The second issue of 2012 of the Dutch journal on Private International Law, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht includes the following articles on Recognition of (Dutch) Mass Settlement in Germany, the CLIP Principles, the European Patent Court and case note on Brussels I and the Unknown Address (Lindner):

Axel Halfmeier, Recognition of a WCAM settlement in Germany, p. 176-184. The abstract reads:

The Dutch ‘Wet Collectieve Afwikkeling Massaschade’(WCAM) [Collective Settlements Act] has emerged as a noteworthy model in the context of the European discussion on collective redress procedures. It provides an opportunity to settle mass claims in what appears to be an efficient procedure. As the WCAM has been used in important transnational cases, this article looks at questions of jurisdiction and the recognition of these court-approved settlements under the Brussels Regulation. It is argued that because of substantial participation by the courts, such declarations are to be treated as ‘judgments’ in the sense of the Brussels Regulation and thus are objects of recognition in all EU Member States. Written from the perspective of the German legal system, the article also takes the position that the opt-out system inherent in the WCAM procedure does not violate the German ordre public, but is compatible with fair trial principles under the German Constitution as well as under the European Human Rights Convention. The WCAM therefore appears as an attractive model for the future reform of collective proceedings on the European level.

Mireille van Eechoud & Annette Kur, Internationaal privaatrecht in intellectuele eigendomszaken – de ‘CLIP’ Principles, p. 185-192. The English abstract reads:

 The European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) presented its Principles in November 2011 to an international group of legal scholars, judges, and lawyers from commercial practice, governments and international organisations. This article sets out the objectives and principal characteristics of the CLIP Principles. The Principles are informed by instruments of European private international law, but nonetheless differ in some important respects from the rules of the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the Rome I and II Regulations on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations. This is especially so in situations where adherence to a strict territorial approach creates significant problems with the efficient adjudication of disputes over intellectual property rights or undermines legal certainty. The most notable differences are discussed below.

M.C.A. Kant, A specialised Patent Court for Europe? An analysis of Opinion 1/09 of the Court of Justice of the European Union from 8 March 2011 concerning the establishment of a European and Community Patents Court and a proposal for an alternative solution, p. 193-201. The abstract reads:

Attempts have been made for decades to establish both a Community patent and a centralised European court which would have exclusive jurisdiction in this matter. However, none of these attempts has ever been fully successful. In its Opinion 1/09 from 8 March 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU) held, inter alia, that the establishment of a unified patent litigation system as planned in the draft agreement on the European and Community Patents Court would be in breach of the rules of the EU Treaty and the FEU Treaty. However, it is argued in this paper that also in view of Opinion 1/09 the creation of a unified court has not become per se unattainable. After clarifying in whose interest effective patent protection in Europe should primarily be formed, different constellations of judicial systems shall be discussed. The author will deliver his own proposal for a two-step approach in structure and time, comprising, in a first step, the creation of a specialized chamber of the CJEU for patent litigation, and in a second step the creation of a central EU Court for all EU intellectual property litigation. The paper will finish with an analysis of how the requirements for a unified patent litigation system (indirectly) set up by the CJEU in its Opinion 1/09 could be taken into consideration, and with some further deliberations on effective patent protection and enforcement.

 Jochem Vlek, De EEX-Vo en onbekende woonplaats van de verweerder. Hof van Justitie EU 17 november 2011, zaak C-327/10 (Lindner) (Case note), p. 202-206. The English abstract reads:

 The author reviews the decision of the ECJ in the case of Hypotecni banka/Udo Mike Lindner in which the ECJ ruled on the application of the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels I Regulation in the case of a consumer/defendant with an unknown domicile. Several issues are highlighted: first, the existence of an international element in the case of a defendant with unknown domicile whose nationality differs from the state of the court seized; secondly, the application of Article 4(1) Brussels I Regulation if the domicile of the defendant is unknown and (since the ECJ does not apply Article 4(1) in this regard) the interpretation of Article 16(2) Brussels I Regulation; thirdly, the requirement that the rights of the defence are observed, as also laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Additionally, the article briefly mentions the subsequent case of G/Cornelius de Visser, in which a German Court resorted to public notice under national law of the document instituting the proceedings in the case of a defendant with an unknown address.

