Views
UK Supreme Court in Jalla v Shell: the claim in Bonga spill is time barred
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. This was a one-off event and not a continuing nuisance. The Nigerian landowners’ claim against Shell was thus barred by the limitation periods under applicable Nigerian law (Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and another [2023] UKSC 16, on appeal from [2021] EWCA Civ 63).
On 10 May 2023, the UK Supreme Court has ruled in one of the cases in the series of legal battles started against Shell in the English courts in the aftermath of the Bonga spill. The relevant facts are summarized by the UK Supreme Court as follows at [6] and [7]:
Data on Choice-of-Court Clause Enforcement in US
The United States legal system is immensely complex. There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. When I imagine a foreign lawyer trying to explain this system to a foreign client, my heart fills with pity.
This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States. The law on this subject is complicated. It is, moreover, not easy to determine how it is applied in practice. Are there differences in clause enforcement rates across the states? Across federal circuits? Do state courts enforce these clauses at the same rate as federal courts? Until recently, there was no data that would allow a foreign lawyer – or a U.S. lawyer, for that matter – to answer any of these questions.
Over the past several years, I have authored or co-authored several empirical articles that seek to answer the questions posed above. This post provides a summary of the data gathered for these articles. All of the cases referenced involve outbound choice-of-court clauses, i.e. clauses that select a jurisdiction other than the one where the suit was filed. Readers interested in the data collection process, the caveats to which the data is subject, or other methodological issues should consult the articles and their appendices. This post first describes state court practice. It then describes federal court practice. It concludes with a brief discussion comparing the two.
Polish Constitutional Court about to review the constitutionality of the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign State?
Written by Zuzanna Nowicka, lawyer at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and lecturer at Department of Logic and Legal Argumentation at University of Warsaw
In the aftermath of the judgment of the ICJ of 2012 in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) that needs no presentation here (for details see, in particular, the post by Burkhard Hess), by its judgment of 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court recognized the duty of Italy to comply with the ICJ judgment of 2012 but subjected that duty to the “fundamental principle of judicial protection of fundamental rights” under Italian constitutional law (for a more detailed account of those developments see this post on EAPIL by Pietro Franzina and further references detailed there). In a nutshell, according to the Italian Constitutional Court, the fundamental human rights cannot be automatically and unconditionally sacrificed in each and every case in order to uphold the jurisdiction immunity of a foreign State allegedly responsible for serious international crimes.
Since then, the Italian courts have reasserted their jurisdiction in such cases, in some even going so far as to decide on the substance and award compensation from Germany. The saga continues, as Germany took Italy to the ICJ again in 2022 (for the status of the case pending before the ICJ see here). It even seems not to end there as it can be provocatively argued that this saga has its spin-off currently taking place before the Polish courts.
News
ELI Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice: 14 February in Vienna
The European Law Institute (ELI) Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters project is organising its dissemination conference in Vienna on 14 February. At this all-day event (9.00 to 18.00) experts will present their country reports, comparative findings and policy recommendations, in order to discuss these with the audience.
The project investigated the phenomenon that family and succession law matters are increasingly submitted to other authorities than courts. It seeks a to establish a harmonised concept of “courts” in the EU, taking into account the CJEU case law.
More information and the registration form are available on the ELI website.
Virtual Workshop (in English) on February 4: Pietro Franzina on “EU Private International Law at a Time of ‘Broken Multilateralism’ and Growing Geo-Political Tensions”
On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) will speak, in English, about the topic
“EU Private International Law at a Time of ‘Broken Multilateralism’ and Growing Geo-Political Tensions”
Multilateralism is in crisis. The role of world organisations in international politics and law-making is increasingly being questioned, as some key actors in the global arena no longer consider cooperation and collective action the best way to address common concerns. While multilateralism is not obsolete, let alone ‘dead’, as some claim, there is a growing consensus that current governance schemes need profound reconsideration. The EU, multilateralism’s staunchest defender, is especially exposed to these developments. While the evolution of multilateralism is set to affect all areas of international cooperation, each field has, arguably, its specificities. What features does cooperation in the field of private international law display in this regard? How can the crisis of multilateralism influence the way in which the EU deals with judicial cooperation, be it through its legislation, in the relations with its neighbours and at the global level? What structural changes are under way in global fora, such as the HCCH, and what is their impact on the EU’s own agenda and methods of work?
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
Out now: Buxbaum, “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” (Ius Comparatum)
In an increasingly interconnected world, the application of laws by States beyond their territorial borders is an everyday reality. Yet, almost a century after the (still) leading findings by the PCIJ in the Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, the details of the concept of “extraterritoriality” remain elusive, and one can easily get lost in the multitude of national practices, ranging from “presumptions against extraterritoriality” to be found mostly in federal systems (mostly for sub-units) to “effects doctrines” and the like in certain areas of law such as e.g. (early) in Germany, (later) in the EU’s competition law and today many other jurisdictions, in particular in Asia.
Given this complexity, this latest publication of the Ius Comparatum Series on “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” edited by Hannah L. Buxbaum offers a great deal of valuable guidance and insights. Featuring the reports from the most recent IACL/AIDC General Congress in Asunción, the volume provides the reader with unique insights by renowned legal scholars into the practices of 14 national jurisdictions (inter alia China, Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.) and the the European Union (EU). As is explained in the preface to the book:
Much of the vast scholarly literature on extraterritoriality approaches the topic from the outside in, assessing the extraterritorial projection of state law from the perspective of international law and the constraints it places on state authority. The goal of this project is to approach the topic from the inside out. Considering a range of legal systems, the authors investigate the geographic scope that states claim for their own laws, and the mechanisms by which states translate and locally implement principles of international jurisdictional law.