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
[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.