Bea Verschraegen, Internationales Privatrecht - ein systematischer Überblick, Manz, Wien 2012

Bea Verschraegen, Professor for Comparative Law at the University of Vienna, has recently published a textbook on Private International Law in Austria. It provides an up-to date presentation of the applicable rules and regulations and, thereby, fills a long-lasting gap in the Austrian literature on Private International Law. The official announcement reads as follows:

A new systematic presentation of Private International Law for study and practice has just been published by Bea Verschraegen (Professor for PIL and Comparative Law at the University of Vienna).  The entire body of significant PIL for Austria is examined, including relevant European and international law.  With it, Bea Verschraegen also handles recent innovations in conflict of laws, for instance the Rome III Regulation, the European Maintenance Obligations regulations and the 2007 Hague Maintenance Convention.

Bea Verschraegen’s work contributes in particular to European integration and the corresponding changes to the fundamentals of conflicts of law.  The book is intended as a reference guide from questions related to Private International Law to European and Austrian law.  Therefore, the more detailed section is positioned at the beginning of the book for ease of reference, followed by the more general section thereafter.

The book comprises the following chapters:

I. Detailed Section:

• Law of Persons
• Family law
• Law of Succession
• Law of Contractual Obligations
• Law of Non-Contractual Obligations
• Property law
•  Company law
• Competition law (Trade law and anti-trust law)
• Intellectual Property law

II. General Section

A full table of contents and a preview is available on the publisher’s website.

June is going to be quite charged at the Academy of European Law (ERA). The program starts with the seminar on Rome I and Rome II (31 May-1 June, see here. Update: there are still some places left; fees include two nights at a hotel).

Then, a five-day course will provide training on cross-border civil litigation (18-22 June 2012). Key topics of this summer course are:

• Challenges for cross-border litigation
• Specific procedures that help to obtain a judgment abroad faster and more easily
• Law applicable to contracts and torts

There will be conferences as well as workshops, led by Angelika Fuchs, Ivana Kunda, Jens Haubold, Jan von Hein, Xandra Kramer, John Ahern, Raquel Ferreira Correia and Brian Hutchinson.

Another five days (25-29 June) will be devoted to European labour law, PIL included (for those interested also on social security law, the Annual conference on the topic will be held also at the ERA on June, 4-5. The conference will address the new EU social security coordination rules in force since May 2010; problems in terms of implementation at national and local level for the new regulations; and the challenge of Administrative cooperation between social security institutions.)

Key issues of the labour law summer course are

• Free movement of workers
• Applicable law to employment contracts
• Posting of workers
• Transfer of undertakings
• Information and consultation rights
• Equality and non-discrimination
• Part-time, fixed-term and temporary  agency work
• Working time

And the list of speakers: Ronald M. Beltzer; Nicola Braganza, Guy Castegnaro, Stefan Clauwaert, Szymon Kubiak, Jean-Philippe Lhernould, Nicolas Moizard, Filip Van Overmeiren, Nuria Elena Ramos Martin, Corinne Sachs-Durand, and Claudia Schmidt.

The summer program goes on at the very beginning of July with a five-days summer course on European intellectual property law (2-6 July). Key topics, this time

• Legal and institutional framework
• Trade marks and designs
• Geographical indications
• Copyright and related rights
• Protection of databases
• Patents
• Intellectual/industrial property and the internal market (competition law and free movement of goods)
• Jurisdiction and dispute resolution
• Enforcement

Expected speakers are Philippe de Jong, Stefan Enchelmaier, Elisabeth Fink, Irina Kireeva, Anne MacGregor, David Por, Marius Schneider, Martin Senftleben, Paul L.C. Torremans and Guido Westkamp.

Participants in summer courses are given the opportunity to visit the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (though the number of places is limited by the Court for practical reasons to 35).

