Views
A Plea for Private International Law
A new paper by Michael Green, A Plea for Private International Law (Conflict of Laws), was recently published as an Essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection. Michael argues that although private international law is increasingly important in our interconnected world, it has fallen out of favor at top U.S. law schools. To quote from the Essay:
Private international law has not lost its jurisprudential import. And ease of travel, communication, and trade have only increased in the last century. But in American law schools (although not abroad), private international law has started dropping out of the curriculum, with the trend accelerating in the last five years or so. We have gone through US News and World Report’s fifty top-ranked law schools and, after careful review, it appears that twelve have not offered a course on private international law (or its equivalent) in the last four academic years: Arizona State University, Boston University, Brigham Young University, Fordham University, University of Georgia, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State University, Pepperdine University, Stanford University, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University, and University of Washington. And even where the course is taught, in some law schools—such as Duke, New York University, and Yale—it is by visitors, adjuncts, or emerita. It is no longer a valued subject in faculty hiring.
CJEU’s first ruling on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I recast regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention
by Guillaume Croisant, Claudia Cavicchioli, Nicole Rölike, Alexia Kaztaridou, and Julie Esquenazi (all Linklaters)
In a nutshell: reinforced legal certainty but questions remain
In its decision of yesterday (27 February 2025) in the Lastre case (Case C-537/23), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its long-awaited first judgment on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I recast regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention.
The Court ruled that the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses is assessed in the light of the autonomous rules of Article 25 of the regulation (rather than Member States’ national laws) and confirmed their validity where the clause can be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States.
This decision dispels some of the previous uncertainties, particularly arising from the shifting case law of the French Supreme Court. The details of the decision and any possible impact, in particular the requirement for the clause to be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States, will need to be analysed more closely, but on the whole the CJEU strengthened foreseeability and consistency regarding unilateral jurisdiction clauses under the Brussels I regulation and the Lugano convention.
Besides other sectors, this decision is of particular relevance in international financing transactions, including syndicated loans and capital markets, where asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in favour of the finance parties have been a long-standing practice.
Going International: The SICC in Frontier Holdings
By Sanjitha Ravi, Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India
The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) in Frontier Holdings Ltd v. Petroleum Exploration (Pvt) Ltd overturned a jurisdictional ruling by an International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitral tribunal, holding that the tribunal did, in fact, have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The SICC’s decision focused on interpreting the arbitration provisions in the Petroleum Concession Agreements (“PCAs”) and Joint Operating Agreements (“JOAs”), which had created ambiguity regarding whether disputes between foreign parties, i.e., Foreign Working Interest Owners (“FWIOs”), and Pakistan parties, i.e., Pakistani Working Interest Owners (“PWIOs”), were subject to international arbitration. The arbitral tribunal, by majority, had concluded the PCAs restricted ICC arbitration to disputes between FWIOs inter se or between FWIOs and the President of Pakistan, thereby excluding disputes between FWIOs and PWIOs. The SICC rejected this reasoning and concluded that the provisions should be applied with necessary modifications to fit the JOAs’ context by conducting an in-depth construction of the dispute resolution provisions of the different agreements involved. The court found that a reasonable interpretation of these provisions indicated an intention to submit FWIO-PWIO disputes to ICC arbitration rather than Pakistani domestic arbitration. Read more
News
U.S. District Court’s Order in the Venezuelan Deportees Case Was Not Extraterritorial
The following post was kindly provided by Hannah Buxbaum, Vice President for International Affairs, Professor of Law and John E. Schiller Chair, Indiana University, and is cross-posted on tlblog.org
As was widely reported yesterday, the Trump administration permitted two planes carrying Venezuelan deportees to continue on their way to El Salvador after receiving a judicial order to turn the flights back to the United States. A story in Axios quotes an administration official who explains that they were not in fact “actively defying” the judge—the order just came too late, since the planes were already out of U.S. airspace. This seems to be an extraterritoriality argument, suggesting that the judge lacks authority to order an action to take place outside U.S. borders.
The administration has this completely wrong. The judge is ordering the administration to take action inside the United States—that is, to instruct the planes to turn around. That instruction will in turn cause something to happen elsewhere (the pilots will change course), but that doesn’t make the order impermissibly extraterritorial. This is exactly the same the basis on which courts in garden-variety civil disputes order parties subject to their jurisdiction to procure evidence or turn over assets that are located abroad. Moreover, since the planes were reportedly over international waters at the time the order was entered, compliance would not have required any actions by a foreign actor or within the territory of another state—in other words, it wouldn’t have created a conflict of laws.
Now that the deportees are already in El Salvador, that picture is more complicated, since local authorities there might refuse to take action. Even the existence of such a conflict, though, doesn’t mean that Judge Boasberg’s order exceeds his authority. It remains to be seen whether any of the other justifications the White House offered up for ignoring that order are any more compelling, but the argument that it didn’t apply once the planes had left the United States is certainly not.
For further leading expert input on extraterritoriality see one of our previous posts here.
Reminder: Quo Vadis Preferential Law Approach? A Survey on the Interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation Across EU Member States
Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen) has kindly shared the following reminder of his Call for Participants with us.
The project concerns the interpretation of Article 6 (2) Rome I Regulation in the EU Member States and is very limited in nature. Time commitments are therefore very limited. Click here for more information.
We are still looking for scholars from Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Malta, Romania, and Slovenia. Danish scholars may also participate on the basis of Article 5(2) Rome Convention. Read more
Migrant Workers and Social Security Rights across Borders: a Right or a Privilege?
You are invited to the third meeting of Migration Talks organized by the Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the European Union and in Türkiye.
Speaker: Prof. Dr. Laura Carballo Piñeiro, Chair of Private International Law, Dean, Faculty of International Relations, University of Vigo
Title: Migrant Workers and Social Security Rights across Borders: a Right or a Privilege?
Date and Time: Wednesday, March 19, 2024, 10.30 a.m. -11.30 a.m. (CET)
Location: via Zoom (The link shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr)
Abstract
Access to social security is a human right that only a quarter of the world population enjoy. Such an access is particularly challenging for workers who cross national borders, as they may not get access to a national scheme, get access only in a limited way compared to other national or resident workers in the country, be obliged to contribute to more than one system, or not benefit from a system to which had previously contributed due to relocation to their home country or a third country. State coordination in these matters is thus of the essence, in particular to ensure that contributions are only paid to one system at a time, aggregation and maintenance of acquired rights for those workers that are in the course of acquisition, and portability of benefits. Even in a coordinated scenario, legal divergence across countries might further complicate access to benefits. For example, the funding of a benefit by taxes and not contributions might automatically exclude posted workers from their enjoyment. The EU Social Security Coordination Regulation will be used in the presentation to address these principles, the challenges faced by States and social partners in their enforcement, and tools developed to address them. Outside this privileged area, coordination relies on a complex, but insufficient network of treaties which very much focus on the role of receiving countries. As the movement of workers increases, more attention should be paid to the role of sending States by researching the interplay between social protection and migrant studies.
