Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh School of Law) has posted Implementing the 2005 Hague Convention: The EU Magnet and the US Centrifuge on SSRN.

Competence for the development of rules of private international law has become more-and-more centralized in the European Union, while remaining diffused in the United States. Nowhere has this divergence of process in private international law development been clearer than in the approach each has so far taken to the ratification and implementation of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. In Europe, ratification has been preceded by the 2012 Recast of the Brussels I Regulation, coordinating internal and external developments, and reaffirming Union competence for future developments, both internally and externally. In the United States, debate has arisen over whether the Convention should be implemented in a single federal statute – as was done for the New York Convention in the Federal Arbitration Act – or through state-by-state enactment of a Uniform Act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. These differences in approach are important to future negotiations in multilateral fora such as The Hague Conference on Private International law, UNCITRAL, and UNIDROIT. They demonstrate a coherence of approach within the EU which attracts not only its own Member States, but also external constituencies in international negotiations, and diffuse development of the law in the United States, which tends to make leadership in multilateral negotiations difficult.

The paper is forthcoming in the Liber Amicorum Alegrias Borras.

Investor-State Arbitration has become a salient feature of international dispute settlement, but its continued vitality is not beyond reproach. I myself have waded into the debate with an article published this month in the ICSID Review. Furthering this dialogue, TDM is pleased to announce a forthcoming TDM special issue: “Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search of A Roadmap.”

Co-edited by Jean E. Kalicki (Arnold & Porter LLP and Georgetown University Law Center) and Anna Joubin-Bret (Cabinet Joubin-Bret and World Trade Institute), this special issue will explore recent calls for reform of the investor-State dispute settlement system, along with the viability of five “reform paths” recently proposed for discussion by UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (see UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, “Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search of a Roadmap,” 29-30 May 2013).

You can find an extensive call for papers on the TDM website.

Publication is expected in October or November 2013. Proposals for papers (e.g., abstracts) should be submitted to the editors by 15 September 2013. Contact info is available on the TDM website.

Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh School of Law) has posted Challenges to Forum Non Conveniens on SSRN.

This paper was originally prepared for a Panel on Regulating Forum Shopping: Courts’ Use of Forum Non Conveniens in Transnational Litigation at the 18th Annual Herbert Rubin and Justice Rose Luttan Rubin International Law Symposium: Tug of War: The Tension Between Regulation and International Cooperation, held at New York University School of Law, October 25, 2012. The doctrines of forum non conveniens and lis alibi pendens have marked a significant difference in approach to parallel litigation in the common law and civil law worlds, respectively. The forum non conveniens doctrine has recently taken a beating. This has come (1) in its UK form as a result of decisions of the European Court of Justice, (2) through a lack of uniformity of application throughout the common law world, (3) as a result of legislation and litigation in Latin American countries, and (4) through the misapplication of the forum non conveniens doctrine in cases brought to recognize and enforce foreign arbitration awards. This article reviews those challenges, and considers the compromise reached in 2001 at the Hague Conference on Private International Law when that body was considering a general convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It concludes with thoughts on the importance of remembering that compromise and the promise it holds for bringing legal system approaches to parallel litigation closer together.

The paper is forthcoming in the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics.

The second issue of the Belgian bilingual (French/Dutch) e-journal on private international law Tijdschrift@ipr.be / Revue@dipr.be was just released.

The journal essentially reports European and Belgian cases addressing issues of private international law, but it also offers academic articles. This issue includes two:

• Herman VERBIST – Transparency In Treaty Based Investor State Arbitration – The Draft Uncitral Rules on Transparency
• Thalia KRUGER en Britt MALLENTJER – Het kind dat een voldongen feit is

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled in Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC (Appellant) v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP (Respondent) that English courts have jurisdiction to injunct the commencement or continuation of legal proceedings brought in a foreign jurisdiction outside the Brussels Regulation/Lugano regime where no arbitral proceedings have been commenced or are proposed.

The Court issued the following Press Summary.

Background

The appellant is the owner of a hydroelectric power plant in Kazakhstan. The respondent is the current operator of that plant. The concession agreement between the parties contains a clause providing that any disputes arising out of, or connected with, the concession agreement are to be arbitrated in London under International Chamber of Commerce Rules. For the purposes of this appeal the parties are agreed that the arbitration clause is governed by English law. The rest of the concession agreement is governed by Kazakh law.