On May 2nd, 2012, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament has issued its final Report on with recommendations to the Commission on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (the previous draft is available here). The Report includes a Motion for a European Parliament Resolution which advocates the following addition to the Regulation:

Recital 32a

This Regulation does not prevent Member States from applying their constitutional rules relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the media. In particular, the application of a provision of the law designated by this Regulation which would have the effect of significantly restricting the scope of those constitutional rules may, depending on the circumstances of the case and the legal order of the Member State of the court seised, be regarded as being contrary to the public policy (ordre public) of the forum.

Article 5a

Privacy and rights relating to personality

1. The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a violation of privacy or rights relating to the personality, including defamation, shall be the law of the country in which the most significant element or elements of the loss or damage occur or are likely to occur.

2. However, the law applicable shall be the law of the country in which the defendant is habitually resident if he or she could not reasonably have foreseen substantial consequences of his or her act occurring in the country designated by paragraph 1.

3. Where the violation is caused by the publication of printed matter or by a broadcast, the country in which the most significant element or elements of the damage occur or are likely to occur shall be deemed to be the country to which the publication or broadcasting service is principally directed or, if this is not apparent, the country in which editorial control is exercised, and that country’s law shall be applicable. The country to which the publication or broadcast is directed shall be determined in particular by the language of the publication or broadcast or by sales or audience size in a given country as a proportion of total sales or audience size or by a combination of those factors.

4. The law applicable to the right of reply or equivalent measures and to any preventive measures or prohibitory injunctions against a publisher or broadcaster regarding the content of a publication or broadcast and regarding the violation of privacy or of rights relating to the personality resulting from the handling of personal data shall be the law of the country in which the publisher, broadcaster or handler has its habitual residence.

Many thanks to Jan von Hein for the tip-off.

On April 27 and 28 the University of Chichago’s Law School will host a Conferecen on European Contract Law  (University of Chicago Law School, 1111 E. 60th Street, Chicago, Il 60615 – Room V).

The annoucement on the conferece’s homepage reads as follows:

The movement to harmonize European contract law generated various proposals for uniform statutes and optional instruments, culminating by the recent Draft Common European Sales Law. This ambitious reform envisions a uniform Sales Law for Europe with strong consumer protections, enacted by every member nation. Transactors will be able to choose this law to govern their transaction in place of existing contract law.

The Chicago conference brings together a group of leading scholars from Europe and from the University of Chicago, exploring the law and economics perspectives of the proposed harmonization. Is such an optional statute a desirable regulatory tool? What economic goals might it serve? Are the protections enacted in it suitable? What can be learned from the American experience with uniform commercial laws?

The conference will be hosted by the Institute for Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and will take place on Friday and Saturday, April 27-28, 2012, in Chicago. It is open to the public and attendance is free. Please contact Marjorie Holme (mholme@uchicago.edu) for more details.

The conference will be published in the Common Market Law Review (2013).

The conference schedule reads as follows:

Friday, April 27

9:00 – 9:15 Opening Remark

9.15 – 12:30 Panel I: The Law and Economics of an Optional Instruments

• Public Supply of Optional Standardized Consumer Contracts: A Rationale for the Common European Sales Law?, Thomas Ackermann, Ludwig?Maximilians University, Munich
• Optional Law for Firms and Consumers: An Economic Analysis of Opting into the Common European Sales Law, Fernando Gomez, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona
• Contract Law as Optional Law: On the Potential and Limits of Choice, Jan Smits, Maastricht University
• What Can Be Wrong with an Option? The Proposal for an Optional Common European Sales Law, Horst Eidenmüller, Ludwig?Maximilians University, Munich
• Identifying Legal Costs of the Operation of the Common European Sales Law: Legal Framework, Scope of the Uniform Law and National Judicial Evaluations, Simon Whittaker, Oxford University

