Views
Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
News
Call for Papers: International Conference at Loyala University Andalusia, 20-21 January 2020
The Department of Law of Loyola University Andalusia will be hosting an International Conference on 20-21 January 2020 in Seville, Spain, to discuss the impact of digitalization.
The Conference which will revolve around five major thematic areas from a multi-disciplinary approach, will also include panels on digitalization and Private International Law.
This International Conference will be a unique opportunity to discuss the new technological and digital challenges with an outstanding group of experts from different fields and a great venue to create and consolidate scientific and collaborative networks. Some of the experts who have already confirmed their participation include professors from Cornell, Harvard and other universities worldwide, officials from the United Nations, UNIDROIT, judges, members of the EU Commission expert groups, lawyers and ICT professionals.
Senior and junior scholars (including Ph.D. students) and professionals at all stages of their careers are invited to submit abstracts on some of the following, fairly broad, topics or any other related issues of novel and ground-breaking character: Ability of the basic principles of private international law to adapt to the immateriality of the digital space and new approaches to the theory of private international law in the digital context.
SUBMISSION PROCEDURE AND TIMELINE
- We invite authors to submit extended abstracts of a minimum of 800 words with the author’s name, affiliation and an updated CV including contact details to the conference directors, in the item “Documents” on the website: http://www.uloyolaict.es. All submissions may be written in either English or Spanish.
- The submitted abstracts will be assessed and selected by the Conference’s international scientific committee. In addition to the quality of the proposals, special consideration will be given to gender balance and the representation of professionals, associations and social partners in the different panels.
- The deadline for submitting proposals is 15 October 2019.
- Authors of selected abstracts for the Conference will be notified by 15 November 2019.
- The deadline for submitting the final draft paper (3,000-5,000 words) is 10 January 2020. A ‘no paper – no podium’ strict policy applies.
- The Conference will be held at the Dos Hermanas campus of Loyola University Andalusia, in Seville, on 20-21 January 2020.
- Authors of accepted abstracts are expected to bear the costs of their own travel and accommodation.
- The Conference directors are planning to publish the most relevant papers presented in the conference.
- The deadline for submitting the final version of the selected papers (6,000-8,000 words) will be 21 February 2020. Further information about the publication process will be conveyed to selected proposal authors in due course.
VENUE
The Conference will be held at the Sevilla-Ciudad del Conocimiento campus of Loyola University Andalusia in Dos Hermanas, Seville. Seville’s Old Town contains three UNESCO World Heritage Sites: the Real Alcazar palace complex, the Gothic Cathedral and the General Archive of the Indies. Other important sites are the Golden Tower (Torre del Oro), the Maria Luisa’s Park & Plaza de España and the ruins of the Roman City “Itálica”, used as location for some scenes of the television series Games of Thrones.
For more information, visit the official Conference website.
Scientific Committee
- Tine Sommer (Professor of Law, Advisory Board Member of CREDI, Center for Law and Digitalization, University of Aarhus, Denmark);
- Víctor Luis Gutiérrez Castillo (Associate Professor of Public International Law, University of Jaén);
- Fernando Miró Llinares (Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Miguel Hernandez University, CRIMINA Research Center);
- Alberto Elisavetski (Professor Law, Untref University of Buenos Aires, Director of On Line Dispute Resolution Latinamerica);
- Michael D. Green (Professor of Law, Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA);
- Marie-Cécile Escande-Varniol (Professor of Law, Universidad Lumière Lyon 2)
Co-directors
- Manuel Paniagua Zurera (Professor of Commercial Law, Loyola University Andalusia);
- Gloria Fernández- Pacheco Alises (Assistant Professor of Criminology, Loyola University Andalusia);
- Maria Lubomira Kubica (Assistant Professor of Civil and Comparative Law, Loyola University Andalusia);
- Jonatan Cruz Ángeles (Assistant Professor of Public International Law, Loyola University Andalusia);
- Rafael Aguilera Gordillo (Part-time Lecturer of Criminal Compliance and International Security, Loyola University Andalusia);
- Ana Mercedes López Rodríguez (Associate Professor of Private International Law, Head of the Law Department, Loyola University Andalusia)
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 5/2019: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:
E. Jayme: On the Legal Status of Indigenous Peoples in German Cultural Property Proceedings
The Nama Traditional Leaders Association asked the Constitutional Court of the federal state Baden-Wurttemberg to issue an interim order to prevent its government from returning certain pieces of cultural property to the Republic of Namibia. These cultural goods had been taken by Germans during the colonial period and have been displayed in the Linden-Museum in Stuttgart since 1902. The Nama Association relied on the argument that these goods belonged to the Witbooi family and were part of the Nama cultural heritage. The Constitutional Court dismissed the action on procedural grounds. According to the Court, an interim order required a main action which lacked in that case. In addition, the Court remarked that the litigation was such to be better handled within Namibia. The restitution of colonial goods from European museums to the territories of their origin has been discussed widely since President Macron, in 2017, gave a speech in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) asking for the return of colonial goods to African countries. This idea throws up many questions of law and particularly of conflict of laws, as is evident in the Nama-case, which centres around the legal status of indigenous people in German court proceedings concerning cultural goods. The author also discusses problems of private international law, such as the law applicable to the question of property regarding such colonial goods.