Relations between the owners and holders of the concession have often been strained. In 2004 the Republic of Kazakhstan, as the previous owner and grantor of the concession, obtained a ruling from the Kazakh Supreme Court that the arbitration clause was invalid. In 2009 the appellant, as the current owner and grantor of the concession, brought court proceedings against the respondent in Kazakhstan seeking information concerning concession assets. The respondent’s application to stay those proceedings under the contractual arbitration clause was dismissed on the basis that the Kazakh Supreme Court had annulled the arbitration clause by its 2004 decision.

Shortly thereafter the respondent issued proceedings in England seeking (a) a declaration that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable and (b) an anti-suit injunction restraining the appellant from continuing with the Kazakh proceedings. An interim injunction was granted by the English Commercial Court and the appellant subsequently withdrew the request for information which was the subject of the Kazakh proceedings. However, the respondent remained concerned that the appellant would seek to bring further court proceedings in Kazakhstan in breach of the contractual agreement that such disputes should be subject to arbitration in London. As a result the respondent continued with the proceedings. The English Commercial Court found that they were not bound to follow the Kazakh court’s conclusions in relation to an arbitration clause governed by English law and refused to do so. The Commercial Court duly granted both the declaratory and final injunctive relief sought.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on the grounds that English courts have no jurisdiction to injunct the commencement or continuation of legal proceedings brought in a foreign jurisdiction outside the Brussels Regulation/Lugano regime where no arbitral proceedings have been commenced or are proposed.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. The English courts have a long-standing and well-recognised jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings brought in violation of an arbitration agreement, even where no arbitration is on foot or in contemplation. Nothing in the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) has removed this power from the courts. The judgment of the court is given by Lord Mance.

Reasons

• An arbitration agreement gives rise to a ‘negative obligation’ whereby both parties expressly or impliedly promise to refrain from commencing proceedings in any forum other than the forum specified in the arbitration agreement. This negative promise not to commence proceedings in another forum is as important as the positive agreement on forum [21-26].
• Independently of the 1996 Act the English courts have a general inherent power to declare rights and a well-recognised power to enforce the negative aspect of an arbitration agreement by injuncting foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement even where arbitral proceedings are not on foot or in contemplation [19-23].
• There is nothing in the 1996 Act which removes this power from the courts; where no arbitral proceedings are on foot or in prospect the 1996 Act neither limits the scope nor qualifies the use of the general power contained in section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”) to injunct foreign proceedings begun or threatened in breach of an arbitration agreement [55]. To preclude the power of the courts to order such relief would have required express parliamentary provision to this effect [56].
• The 1996 Act does not set out a comprehensive set of rules for the determination of all jurisdictional questions. Sections 30, 32, 44 and 72 of the 1996 Act only apply in circumstances where the arbitral proceedings are on foot or in contemplation; accordingly they have no bearing on whether the court may order injunctive relief under section 37 of the 1981 Act where no arbitration is on foot or in contemplation [40].
• The grant of injunctive relief under section 37 of the 1981 Act in such circumstances does not constitute an “intervention” as defined in section 1(c) of the 1996 Act; section 1(c) is only concerned with court intervention in the arbitral process [41].
• The reference in section 44(2)(e) of the 1996 Act to the power of the court to grant an interim injunction “for the purposes of and in relation to arbitral proceedings” was not intended to exclude or duplicate the court’s general power to grant injunctive relief under section 37 of the 1981 Act [48].
• Service out of the jurisdiction may be affected under Civil Procedure Rule 62.2 which provides for service out where an arbitration claim affects arbitration proceedings or an arbitration agreement; this provision is wide enough to embrace a claim under section 37 to restrain foreign proceedings brought or continued in breach of the negative aspect of an arbitration agreement [49].

H/T: Dominic Pellew

The Department of Law and Taxation of HEC Paris (France) invites applications for Tenure-track faculty positions to begin in 2014.

HEC Paris is the leading Business School in France and one of the leading Business Schools in Europe. The teaching of Law is one of its distinctive features. In addition to a large diversity of mandatory and elective law and taxation courses, HEC Paris offers to its students specializations in international business law and taxation.