12:30 – 1:45 Lunch

1:45 – 5:15 Panel II: A Law and Economics Critique of the CESL

• Regulatory Techniques in Consumer Protection: A Critique of the Common European Sales Law, Oren Bar?Gill, New York University, and Omri Ben?Shahar, University of Chicago
• Mistake under the Common European Sales Law, Ariel Porat, University of Chicago and Tel Aviv University
• Buyers’ Remedies under the CESL: Rejection, Rescission, and the Seller’s Right to Cure, Gerhard Wagner, University of Bonn
• Custom and the CESL, Lisa Bernstein, University of Chicago
• Another Look at the Eurobarometer Contract Law Survey Data, William Hubbard, University of Chicago

Saturday, April 28

9:00 – 12:00 Panel III: Harmonization and Regulatory Competition

• Harmonization, Heterogeneity, and Regulation: Why the Common European Sales Law Should Be Scrapped, Richard Epstein, New York University, Hoover Institute, and University of Chicago
• The Desirability of an Optional European Contract Law ? and the Impact of a Particular Code Design on this Question, Stefan Grundmann, Humboldt University, Berlin
• Harmonization, Preferences, and Convergence, Saul Levmore, University of Chicago
• The Questionable Basis of the Common European Sales Law: The Role of an Optional Instrument in Jurisdictional Competition, Eric Posner, University of Chicago
• Response, Chantal Mak, University of Amsterdam

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch

1:00 – 2:30 Panel IV: Precontractual Liability

• Precontractual Disclosure Duties under the Common European Sales Law, Douglas Baird, University of Chicago
• CESL and Precontractual Liability from a Status to a Transaction?Based Approach, Fabrizio Cafaggi, European University Institute, Florence

The first issue of French Journal du droit international (Clunet) for 2012 was just released. It contains five articles and several casenotes.
Four articles explore private international law issues.

In the first one, María Mercedes Albornoz and Jacques Foyer (both from Paris II University) compare the Interamerican Convention on the law applicable to international contracts with the Rome I Regulation (Une relecture de la Convention interaméricaine sur la loi applicable aux contrats internationaux à la lumière du règlement « Rome I »). The English abstract reads:

The substantive and formal changes undergone by the Rome Convention as a result of its transformation into a European Community Regulation have altered the terms of comparison between the Rome and Mexico systems on the law applicable to international contracts. An analytical re-reading of the Inter-American Convention in the light of the Rome I Regulation shows that even if the Rome system may continue contributing to the interpretation of the Mexico system, Rome I’s introduction of new interpretive elements is limited.

In the second article, Gian Paolo Romano (University of Geneva) wonders whether private international law fits within Emmanuel Kant’s theory of justice (Le droit international privé à l’épreuve de la théorie kantienne de la justice).

Kant’s legal writings are becoming increasingly popular and so is the idea that Law purports to ensure consistency of the domains of external freedom of the rational agents – in Kant’s view : both individuals and States – so as to prevent or resolve conflicts, which are simultaneous and mutually incompatible claims asserted by two agents over the same domain of freedom. If it is commonly held that private international law is also centered around coordination, the Kantian account on how Law comes into existence, both at the national and international levels, suggests that what cross-border relations between private persons require is actually a twofold consistency, i.e. that of domains of external freedom of States, which freedom consists here in securing, through their national laws and adjudications, mutually consistent domains of external freedom of private persons which are parties to those relations. Positivism and natural law, liberty and necessity, universalism and particularism, multilateralism and unilateralism : those dualisms with which conflict of laws thinking and methodology has been grappling for some time also feature within the Kantian tradition and the way the latter manages to come to terms with them may assist the former in readjusting its paradigm. Which readjustment arguably mandates reconciling the contention that conflict of laws ultimately involves a conflict between States with the idea that conflicts between private persons are the only ones truly at stake here.

In the third article, Xavier Boucobza and Yves-Marie Serinet (both Paris Sud University) explore the consequences of a recent ruling of the Paris court of appeal on the application of human rights in international commercial arbitration (Les principes du procès équitable dans l’arbitrage international).