M. Drehsen: Service of judicial documents within the context of the EuMahnVO
The intersection of the Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 and the Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 is the service of the European order for payment. Even if Art. 12 (5), 13 to 15 Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 contain provisions on the service of the same, these are not complete upon closer examination, so that according to the decision of the ECJ of 6.9.2018 worthy of approval, recourse may be had to the Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 and in particular to Art. 8 Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 and the case-law of the ECJ issued in this regard. Even if the same legal consequences as for the absence of a corresponding translation are to apply to the non-addition of the form under Annex II of the Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007, the period for statement of opposition under Art. 16 (2) Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 can begin differenthy for these two service defects to be distinguished.
S. Arnold/T. Garber: A Pyrrhic victory for Greece: International Procedure and the limits of state sovereignty
In 2012, Greek government bonds were restructured which caused enormous losses to private investors. Many of them sued the Hellenic Republic, especially in German and Austrian courts. Following a referral of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) the ECJ decided that actions brought by private investors against the Hellenic Republic are not covered by the scope of application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. After the ECJ’s decision, the OGH even denied international jurisdiction of Austrian courts according to the national (Austrian) rules of civil procedure. Both decisions are flawed as regards their outcomes and their reasonings. The following lines will explore these flaws and shed some light on the decisions’ consequences.
Q.C. Lobach: International jurisdiction of the courts at the place of performance of a contract of carriage for air passengers’ claims under the Flight Compensation Reg. against a third-party operating carrier
In the Rehder/Air Baltic case, the CJEU held that the places of performance of a contract of carriage pursuant to art. 7 (1) (b) second indent Brussels I Recast Reg. are both the place of departure as well as the place of arrival of a flight. Consequently, air passengers’ claims for compensation on the basis of the Flight Compensation Reg. can be pursued before a court at either place at the election of the claimant. However, divergent opinions existed on whether these principles were accordingly applicable in cases in which a journey by air consists of various legs, while the contracting air carrier on the basis of code sharing has engaged an operating air carrier for one of the legs. In such a situation, the question is whether merely the courts at the places of departure and arrival of that particular leg or rather the courts at these places of the air travel in its totality are competent to hear the passenger’s claims against the operating air carrier. In the case at hand, the CJEU answers these as well as various other questions on international jurisdiction in relation to air passengers’ compensation claims under the Flight Compensation Reg.
H. Roth: Agreement of jurisdiction according to Art. 25 Brussels Ia Reg. and ex officio review by national courts
According to German Civil Procedure law, jurisdiction is always reviewed ex officio. Hereby, the Brussels Ia Reg. leaves room for the application of the respective national civil procedure law. According to German Civil Procedure law, the plaintiff has to conclusively present the relevant facts of the case, which are sufficient to establish the international jurisdiction of the court seized. In case of an effective objection by the defendant, the court has to take evidence. The same is true in case of an international trade custom (Art. 25 par. 1 s. 3 lit. c Brussels Ia Reg.). The German Federal Supreme Court’s decision is therefore persuasive not only by its legal outcome but also by its legal reasoning.
V. Lipp: Applicable law to child support when child changes habitual residence
The ECJ case KP./. LO is its very first case on the interpretation of the “Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations”. This “Protocol”, in fact an international convention drafted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, contains the rules on applicable law to maintenance obligations for all member states of the European Union except Denmark and the UK. The ECJ thus first clarifies the status of the Protocol as secondary law of the EU and its competence to interpret it. It then deals with Art. 4 para. 2 of the Protocol when a child changes its habitual residence and now claims support from a parent for the period before that change took place. The following article discusses these issues in the context of the new regime for international maintenance, both within the EU and outside of it.