JOB DESCRIPTION/QUALIFICATIONS: The position’s opening is in International Private Law, with emphasis on International Contract law, Legal environment of International negotiations, Arbitration. A strong track record in both research and teaching is required. Support for research is excellent, including grants from HEC. During their first three years at HEC, assistant professors benefit from a reduced number of teaching hours, simplified access to research funds and an exemption of administrative duties.

The remuneration and benefits package is competitive by international standards and will be commensurate with experience and profile. While HEC Paris is a bilingual school (English/French), the ability to teach in French is not mandatory.

Applicants are required to have (or be about to complete) a Ph.D. degree.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Interested applicants should send a cover letter, vitae, and selected research papers, to Elizabeth Hautefeuille by June 10, 2013 at the following address: email: hautefeuille@hec.fr

For additional information about HEC Paris, please refer to our website at: http://www.hec.fr

(I am grateful to Prof. Francesca Villata – University of Milan – for the following presentation of the latest issue of the RDIPP)

The first issue of 2013 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features two articles and two comments.

In her article Costanza Honorati, Professor of European Union Law at the University of Milano-Bicocca, addresses the issue of International Child Abduction and Fundamental Rights (“Sottrazione internazionale dei minori e diritti fondamentali”; in Italian).

In several recent decisions on cases concerning the international abduction of minors the European Court of Human Rights set the requirement of an “in-depth examination of the entire family situation” in order to comply with Article 8 ECHR. The present article considers the effects of such principle on the role and on the proceedings of both the court of the State of the child’s habitual residence and of the court of the State of his refuge after abduction, especially when acting in the frame of Brussels II Regulation. While the requirement of «in-depth examination» seems overall synergetic to the role of the court of habitual residence, also when such court is judging on the return of the abducted minor pursuant to Article 11(8) Reg. 2201/2003, deeper concerns arise with reference to the role of the court of the State of refuge. When such a court is asked to enforce a decision for the return of the abducted child, the possible violation of the child’s fundamental right in the State of origin might raise the question of opposition to recognition and enforcement. The article thus endeavours to find a solution balancing the child’s fundamental rights and EU general finality to strengthen the area of freedom, security and justice.

In their article Paolo Bertoli and Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, respectively Associate Professor at the University of Insubria and Associate Professor at University of Milan, provide an assessment of “Regulatory Measures, Standards of Treatment and the Law Applicable to Investment Disputes” (in English).

The relationship between State regulatory measures and the international standards of protection for foreign investments has proved to be a critical issue in investor-State arbitration. Normally, two legal systems are involved: the legal order of the State hosting the investment is competent to govern economic activities (including those of foreign investors) carried out on its territory, and the international legal order sets forth the duties of States in respect of foreign investors. After having discussed the basis for, and the law applicable to, investment claims (both in treaty and in contract claims), this article examines the interplay between regulatory measures and the international standards of protection for foreign investments, i.e., indirect expropriation and fair and equitable treatment. The authors also analyse the influence on the arbitrator’s evaluation of the presence of a stabilization clause in the agreement between the State and the investor.

In addition to the foregoing, the following comments are also featured:

Fabrizio Vismara (Associate Professor at the University of Insubria), “Assistenza amministrativa tra Stati membri dell’Unione europea e titolo esecutivo in materia fiscale” (Administrative Assistance between EU Member States and Enforcement Order in Fiscal Matters; in Italian)

The Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, issued under Articles 113 and 115 of the TFEU, was implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 149 of 14 August 2012. The Directive introduces a uniform instrument to be used for enforcement measures to recover claims in another Member State, and realizes a system of implementing decisions in tax matters typically excluded from judicial cooperation on civil matters. Directive 2010/24/EU provides that enforcement in other Member States is permitted by means of a uniform instrument which is automatically valid in the requested Member State. The automatic recognition provided for by Directive 2010/24/EU is different from the abolition of exequatur in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters provided by, respectively, Regulation No 805/2004, Regulation No 1896/2006, Regulation No 861/2007, and Regulation No 1215/2012. Directive 2010/24/EU sets out a new instrument, named uniform instrument, which is subject to automatic recognition and it is formally distinct from the initial instrument permitting enforcement issued in the applicant Member State.