The affirmation of fundamental right to a fair hearing before the international arbitrator emerges clearly from the ruling handed down by the Paris Court of Appeals on November 17, 2011. The ruling states, in part, that arbitration decisions are not exempt from the principle according to which the right to a fair trial implies that a person may not be deprived of the concrete possibility of having a judge rule on his claims and, furthermore, that the principle of contradictory implies that all parties are in an equal position before the arbitrator. In light of of these principles, the decision taken in application of the rules of arbitration of the ICC to regard counter-claims as withdrawn because of the failure of the defendant to advance fees, constitutes an excessive measure because of the impecuniousness of the claimant.

The solution that emerges has positive implications from the point of view of the politics of arbitration. The guarantee of the right to arbitration, until now invoked in order to facilitate arbitration, has evolved into an actual duty, which is the corollary of the promotion of this form of settling claims. Ultimately, arbitration law can never be totally independent of and exempt from universally recognized fundamental principles.

Finally, Sandrine Maljean-Dubois (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) discusses the impact of international environmental norms on businesses (La portée des normes du droit international de l’environnement à l’égard des entreprises).

International environmental law must reach enterprises to be effective. It nevertheless grabs hold of them only imperfectly. While enterprises are among the final addressees of international rules, its apprehension by international law is generally indirect, requiring the mediation of domestic law. It is commonplace to say that in an international society made from States enterprises are secondary actors, « non-prescribers ». Though they are thirds to interstate relations, enterprises are actively involved. And though they do not have an international or internationalized status, enterprises can all the same enjoy rights or be subjected to obligations stemming from the interstate society by means of international law. In practice, international law makes them enjoy more rights than it lays down obligations. In spite of this, regulatory constraints on enterprises are increasing. Their forms and terms are varied. Traditional, interstate sources of international law are but one of the many layers of the « normative millefeuille » gripping enterprises. Newer – rather global or transnational – sources also regulate their activities. Paradoxically, binding law (customary and conventional law) only binds weakly, since it binds mediately. On the contrary, incentive law actually manages to grab hold of and to compel enterprises, complementing more traditional rules and instruments and under pressure of citizens-consumers-unions-shareholders-investors.

As part of a series of compendia on foreign commercial and business law in German language, a fully revised edition on English commercial and business law has just been released. The book is edited and authored (with two additional co-authors) by Volker Triebel, a German Rechtsanwalt and English barrister, Martin Illmer from the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg and Wolf-Georg Ringe, Stefan Vogenauer as well as Katja Ziegler, all from the University of Oxford.

The book attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of English commercial and business law while at the same time explaining and analyzing the differences between German and English business law as well as the increasing interfaces between English and European law. For readers of this blog the chapters on international civil procedure, private international law, international insolvency law and international arbitration, all written by Martin Illmer, may be of particular interest. They present the autonomous common law rules in these fields as well as the interfaces of the European regimes (such as Brussels I, Rome I, Rome II and the Insolvency Regulation) with English law which are often are only rarely covered. Other areas explored by the treatise are the legal sources of English commercial law, contract law (with sale of goods in particular), company law, labour law, insolvency law and competition law.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

Ronald Brand (University of Pittsburgh – School of Law) and Tabitha Fish (Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway & Gibbons, P.A.) have posted An American Perspective on the New Japanese Act on General Rules for Application of Laws on SSRN.

Any changes in rules of applicable law in one state are necessarily of interest to those concerned with the outcome of potential cross-border disputes. This makes the new Japanese Act on Application of Laws of interest beyond the borders of Japan. In this article, we focus on the new rules governing applicable law in contract and tort cases. The primary point of comparison is U.S. law, but there is also reference to the other major recent civil law developments brought about by the European Union’s Rome I and II Regulations. Specific attention is given to how each of the sets of rules deals with the concept of party autonomy, taking into account the recent retreat in the United States from proposed changes to the party autonomy rule in Article 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

The paper was published in the Japanese Yearbook of International Law in 2009.

On the occasion of Bernd von Hoffmann’s 70th birthday Herbert Kronke and Karsten Thorn have edited a Festschrift entitled “Grenzen überwinden – Prinzipien bewahren” (Overcoming Borders – Preserving Principles). It has been published by Ernst und Werner Gieseking and contains contributions relating to Private International Law, International Civil Procedure, Comparative Law and International Commercial Arbitration.

