Views
International Jurisdiction between Nationality and Domicile in Tunisian Private International Law – Has the Perennial Debate Finally been Resolved?
I would like to thank Prof. Lotfi Chedly for providing me with the text of the decision on which this post is based.
I. Introduction
Scholars of private international law are well familiar with the classic debate on nationality and domicile as connecting factors in the choice of applicable law (see, for example, L. I. de Winter, “Nationality or Domicile? The Present State of Affairs” 128 Collected Courses III (1969) pp. 357 ff). In Tunisian private international law, this controversy has been particularly pronounced with regard to the role of nationality as a ground for the international jurisdiction of Tunisian courts. Since the enactment of the Tunisian Private International Law Code (“PILC”) in 1998 (for an English translation, see J. Basedow et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Private International Law – Vol. IV (Elgar Editions, 2017) 3895 and my own translation of the provisions dealing with international jurisdiction and the enforcement of foreign judgments in 8 Journal of Private International Law 2 (2012) pp. 221 ff)), the debate between opponents and proponents of nationality as a ground for international jurisdiction, especially in family law matters, has never ceased to be intense (for detailed analyses, see eg. Salma Triki, “La compétence internationale tunisienne et le critère de nationalité” in Ben Achour/Triki (eds.), Le Code de droit international privé – Vingt ans d’application (1998-2018) (Latrach edition, 2020) 119ff). This divergence in academic opinion is also reflected in the judicial practice of the courts, with the emergence of two opposing trends: one extends the international jurisdiction of the Tunisian courts when the dispute involves a Tunisian party, in particular as a defendant even when domiciled abroad. The other firmly rejects nationality as a ground for international jurisdiction.
An Answer to the Billion-Dollar Choice-of-Law Question
On February 20, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals handed down its opinion in Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A. The issue presented—which I described in a previous post as the billion-dollar choice-of-law question—was whether a court sitting in New York should apply the law of New York or the law of Venezuela to determine the validity of certain bonds issued by a state-owned oil company in Venezuela. The bondholders, represented by MUFG Union Bank, argued for New York law. The oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), argued for Venezuelan law.
In a victory for PDVSA, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously held that the validity of the bonds was governed by the law of Venezuela. It then sent the case back to the federal courts to determine whether the bonds are, in fact, invalid under Venezuelan law.
Read more
New EU Digitalisation Regulation: A Stepping Stone to Digitalised EU?
Author: Martina Ticic, assistant at the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law and doctoral student funded by the Croatian Science Foundation (Hrvatska zaklada za znanost – HRZZ)
On 13 December 2023, two years after the first legislative proposal has been published, the new Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (Digitalisation Regulation) has been adopted. While the process of digitalisation of judicial cooperation and cross-border procedures in the EU has been ongoing for some time already, the new Digitalisation Regulation represents a major step for advancing digitalisation practices in the EU.
News
[Out Now] Lopez on Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia
The Hart Series “Studies in Private International Law – Asia” continues to deliver outstanding volumes, the latest being authored by Lemuel D. Lopez (lecturer of Law at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University), and titled “Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia”.
This marks the 13th volume in the series, which was launched only a few years ago in 2019, with many more volumes expected to follow.
The topic is of great significance, and this book provides a much-needed Asian perspective, shedding light on how forum selection clauses function within the region’s unique legal environment.
The book’s description reads as follows:
This book compares and explains the approaches taken by Asian courts when choice of forum clauses in international commercial contracts are challenged in litigation.
It examines key common law jurisdictions (Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia), civil law jurisdictions (China, Japan, and Indonesia), and hybrid jurisdictions (the Philippines).
With Asia’s ascent in cross-border trade and investment, alongside a corresponding increase in cross-border litigation, understanding how Asian courts address choice of forum clauses in international commercial contracts has never been more critical. Employing a comparative law method, the book identifies and explains the relief and remedies used by Asian courts in enforcing choice of forum clauses, analysing how their classification as either contractual or procedural in nature shapes judicial approaches. It further distinguishes choice of forum clauses from arbitration agreements and explores their interaction with other contractual provisions. Party autonomy – as the parties’ freedom to determine the contents of the choice of forum clause and the freedom to control the flow of litigation – is also critically scrutinised.Furthermore, the book investigates the factors courts consider in resolving key choice of forum clause issues (ie, enforceability; specific relief to be granted; existence, validity, interpretation of choice of forum clauses; role of mandatory rules, public policy, and international interests) and explores the prospects for future development of this area of law in Asia.
Crucially, the book highlights the unique approaches of Asian courts, while underscoring the differences and similarities among common law, civil law, and hybrid jurisdictions.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Nature of Choice-of-Forum Clauses
3. Party Autonomy and Choice-of-Forum Clauses
4. The Enforcement of Choice-of-Forum Clauses: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
5. The Factors Considered in Granting Relief: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
6. Existence, Validity and Interpretation: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
7. Mandatory Rules, Public Policy and International Interests: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines
8. Choice of Forum Clauses in Asian Civil Law Countries: China, Indonesia and Japan
9. Conclusions
2026 applications for a 6-month internship in The Hague, Netherlands
The Australian Institute of International Affairs and the Australian Branch of the International Law Association call for applications for the 2026 Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship.
New Journal: Perspectives contentieuses internationales (PCI)
The following announcement was kindly shared with us by Fabienne Jault-Seseke
Created with the support of LexisNexis, the Review Perspectives contentieuses internationales (PCI) is a biannual academic journal dedicated to the globalization of international litigation in both its public and private aspects. Each issue features a thematic dossier, complemented by several articles outside the main topic (Varia), as well as brief focus pieces addressing current events relevant to political or regulatory developments impacting international disputes (Focus).
The editorial committee, which ensures the scientific and operational direction of the Review, is composed of Sandrine Clavel, Patrick Jacob, and Fabienne Jault-Seseke (professors at Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ).
Three issues have already been published and are available open access.