru-China BIT 1994 to bring the ICSID arbitration against Peru.

[6] See Sanum Investments Ltd. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, PCA Case No. 2013-13, Decision on Jurisdiction of 13 December 2013, where a Macau-based company invoked the China-Laos BIT 1993 to initiate the UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration administered by PCA against Laos.

[7] See e.g., PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on October 21, 2016’, available at https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cegv//eng/fyrth/t1407743.htm; An Chen, ‘Queries to the Recent ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction Upon the Case of Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru: Should China-Peru BIT 1994 Be Applied to Hong Kong SAR under the “One Country, Two Systems” Policy?’ (2009) 10 Journal of World Investment & Trade 829, at 832-844.

[8] See Diplomatic Notes, supra note 2.

[9] See Article 153 of the Hong Kong Basic Law and Article 138 of the Macau Basic Law.

[10] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, paras. 3.42 (“While it is not disputed that in Hong Kong at least, the CISG should not apply ….”).

[11] See ibid, at para. 3.38. The Consultation Paper cited the following cases: Telecommunications Products Case, Cour de Cassation, Case No. 04-117726, 2 April 2008 (France); Innotex Precision Ltd v Horei Image Products, 679 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (2009) (US); America’s Collectibles Network Inc. v Timlly (HK) Ltd., 746 F. Supp. 2d 914 (2010) (US); Wuhan Yinfeng Data Network Co. Ltd. v Xu Ming (19 March 2003), Hubei High People’s Court (China).

[12] See ibid, at para. 3.39. The Consultation Paper cited the following cases: CNA Int’l Inc. v Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings et al. Case No. 05 C 5734 (2008) (US); Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v Super Electric Motors Ltd. (2009) 4:09 CV 00318 SWW (US).

[13] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, para. 3.42. See also Mahdev Mohan & Siraj Shaik Aziz, ‘Construing A Treaty Against States Parties’ Expressed Intentions: Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic’ (2018) 30 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 384.

[14] See Consultation Paper, supra note 1, para. 3.42.

[15] https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap641!en.

[16] For comparison between the CISG and Hong Kong law, see Consultation Paper, supra note 1, para. 2.8.

HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention Repository

In preparation of the Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 9/10 September 2022, taking place on campus of the University of Bonn, Germany, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…

Update of 20 April 2022: New entries are printed bold.

Please also check the “official” Bibliography of the HCCH for the instrument.

I. Explanatory Reports

II. Bibliography

III. Recordings of Events Related to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

The Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Centre for Comparative and Transnational Law is organising the seminar From Certainty to Uncertainty – CISG in Hong Kong

On 29th September 2021 at 12:30–2:00pm (Hong Kong Time), the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passed the Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Ordinance (Cap. 641) in order to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980) (CISG). The Ordinance is expected to come into force at some points in 2022. While the CISG seems like a successful international treaty with (currently) 94 State Parties, yet it is not uncommon for international commercial parties to in fact “opt out” or exclude its application as per the mechanism provided for in Article 6. Not all provisions in the CISG are written in a clear manner. Certain concepts contained therein are unfamiliar to lawyers trained in the common law legal tradition. This seminar is to argue that the decision to introduce the CISG into Hong Kong was in fact the decision to introduce uncertainty into an area of law which was once certain with well-supported statutes, case law authorities grounded upon the solid common law foundation, and advanced private international law and dispute resolution mechanisms.

About the speaker:

Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit is a Lecturer in Maritime Law within the Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania. He is also holding a position of a Research Associate within the Research Centre for Private International Law in Emerging Countries, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Supporting Member of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association. His research interests lie in commercial conflict of laws (private international law), insurance law, private aspects of admiralty and maritime law, carriage of goods by sea, international sale of goods carried by sea, and aspects of international arbitration. His recent publications include: Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dharmita Prasad (eds), Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law: Towards Convergence or Divergent Still (Springer Nature 2022), Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella (eds), Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Limited 2019), Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella (eds), China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law (Routledge 2018)

CPD credit is available upon application and subject to accreditation by the Law Society of Hong Kong (currently pending).

Register here by 5 pm (Hong Kong time) on 26 May 2022 to attend the seminar.

by Wolfgang Hau, University of Munich

This year’s Dispute Resolution Day of the Munich Center for Dispute Resolution on 6 May is dedicated to the above mentioned highly topical issue: Can companies in Germany be held responsible for human rights violations that have occurred somewhere in the global supply chain? Are civil lawsuits and commercial arbitration at all suitable for enforcing international human rights obligations of business enterprises? Such and related questions will be examined and discussed by renowned speakers. The conference will be held in German at the University of Munich. You can find the programme and registration information here:

https://www.mucdr.jura.uni-muenchen.de/munich_dispute_resolution_day/drd-2022-flyer.pdf

Conference

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention:

Cornerstones – Prospects – Outlook

Registration now open!

Dates:                       Friday, 9 September 2022, and Saturday, 10 September 2022 

Venue:                      Universitätsclub Bonn, Konviktstraße 9, D – 53113 Bonn 

Registration:          sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de 

Registration: Please register with sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de. Clearly indicate whether you want to benefit from the young scholars’ reduction of the conference fees and whether you want to participate in the conference dinner. You will receive an invoice for the respective conference fee and, if applicable, for the conference dinner. Please make sure that we receive your payment at least two weeks in advance. After receiving your payment we will send out a confirmation of your registration. This confirmation will allow you to access the conference hall and the conference dinner.

Please note: Access will only be granted if you are fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Please confirm in your registration that you are, and attach an e-copy of your vaccination document. Please follow further instructions on site. Thank you for your cooperation.

Further information: https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/professur-prof-dr-weller/the-hcch-2019-judgments-convention-cornerstones-prospects-outlook-conference-on-9-and-10-september-2022

Programme

Friday, 9 September 2022

Saturday, 10 September 2022

Documents & Publications

On 9 March 2022, the Permanent Bureau announced the launch of the post-event publication of HCCH a|Bridged – Edition 2021, focused on contemporary issues relating to the application of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, including the promotion of party autonomy. More information is available here.

On 9 March 2022, the Permanent Bureau published the results of the 2022 survey for arbitration institutions on the 2015 Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. More information is available here.

On 16 March 2022, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH published an Information Note on the subject of “Children deprived of their family environment due to the armed conflict in Ukraine: Cross-border protection and intercountry adoption”. More information is available here.

Vacancies

The Permanent Bureau is currently welcoming applications for the position of Diplomat Lawyer (Secretary or First Secretary). The deadline for the submission of applications is 15 April 2022 (5.00 p.m. CEST). More information is available here.

Other

CEDEP’s Choice of Law online course is now open to the public, featuring an introductory lecture on the Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales, published year by the Secretariats of UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and the HCCH. The lecture is available here, and more information about the course 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.