Views
Standard (and burden) of proof for jurisdiction agreements
Courts are often required to determine the existence or validity of jurisdiction agreements. This can raise the question of the applicable standard of proof. In common law jurisdictions, the question is not free from controversy. In particular, Stephen Pitel has argued on this very blog that jurisdiction clauses should be assessed on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to the “good arguable case” standard that is commonly applied (see, in more detail, Stephen Pitel and Jonathan de Vries “The Standard of Proof for Jurisdiction Clauses” (2008) 46 Canadian Business Law Journal 66). That is because the court’s determination on this question will ordinarily be final – it will not be revisited at trial.
China’s Draft Law on Foreign State Immunity—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.
In December 2022, Chinese lawmakers published a draft law on foreign state immunity, an English translation of which is now available. In a prior post, I looked at the draft law’s provisions on immunity from suit. I explained that the law would adopt the restrictive theory of foreign state immunity, bringing China’s position into alignment with most other countries.
In this post, I examine other important provisions of the draft law, including immunity from attachment and execution, service of process, default judgments, and foreign official immunity. These provisions generally follow the U.N. Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which China signed in 2005 but has not yet ratified.
China’s draft provisions on immunity from attachment and execution, service of process, and default judgments make sense. Applying the draft law to foreign officials, however, may have the effect of limiting the immunity that such officials would otherwise enjoy under customary international law. This is probably not what China intends, and lawmakers may wish to revisit those provisions before the law is finally adopted. Read more
What is a Judgment (in the context of Reg 655/2014)? – CJEU Case C-291/21 Starkinvest
Less than half a year after the CJEU’s decision in Case C-646/20 Senatsverwaltung für Inneres (discussed here by Krzysztof Pacula), the Court had to engage again with the question of what constitutes a “judgment” in the sense of an EU instrument in Case C-291/21 Starkinvest.
This time, the question arose in the context of Regulation 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. The regulation envisages two kinds of situation:
- The creditor has already obtained a “judgment” (Art. 7(1)): In this case, the creditor only needs to show that there is an urgent need for a protective measure to ensure that the judgment can be effectively enforced against the debtor.
- The creditor has not yet obtained a “judgment” (Art. 7(2)): In this case, the creditor also needs to show “that he is likely to succeed on the substance of his claim against the debtor”.
In Starkinvest, the claimant had obtained a decision from the Tribunal de commerce de Liège, Belgium, that ordered the debtor to cease seeling certain goods, subject to a penalty payment of EUR 2 500 per breach. On the basis of that decision, they later sought payment of EUR 85 000 in penalties, which they requested the referring court to secure through a European Account Preservation Order. Confronted with the question of how to characterise the initial decision in the context of the above dichotomie, the court referred the case to the CJEU.
News
Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property-Agenda
Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property Agenda
2025.2.28, UTC 8:00 – 12:15 (London Time)
| 8:00 – 8:05 | Opening Remarks | ||
| Zheng Tang | professor of Law, editor in chief, Chinese Journal of Transnational Law; Associate Dean, Wuhan University Academy of International Law and Global Governance | ||
| 8:05 – 8:45 | Keynote Address | ||
| Christa Roodt | Senior Lecturer of History of Art, University of Glasgow | ||
| Zhengxin Huo | Professor of Law, China University of Political Science and Law | ||
| Panel 1: Legal Mechanisms of Cross-Border Cultural Property Protection | |||
| 8:45 – 9:00 | Elena Moustaira | The contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the cross-border protection of Indigenous cultural heritage | |
| 9:00 – 9:15 | Yehya Badr | Restitution of stolen foreign cultural property and hurdles in choice of law | |
| 9:15 – 9:30 | Maggie Fleming Cacot | Forfeiture and freezing orders in transborder cultural property litigation | |
| 9:30 – 9:50 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
| Panel 2: Regional Practices and Challenges in Cultural Property Restitution | |||
| 9:50 – 10:05 | Andrzej’s Jakubowski | Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland | |
| 10:05 – 10:20 | Miroslaw Michal Sadowski | From freedom to restitution (with special focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone community) | |
| 10:20 – 10:35 | Ekin Omeroglu | The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Turkiye | |
| 10:35 – 10:50 | Ruida Chen | Restitution of cultural property in China: In search of a new paradigm for cross-border cultural property claims | |
| 10:50 – 11:10 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
| Panel 3: Looking to the Past and the Future | |||
| 11:10 – 11:25 | Dabbie De Girolamo | The Relevance of ADR for transnational cultural property disputes: A Survey and Analysis of China’s experience | |
| 11:25 – 11:40 | Andreas Giorgallis | Restitution of cultural objects unethically acquired during the colonial era: The intersection of Public and Private International Law | |
| 11:40 – 11:55 | Evelien Campfens | Evolving Legal Models of Restitution | |
| 11:55 – 12:15 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom.us/j/87424891864?pwd=8rHX72dmzi7FCDWWnm7F2n1OLIOFaC.1
Meeting ID: 874 2489 1864 Password: 574150
Giustizia consensuale No 2/2024: Abstracts
The second issue of 2024 of Giustizia consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:
Tommaso dalla Massara (Professor at Università Roma Tre), Per un’ermeneutica della certezza nel processo civile romano: tra regula iuris e determinazione pecuniaria (For a Hermeneutics of Certainty in the Roman Civil Process: Between Regula Iuris and Pecuniary Determination; in Italian).
This contribution offers a reflection on procedural certainty, starting from the Roman classical process. In particular, crucial is the idea that, in this procedural system, certainty is to be related to the rule of ‘condemnatio pecuniaria’. Thus, certainty is translated into the determinacy of the pecuniary sentence. What emerges is a peculiar way of understanding judicial activity, which is characterised by the alternativeness between the groundedness and groundlessness of the claim (si paret/si non paret oriented to a certum), as opposed to the hypothesis in which the assessment is left entirely to the judge.
Beatrice Ficcarelli (Associate Professor at the University of Florence), L’acquisizione di informazioni e «prove» nella negoziazione assistita da avvocati: la tessera che mancava (The Acquisition of Information and ‘Evidence’ in Negotiation Assisted by Lawyers: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle; in Italian). Read more
Call for Participants: Quo Vadis Preferential Law Approach? A Survey on the Interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation Across EU Member States
Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen) has shared the following call for participants with us:
Quo Vadis Preferential Law Approach? A Survey on the Interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation Across EU Member States
Project description:
The Rome I Regulation plays a crucial role in determining the applicable law in cross-border consumer contracts within the European Union. Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation allows parties to choose the governing law while ensuring that consumers do not lose the protection granted by mandatory provisions of the law that would apply in the absence of such a choice. Despite its significance, the interpretation of this provision varies across Member States, leading to questions about its practical coherence and effectiveness. Read more