Lidia Sandrini (Researcher at the University of Milan), “La compatibilità del regolamento (CE) n. 261/2004 con la convenzione di Montreal del 1999 in una recente pronuncia della Corte di giustizia” (Compatibility of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 with the 1999 Montreal Convention in a Recent Judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union; in Italian)

This article addresses Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in so far as it deals with delay in the carriage of passengers by air, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the joined cases Nelson and TUI Travel. It considers whether this recent judgment is consistent with the Montreal Convention of 1999 reaching the overall conclusion that it is not. This unsatisfactory result is due to purpose of ensuring a level of protection for passenger higher than that provided by the international uniform rules. This aim has been achieved affirming the interpretation of the Regulation provided in the Sturgeon case, in which the Court went far beyond the wording of the Regulation, and in the IATA case, in which the Court advanced an untenable and ambiguous construction of the relationship between the Montreal Convention and Regulation No 261/2004. Conversely, in deciding the joined cases, the Court neglected its duty to interpret according to the proper criteria provided by international law the treaties ratified by the EU, and failed to ensure that the EU respect its duty as contracting party.

Indexes and archives of the RDIPP since its establishment (1965) are available on the website of the Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law of the University of Milan.

Stacie Strong (University of Missouri School of Law) has posted Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. §1782: Distinguishing International Commercial Arbitration and International Investment Arbitration on SSRN.

For many years, courts, commentators and counsel agreed that 28 U.S.C. §1782 – a somewhat extraordinary procedural device that allows U.S. courts to order discovery in the United States “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” – did not apply to disputes involving international arbitration. However, that presumption has come under challenge in recent years, particularly in the realm of investment arbitration, where the Chevron-Ecuador dispute has made Section 1782 requests a commonplace procedure. This Article takes a rigorous look at both the history and the future of Section 1782 in international arbitration, taking care to distinguish between requests made in the context of international commercial arbitration and requests made in the context of international investment arbitration. In so doing, the Article considers issues relating to grants of jurisdiction, state interests and standard interpretive canons.

The paper is forthcoming in the Stanford J. of Complex Litigation.

The second issue of International and Comparative Law Quarterly for 2013 includes three articles exploring private international law issues and a case commentary of the VALE Építési Kft decision of the European Court of Justice.

Building on the very successful Journal of Private International Law conferences in Aberdeen (2005), Birmingham (2007), New York (2009), and Milan (2011) the 5th Conference of the Journal will take place in Madrid on 12-13 September 2013. The organization of the Conference is shared by the Law Faculties of Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and Universidad Complutense. The Programme is reproduced in full below. All of the details on venue, accommodation and registration can be found on the conference website.

The Programme

Thursday 12^th  September 2013

9.00 – 9.30 Registration

9.30 – 10.00 Welcome session (J. Harris + local judicial or academic authorities)

10.00 – 11.30 Panels 

Group 1 – MINORS & NAME

Group 2 – CODIFICATION

Group 3 – TORTS – JURISDICTION

Group 4 – ARBITRATION

11.30 – 12.00 Coffee Break

12.00 – 13.30 Panels

Group 5 – MARRIAGE & MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY

Group 6 – GENERAL PIL

Group 7 – RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE EU

Group 8 – COMPANY LAW & FINANCE

13.30 – 15.00 Lunch (a short guided visit to “La Corrala” will be available at 14.30)

15.00 – 16.30 Panels

Group 9 – SUCCESSION

Group 10 – CONTRACTS

Group 11 – BRUSSELS I RECAST – JURISDICTION

Group 12 – JURISDICTION & ENFORCEMENT

16.30 – 17.00 Coffee Break

17.00 – 18.30 Panels

Group 13 – TORTS- APPLICABLE LAW

Group 14 – INSOLVENCY

Group 15 – SALES/CESL

20.30 Conference Dinner in Pabellón de los Jardines de Cecilio Rodríguez (El Retiro)         

Friday 13^th  September 2013

9.30 -11.00  Plenary session I RECOGNITION & ENFORCEMENT

Chair: Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez

11.15 -11.45  Coffee break

11.45 – 13.15  Plenary session II CONTRACTS & TORTS

Chair: Pedro A. De Miguel Asensio

13.30 – 15.00  Lunch

15.00 -16.30  Plenary session III GLOBAL LITIGATION

Chair: Paul Beaumont

16.30 -17.00 Coffee Break

17.00 -18.00 Conference by A.G. Pedro Cruz Villalón

18.00 – 18.30  Concluding remarks and closing words by P. Beaumont