Views
Is this a Conflicts Case?
In Sharp v Autorité des marchés financiers, 2023 SCC 29 (available here) the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a Quebec administrative tribunal, the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal, can hear a proceeding brought by the administrative agency that regulates Quebec’s financial sector, the Autorité des marchés financiers, against four defendants who reside in British Columbia. The AMF alleged in the proceedings that the defendants had contravened the Quebec Securities Act.
The courts below, including a majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal, focused the analysis on s. 93 of the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers, CQLR, c. A-33.2, which grants the FMAT jurisdiction to make determinations under the Securities Act. They interpreted and applied this provision in light of Unifund Assurance Co. v Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40, a leading decision on the scope of application of provincial law, which held that a provincial regulatory scheme constitutionally applies to an out-of-province defendant when there is a “real and substantial connection”, also described as a “sufficient connection”, between the province and the defendant. This test was met on the facts [see para 22] and so the FMAT had jurisdiction. This analysis is not generally understood as being within the field of conflict of laws. Indeed, the majority of the Court of Appeal “saw no conflict of jurisdiction or any conflict of laws that would require the application of private international law rules to this case” [see para 29].
How to Criticize U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Part II)
Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law.
There are better and worse ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In Part I of this post, I discussed some shortcomings of a February 2023 report by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils.” I pointed out that the report’s use of the phrase “long-arm jurisdiction” confuses extraterritorial jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction. I noted that China applies its own laws extraterritorially on the same bases that it criticizes the United States for using. I argued that the report ignores significant constraints that U.S. courts impose on the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. And I suggested that China had chosen to emphasize weak examples of U.S. extraterritoriality, such as the bribery prosecution of Frédéric Pierucci, which was not even extraterritorial.
In this post, I suggest some better ways of criticizing U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. Specifically, I discuss three cases in which the extraterritorial application of U.S. law appears to violate customary international law rules on jurisdiction to prescribe: (1) the indictment of Huawei executive Wanzhou Meng; (2) the application of U.S. sanctions based solely on clearing dollar transactions through U.S. banks; and (3) the application of U.S. export controls to foreign companies abroad based on “Foreign Direct Product” Rules. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report complains a lot about U.S. sanctions, but not about the kind of sanctions that most clearly violates international law. The report says much less about export controls and nothing about Meng’s indictment, which is odd given the tensions that both have caused between China and the United States. Read more
How to Criticize U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Part I)
Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law.
China has been critical of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In February, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a report entitled “The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils.” In the report, the Ministry complained about U.S. secondary sanctions, the discovery of evidence abroad, the Helms-Burton Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction in criminal cases. The report claimed that U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction has caused “severe harm … to the international political and economic order and the international rule of law.”
There are better and worse ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report pursues some of the worse ways and neglects some better ones. In this post, I discuss a few of the report’s shortcoming. In a second post, I discuss stronger arguments that one could make against U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. Read more
News
Open Position as a Research Associate at Freiburg University
The Institute for Comparative and Private International Law (Department 3) at Freiburg University (Germany) is seeking a Research Associate (m/f/d), 26%, to begin as soon as possible. Read more
ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 2/2025
A new issue of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht is now available and includes contributions on EU private law, comparative law and legal history, legal unification, private international law, and individual European private law regimes. The full table of content can be accessed here.
The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:
- Anspruchsverjährung im deutsch-spanischen Rechtsverkehr
David Cuenca Pinkert and Alexander Kronenberg on the statute of limitation in cross-border situations involving Germany and Spain: Against the background of the relevance of the application of foreign law in practice, the article analyses the institute of the statute of limitations under Spanish substantive law and also deals with similarities and differences to German law as well as selective references to conflict of laws and particularities. Due to its practical relevance, the article focuses on the treatment of the limitation period for tortious claims for damages, especially as a result of road traffic accidents. - EGMR „Klimaseniorinnen“ – Konsequenzen für private Klimaklagen?
Marc-Philippe Weller and Franka Weckner comments on the decision by the ECtHR in Klimaseniorinnen and discuss the consequences of this decision for climate litigation brought before civil courts.
ABLI-HCCH webinar: Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence (10 July 2025)
Written by Catherine Shen, Senior Assistant Director, ABLI
Following successful sessions in 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Singapore-based Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) return after a one-year hiatus with their fourth joint webinar, this time on electronic service of documents and remote taking of evidence.
Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence, the webinar will take place on Thursday 10 July between 5 to 6:10pm (Singapore time) or 11am to 12:10 noon (CEST), and is expected to discuss, among others, electronic transmission of requests under the Service Convention, such as the use of IT for communication among Central Authorities and other competent authorities, service by electronic means across different jurisdictions, and remote taking of evidence by video-link and electronic evidence under the Evidence Convention.
Invited speakers include Melissa Ford, Secretary of HCCH, Lucinda Orr, Partner of Enyo Law LLP, Justice Anselmo Reyes, International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court, and Dr Xu Guojian, Senior Partner of SGLA Law Firm.
More about the webinar and its speakers can be found in the flyer.
For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 10 June. Queries about the webinar can be directed to Catherine of ABLI at abli_info@abli.asia.