The table of contents reads as follows (in brackets: first page of the contribution):

I. Internationales Privatrecht

• Marianne Andrae, Wertungswidersprüche und internationales Erbrecht (3)
• Christian Armbrüster, Das IPR der Versicherungsverträge in der Rom I-Verordnung (23)
• Gregor Bachmann, Das auf die insolvente Societas Europaea (SE) anwendbare Recht (36)
• Jürgen Basedow, Das fakultative Unionsprivatrecht und das internationale Privatrecht (50)
• Katharina Boele-Woelki, Property Relations of International Couples in Europe: The Interaction between Unifying and Harmonizing Instruments (63)
• Nina Dethloff, Güterrecht in Europa – Perspektiven für eine Angleichung auf kollisions- und materiellrechtlicher Ebene (73)
• Erwin Deutsch, Das internationale Arzneimittelrecht nach den Rom-VO (89)
• Omaia Elwan, Qualifikation der Unzulässigkeit von Klagen aus ‘urfi-Ehen im ägyptischen Recht  (99)
• Martin Franzen, Neue Regeln für das IPR des Timesharing (115)
• Bettina Heiderhoff, Ist das Anerkennungsprinzip schon geltendes internationales Familienrecht in der EU? (127)
• Jan von Hein, Die Behandlung von Sicherheits- und Verhaltensregeln nach Art. 17 der Rom II-Verordnung (139)
• Dieter Henrich, Der Renvoi: Zeit für einen Abgesang? (159)
• Abbo Junker, Internationales Arbeitsvertragsrecht im Vereinigten Königreich (168)
• Eva-Maria Kieninger, Das Europäische IPR vor der Kodifikation? (184)
• Peter Kindler, Handelsvertreterrichtlinie und Rom I (198)
• Christian Kohler, Le choix de la loi applicable au divorce – Interrogations sur le règlement « Rome III » de l’Union européenne (208)
• Sebastian Krebber, Qualifikationsrechtlicher Rechtsformzwang – Der Arbeitsvertrags- und Arbeitnehmerbegriff im Europäischen Kollisions- und Verfahrensrecht (218)
• Stefan Leible, Brauchen wir noch Art. 46b EGBGB? (230)
• Luís de Lima Pinheiro, Rome I Regulation: Some Controversial Issues (242)
• Walter F. Lindacher, AGB-Verbraucherverbandsklagen bei transnationaler Klauselverwendung (258)
• Dirk Looschelders, Anpassung und ordre public im Internationalen Erbrecht (266)
• Dieter Martiny,Die objektive Anknüpfung atypischer und gemischter Schuldverträge (283)
• Felix Maultzsch, Privatautonomie bei reinen Inlandsfällen im Internationalen Privat-, Prozess- und Schiedsverfahrensrecht (304)
• Yuko Nishitani, Internationale Kindesentführung in Japan – Auf dem Weg zur Ratifikation des HKÜ? (319)
• Oliver Remien, Variationen zum Thema Eingriffsnormen nach Art. 9 Rom I-VO und Art. 16 Rom II-VO unter Berücksichtigung neuerer Rechtsprechung zu Art. 7 Römer Übereinkommen (334)
• Anne Röthel, Englische family provision und ordre public (348)
• Giesela Rühl, Der Schutz des „Schwächeren“ im europäischen Kollisionsrecht (364)
• Dietrich Schefold, Zum anwendbaren Recht bei Devisenhandelsgeschäften (378)
• Boris Schinkels, Das internationalprivatrechtliche Interesse – Gedanken zur Zweckmäßigkeit eines Begriffs (390)
• Klaus Schurig, Eine hinkende Vereinheitlichung des internationalen Ehescheidungsrechts in Europa. (405)
• Andreas Schwartze, Internationales Forum Shopping mit Blick auf das günstigste Sachrecht (415)
• Kurt Siehr, Der ordre public im Zeichen der Europäischen Integration: Die Vorbehaltsklausel und die EU-Binnenbeziehung (424)
• Andreas Spickhoff, Grundfragen des Arzt-Patienten-Verhältnisses im Spiegel des Internationalen Privat- und Zivilprozessrechts (437)
• Hans Stoll, Die Kodifikation des internationalen Privatrechts der außervertraglichen Haftung im Staate Oregon, 2009 (448)
• Michael Stürner, Europäisierung des (Kollisions-)Rechts und nationaler ordre public (463)
• Jürgen Thieme, Rom I und Insolvenzverträge (483)
• Hannes Unberath, Internationale Mediation – Die Bestimmung des maßgeblichen Rechts (500)
• Marc-Philippe Weller, Brennpunkte des Insolvenzkollisionsrechts (513)
• Peter Winkler von Mohrenfels, Die Rom III-VO und die Parteiautonomie (527)

II. Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht

• Christoph Benicke, Ordre-public-Verstoß ausländischer Adoptionsentscheidungen bei ungenügender Prüfung des Kindeswohls (545)
• Michael Bogdan, Contract or Tort under Article 5 of the Brussels I Regulation: Tertium non Datur? (561)
• Gilles Cuniberti, Some Remarks on the Efficiency of Exequatur (568)
• Martin Gebauer, Das Prorogationsstatut im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht (577)
• Reinhold Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht und Verfassung sowie International Fundamental Procedural Rights (589)
• Helmut Grothe, Internationale Gerichtsstände für Klagen gegen internationale Sportverbände aufgrund von Dopingsperren (601)
• Wolfgang Hau, Gegenwartsprobleme internationaler Zuständigkeit (617)
• Peter Hay, Favoring Local Interests – Some Justizkonflikt-Issues in American Perspective (634)
• Burkhard Hess, Die Reform der Verordnung Brüssel I und die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (648)
• Erik Jayme, Der Klägergerichtsstand für Direktklagen am Wohnsitz des Geschädigten (Art. 11 Abs. 2 i.V.m. Art. 9 EuGVO): Ein Danaergeschenk des EuGH für die Opfer von Verkehrsunfällen (656)
• Ulrich Magnus, Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen im Vorschlag zur Reform der EuGVO (664)
• Heinz-Peter Mansel, Grenzüberschreitende Restschuldbefreiung – Anerkennung einer (automatic) discharge nach englischem Recht und ordre public (683)
• Jörg Pirrung, Vorrangige, beschleunigte und Eilverfahren vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof in Ehe- und Sorgerechtssachen (698)
• Herbert Roth, Wer ist im Europäischen Prozessrecht ein Verbraucher? (715)
• Dennis Solomon, Der Immobiliargerichtsstand im Europäischen Zuständigkeitsrecht (727)
• Karsten Thorn, Internationale Zuständigkeit bei Persönlichkeitsverletzungen durch Massenmedien (746)

III. Rechtsvergleichung – Internationalisierung – Transnationales Recht

• Ulrich Drobnig, Der Zinssatz bei internationalen Warenkäufen gemäß CISG nach Rechtsprechung und Schiedspraxis (765)
• Angelika Fuchs, Schadensausgleich und Verhaltenssteuerung – Rechtsvergleichende Überlegungen zu den Zwecken deliktischer Haftung (776)
• Günter Hager, Haftung für vorsätzlich verursachte Vermögensschäden (Economic Torts) im englischen Recht (791)
• Helmut Heiss, Transnationales Versicherungsrecht – Eine Skizze (803)
• Peter Huber, Die Anwendung des UN-Kaufrechts durch Schiedsgerichte (815)
• Peter Reiff, Die Erfüllung unionsrechtlicher Informationspflichten durch Inhalte einer Webseite (823)
• Gerhard Robbers, Entwicklungen der Menschenwürde (836)
• Thomas Rüfner, Chapter 15 des US Bankruptcy Code in der Praxis (843)
• Götz Schulze, Der anationale Geltungsgrund der UNIDROIT-Principles (856)
• Fritz Sturm, Gutachterhonorare – Wer haftet: Anwalt oder Klient? (865)
• Rolf Stürner, Die Bedeutung rechtswissenschaftlicher Dogmatik am Beginn eines Jahrhunderts fortschreitender Internationalisierung (877)
• Daniel Thürer und Jonathan Pärli, „Urbi et Orbi“ – Zu Status und Geschichte der Stadt im internationalen Recht (888)

IV. Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (Arbitration)

• Christian Berger, Schiedsrichtervertrag und Insolvenz der Schiedspartei (903)
• Klaus Peter Berger, Allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze in der Internationalen Wirtschaftsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit (914)
• Jens Bredow, Zur „Volljährigkeit der Deutschen Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit“ (928)
• Diederich Eckardt, Internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit und Insolvenzverfahren: Die Bestimmung des maßgeblichen Rechts (934)
• Ulrich Haas, Aufrechnung im Schiedsverfahren und Art. 19 ICC-SchO (949)
• Rainer Hausmann, Anwendbares Recht vor deutschen und italienischen Schiedsgerichten – Bindung an die Rom I-Verordnung oder Sonderkollisionsrecht? (971)
• Hans van Houtte, Revision of Awards Revisited (987)
• Ahmed S. El Kosheri, Reflections on the ICSID Annulment Decision Rendered in the FRAPORT/Philippines Case (996)
• Herbert Kronke, Principles Based Law and Rule Based Law: The Relevance of Legislative Strategies for International Commercial Arbitration (1002)
• Peter Mankowski, Schiedsgerichte und die Verordnungen des europäischen Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1012)
• Annemarie Matusche-Beckmann und Frank Spohnheimer, Überlegungen zu den Rechtsbehelfen gegen den (Nicht-)Ausschluss befangener Schiedsrichter (1029)
• Thomas Pfeiffer, Pflicht zur diskriminierungsfreien Schiedsrichterauswahl? – Eine Skizze (1042)
• Klaus Sachs und Tilman Niedermaier, Overriding Mandatory Provisions Before Arbitral Tribunals – Some Observations (1051)
• Jürgen Samtleben, „Sandwich und Salat“ – Zur Inhaltskontrolle von Schiedsklauseln in Formularverträgen (1066)
• Rolf A. Schütze, Die Bedeutung des effektiven Schiedsortes im internationalen Schiedsverfahren (1077)
• Matthias Weller, Aufstieg und Fall des Doppelexequaturs in der deutschen Rechtsprechung (1087)
• Ali Yesilirmak and Ceyda Süral, Timing of Examination by Courts in respect of Arbitral Jurisdiction under Turkish Law (1101)

Bibliografie Bernd von Hoffmann (1113)

Recently, the 3rd edition of Professor Anton’s standard text on the Scottish rules of private international law has been published. The book has been completely revised by Professor Paul Beaumont (University of Aberdeen) and Professor Peter McEleavy (University of Dundee) paying regard to the fact that the subject area has been comprehensively restructured in recent years due to the process of Europeanisation. The Brussels I, Brussels IIa, Rome I, Rome II and Maintenance Regulations, as well as associated case law, are considered in detail with regard paid to their particular impact on Scots law. Further, the recent work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law is included, in particular the Conventions on Maintenance, Choice of Court, Protection of Adults, Protection of Children and Inter-country Adoption. In analysing European and global instruments the authors have drawn on their experience in participating in the negotiation processes in Brussels as well as from their work for the Hague Conference.

Here is the contents:

Introduction
Theories and methods
International and regional instruments: Implementation, integration and interpretation
Identification of the applicable law
Application of statutes and limits to the application of foreign law
State immunity
Connecting factors
Jurisdiction
External decrees: Recognition and enforcement
Choice of law in contractual obligations – Rome I regulation
Arbitration
Foreign money liabilities
Bills of exchange and letters of credit
Choice of law in noncontractual obligations
Marriage, civil partnership and cohabitation
Divorce and dissolution
Effects of marriage and divorce on property
Children
Maintenance
Adults with incapacity
Property
Trusts
Administration of estates of persons deceased
Succession
Companies, firms and associations
Bankruptcy
Procedure and evidence

More information can be found at the publisher’s website.