J. Antomo: International child abduction or homecoming: HCA caught between the best interests of the child and general prevention
In cases of child abduction, the HCA intends to restore the status quo ante by requiring the return of the child to be ordered forthwith. Judicial authorities in the state where the child is located must order the child’s return, and can only refuse to do so in strictly limited exceptional situations. This principle is based on the assumption that, as a general matter, returning the child to his or her familiar environment is in the child’s best interest. In addition, establishing an expectation that return orders will swiftly issue aims to minimize any incentives for abducting children across borders. However, in cases where the child’s habitual residence frequently changes, it is doubtful whether a return order actually serves the child’s best interests. Nevertheless, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart recently ordered the return of two children to Slovakia in a case where the children had only spent six months there, then moved back to their former home country Germany together with their mother. This article evaluates whether in such cases of removal to the former home country the interest of the individual child should take priority over the general preventive objectives of the Convention. The author shows that the stress that HCA procedures impose on children could particularly be reduced by promoting mediation and amicable settlements.
B. Hess: Not a simple footnote: 9/11 litigation in the civil courts of Luxembourg
On 27/3/2019, the Tribunal d’Arrondissement de Luxembourg refused to recognise two default judgments rendered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York amounting to 2.1 billion USD.2 These judgments had been given in favour of 92 victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 16 defendants included inter alia the Islamic Republic of Iran, its former heads of state and of government as well as several governmental entities and state enterprises. In a 160 pages judgment, the Luxemburg court held that recognition of the American judgment against the state defendants would amount to a violation of state immunity under customary international law. Referring to the 2012 ICJ’s judgment on state immunity3 the Luxemburg court expressly stated that neither a “terrorists exception” nor a non-commercial tort exception from immunity were applicable to the case at hand. Therefore, state immunity barred the recognition of the judgment. Besides, the court declined recognition with regard to the non-state defendants because their rights of defence had not been sufficiently respected in the original proceedings as (substantial) amendments of the lawsuit had not been served on the defendants. The judgment carefully assesses the current developments of state immunity under customary international law. It is also important for the private international law of the Grand Duchy.
I. Schneider: EIR: The reach of the lex fori concursus in lease agreements for companies with real estate property
In its decision in case 1 Ob 24/18p (21 March 2018) the Supreme Court of Austria dealt with various questions regarding the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR). Unfortunately, the court did not make a final statement on these questions since it was not essential to decide the case. The article attempts to reach a solution for the issues raised in the judgement which still remain unsolved by applying the EIR. That is the interpretation of the term “immoveable property” in Art. 11 para. 1 EIR, the relevance of the choice of law and the scope of the public policy-clause in Art. 33 EIR.
P.A. Nielsen: EU PIL and Denmark 2019
The author explains the reasons for Denmark’s reservation from 1992 towards EU cooperation in civil and commercial matters and its “opt-out” nature as well as the failed attempt in 2015 to change it to an opt-in mechanism identical to the British and Irish reservations. Furthermore, the author examines the existing parallel agreements from 2005 between the EU and Denmark in respect of originally the Brussels I Regulation and the Service Regulation and gives an account of which EU instruments Denmark is bound by.
A. Wohlgemuth: On the International Family Law of Indonesia
Indonesia, domestically equipped with a diversity of laws, that needs internal law allocation, nearly a century after independence, has not yet even codified its Private International Law, the last project of which dates from 2015. Concerning conflict of laws Indonesia is still relying on a handful of rules mostly inherited from the Dutch colonial period. These provisions, for their part, are rooted in the French Civil Code of 1804. International family law, especially on mixed marriages, is covered by the Marriage Law No. 1/1974. The following is a review of the scarce published case law of Indonesian courts and the more comprehensive legal Indonesian literature on the matter.
ASIL’s 2018-2019 U.S. Supreme Court “International Law” Year in Review
American Society of International Law’s Dispute Resolution Interest Group will be presenting its 2018-2019 U.S. Supreme Court “International Law” Year in Review. This panel discussion will review decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term involving issues relating to international law and/or international relations. The discussion will include an in-depth look at the reasoning behind the decisions Republic of Sudan v. Harrison and Jam v. International Finance Corp., and will look at the prospects for several Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act cases granted or pending certiorari for the upcoming 2019-2020 term, among others. Our panelists, comprising some of the leading experts on international law issues, will also explore what these decisions tell us about the current Supreme Court’s views on matters of international interest, as well as the influence the newly appointed Justice Kavanaugh has had on these issues.
Please join us for a lively and interactive discussion and debate.
DETAILS:
Thursday, September 12
6-8pm
ASIL Tillar House, Washington DC
Registration is available here
PANELISTS
Lori Damrosch, Hamilton Fish Professor of International Law and Diplomacy, Columbia Law School
Matthew McGill, Partner, Gibson Dunn LLP
David Stewart, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderated by
Caroline Edsall Littleton, Jones Day
Jennifer Permesly, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP