Views
Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
News
A New Interesting Book on PIL Aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility
A book edited by Catherine Kessedjian & Humberto Cantú Rivera and titled “Private International Law Aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility” has just been released electronically and in hard copy. As said in the abstract of the book, “This book addresses one of the core challenges in the corporate social responsibility (or business and human rights) debate: how to ensure adequate access to remedy for victims of corporate abuses that infringe upon their human rights. However, ensuring access to remedy depends on a series of normative and judicial elements that become highly complex when disputes are transnational. In such cases, courts need to consider and apply different laws that relate to company governance, to determine the competent forum, to define which bodies of law to apply, and to ensure the adequate execution of judgments. The book also discusses how alternative methods of dispute settlement can relate to this topic, and the important role that private international law plays in access to remedy for corporate-related human rights abuses…”
Readers of this blog might be interested in having one to be stored for your own use. If this is the case, please visit the homepage of this book to know more:https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030351861?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ChapterAuthorCongrat
Many thanks for your attention and take care in this globally difficult time!
Hague Academy Postpones Summer Courses 2020
The Hague Academy has canceled its summer courses for 2020 and will hold them in the summer of 2021. The announcement, including a video message from the Secretary-General, is here. Moving the program online was rejected because students would not get the special experience of being in the Hague. The promise of other videos to posted on a new website will be only insufficient comfort.
The only prior time that the courses were canceled was World War II. It is sad news for countless students who were looking forward to the courses, for the (excellent) scholars who have prepared their courses, and for the discipline of private international law, which benefits from this regular event. The decision against bringing together students from all the world to one physical space seems eminently rational, and has been made with enough time for participants to adapt plans. The decision against holding the courses online may raise more mixed responses.
Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe in the case C-186/19, Supreme Site Services and Others: international organisation, immunity of execution and Brussels I bis Regulation
In his today’s Opinion, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe addresses the question that has recently inspired much debate, already reported to our readers this January by Rishi Gulati.
At point 5, the Opinion clarifies that – at the request of the Court of Justice – its scope is limited to analysis of the issues related to Article 1(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Therefore, no considerations concerning Article 24(5) of this Regulation, also invoked in the request for a preliminary ruling, were to be expected in the Opinion.
The question at stake concerns, therefore, the applicability and/or the scope of application of the Brussels I bis Regulation in the context of a case where an international organisation brings an action to, firstly, lift an interim garnishee levied in another Member State by the opposing party, and, secondly, prohibit the opposing party from levying, on the same grounds, an interim garnishee in the future and all that on the basis of an immunity of execution that this international organisation allegedly enjoys.
In essence, at point 90, the Opinion concludes the inclusion of such action within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation is determined by the nature of the right that the interim garnishee served to protect and the inclusion of that right in the scope of the Regulation.
Moreover, according to point 102 of the Opinion, the fact that an international organization invokes the immunity it allegedly enjoys under international law does not prevent a court of a Member State from establishing its jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation.
The Opinion is not yet available in English. Some other linguistic versions can be consulted here.