Views
Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
News
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
Conflict of Laws Section of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) Panel on Jan. 4, 2020 in Washington, DC
On January 4, 2020, the Conflict of Laws Section of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) will host a panel at the AALS Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. Registration is available here.
Sessions Information
January 4, 2020
10:30 am – 12:15 pm
Room: Maryland Suite B
Floor: Lobby Level
Hotel: Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel
Description: The biggest development in conflict of laws in the last 100 years is the move to party autonomy. The panel will discuss issues relating to the interpretation and enforcement of choice-of-law clauses, forum selection clauses, and arbitration clauses. It will also discuss the reasons why parties may choose to arbitrate or litigate future disputes at the time of contracting.
Speakers
Moderator: John F. Coyle, University of North Carolina School of Law
Speaker: Pamela Bookman, Fordham Law School
Speaker: Christopher R. Drahozal, University of Kansas School of Law
Speaker: Laura E. Little, Temple University, James E. Beasley School of Law
Speaker: Julian Nyarko, Stanford Law School
Two new resolutions by the Institut de Droit International
In its session in The Hague on 31 August 2019, the Institut de Droit International/Institute of International Law passed two highly relevant resolutions:
Firstly, the resolution on “Internet and the Infringement of Privacy” adopted by the 8th Commission (Rapporteurs: Erik Jayme and Symeon Symeonides) focuses on numerous yet unresolved issues of jurisdiction, applicable law and the enforcement of foreign judgments. For example, the Commission rejects a ‘mosaic’ approach for internet-related tortious claims. Instead, it proposes a “holistic principle” that would allow a person to seek redress for injuries in a single state even if the injuries have occurred or may occur in another state. Moreover, the resolution puts forward a rather sophisticated choice of law rule:
In the absence of a choice-of-law agreement valid under Article 8, the applicable law shall be determined as follows:
-
If the court’s jurisdiction is based on paragraph 1(a) of Article 5, the applicable law shall be the internal law of the forum State.
-
If the court’s jurisdiction is based on paragraph 1(b) of Article 5, the applicable law shall be the internal law of the forum State. However, if, at the time of the injury, the defendant’s home is located in another state, the applicable law shall be the internal law of the state that, considering all the circumstances, has the closest and most significant connection.
-
If the court’s jurisdiction is based on paragraph 1(c) of Article 5, the applicable law shall be the internal law of the forum State. However, if the aggrieved person proves that the critical conduct of the person claimed to be liable occurred in another State, the internal law of the latter State shall govern all substantive issues, provided that the aggrieved person formally requests the application of that law and, upon request by the court, establishes the content of that law.
-
If the court’s jurisdiction is based on paragraph 1(d) of Article 5, the applicable law shall be the internal law of the forum State. However, if the person claimed to be liable proves that the most extensive injurious effects occurred in another State, the internal law of the latter State shall govern all substantive issues, provided that that person formally requests the application of that law and, upon request by the court, establishes the content of that law.
-
If the court’s jurisdiction is based on a valid choice-of-court agreement and that court is located in a State referred to in Article 5, the applicable law is determined as provided in paragraphs 1–4 of Article 7, whichever is applicable. If the court is located in a State other than the States referred to in Article 5, the applicable law shall be the law of the State which, considering all circumstances, has the closest and most significant connection.
Finally, the recognition and enforcement of judgments in line with the resolution’s standards shall be subject to conditions identical to the ones introduced in the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.
Secondly, the 18th Commission’s (Rapporteur: Campbell McLachlan) resolution on “Equality of Parties before International Investment Tribunals” deals with one of the most fundamental elements of the rule of law that ensures a fair system of adjudication. The first part of the resolution tackles issues of party equality at the stage of the establishment of the arbitral tribunal (such as access to a tribunal, the indispensable requirement of impartiality, and the tribunal’s composition), the second part is devoted to equality during the proceedings (e.g., the treatment of multiple claims and counterclaims, rules on pleading and evidence, and costs).
The resolutions can be accessed here.