We knew that the English and the French do not drive on the same side of the road. We also knew that they do not perceive arbitration in the same way. We now will also know that, when looking at the same evidence, they reach opposite conclusions. This is the lesson of reading together the judgments of the […]

The Paris Court of Appeal ruled yesterday on the action introduced by the Government of Pakistan to set aside the award which had ordered it to pay over USD 20 million to Dallah. The Court found that the arbitral tribunal had been right to retain jurisdiction in this case, and dismissed the action of Pakistan. We had

Erin A. O’Hara, who is a professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, and Larry E. Ribstein, who is a professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law, have posted Exit and the American Illness on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This essay, prepared for a book on the effect of regulatory, liability, and litigation inefficiencies on the global competitive position of the U.S., focuses on the role of the US federal system. We show that, although multiple US states offer significant potential for jurisdictional choice to address misguided or inappropriate law, this system is only a partial solution to these problems and can itself be a source of bad law and excessive litigiousness. Federal law and enforcement of contractual choice-of-law, choice-of-court, and arbitration clauses provide some, but only partial, relief. As a result, choice of law and jurisdiction rules potentially expose firms that do business nationally or internationally to oppressive law in any of the US states. Without reform of the rules regarding jurisdictional choice the US is losing an opportunity to exploit the edge in international competition it might get from its federal system.

The 

The long awaited