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
Making private law resilient: The role of private litigation in a democracy – PhD scholarship at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany
Axel Halfmeier (Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany) has kindly shared the following advertisement for a 3-year PhD scholarship with us, which will be part of a research project on ‘Making private law resilient: The role of private litigation in a democracy’.
The research project will investigate the role of private litigation in a democracy, in particular collective litigation, public interest actions or strategic litigation. There is an ongoing discussion about these phenomena and whether they support deliberative democracy by empowering citizens or are anti-democratic in the sense that they transfer excessive power to the judiciary in political questions. To answer this question, normative (legal doctrine, legal theory, political theory) but also empirical approaches are possible. The project can also focus on specific areas of private law, such as media and data protection law, climate litigation, capital markets or tort law in general. The exact study design will be discussed with a view to the interests and qualifications of the candidate.
Application deadline is October 1st, 2025.
Further information on the ‘Embracing Transformation’ scholarships can be found here.
Further information on the specific research project on ‘Democratic Resilience’ is available here.
Questions may be directed to Axel Halfmeier.
HCCH Monthly Update: June 2025
Conventions & Instruments
On 17 June 2025, the Republic of Korea deposited its instrument of ratification of the 1993 Adoption Convention. With the ratification of the Republic of Korea, the 1993 Adoption Convention now has 107 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for the Republic of Korea on 1 October 2025. More information is available here.
On 30 June 2025, Denmark signed the 2007 Child Support Convention and deposited its instrument of approval of the Convention. With the approval of Denmark, 55 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. It will enter into force for Denmark on 1 October 2025. More information is available here.
Meetings & Events
On 5 June 2025, the first meeting of the Working Group established to finalise the Good Practices document relevant to the 1965 Service, 1970 Evidence, and 1980 Access to Justice Conventions was held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. More information is available here.
On 13 June 2025, the Working Party on Cross-Border Family Mediation in the Context of the Malta Process met online. More information is available here.
From 16 to 18 June 2025, the Experts’ Group on Digital Tokens met for the first time. More information is available here.
From 25 to 27June 2025, HCCH Asia Pacific Week 2025 was held in Seoul, co-hosted by the Republic of Korea and the HCCH. The conference brought together over 400 participants from across Asia and the Pacific and beyond for wide-ranging discussions on the most recent developments relating to the HCCH’s key Conventions and instruments, ongoing normative projects, and possible future work. More information is available here.
Other Developments
On 2 June 2025, the Host Seat Agreement between Morocco and the HCCH was signed in Rabat, establishing the Regional Office for Africa of the HCCH. More information is available here.
These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.