The law school of the Paris Institute of Political Science (Sciences Po) is seeking to recruit a professor of private international law.

Sciences Po Law School is advertising an open position for a professor of private international law (with public employee status). The expected starting date is September 1st, 2012.

Profile of Researcher and Teacher

Sciences Po Law School is looking for a professor of economic international law. The chosen candidate will be granted a teaching position at the Law School and within the University College of Sciences Po. He or she will conduct research with the faculty at the Law School, specifically in the field of international economic law, international arbitration, and international private law.

The chosen candidate must provide proof of research at an internationally recognized level at the forefront of these academic fields. The chosen candidate will be open to multidisciplinary research and will have to demonstrate an aptitude for collaborating with researchers outside of the field of law. The chosen candidate will also contribute to the creation of agreements with partners outside of Sciences Po.

The chosen candidate will have solid teaching experience and will have had demonstrated a capacity for innovation that matches the teaching model implemented by Sciences Po Law School.

Conditions for Recruitment

Because the position is a public employment position, all candidates must apply using the “Galaxie” portal through the French Ministry of Higher Education. All applications must be received within a month starting from the date of the position’s publication, which is expected to April 5, 2012

In addition to the required materials mentioned on the “Galaxie” portal, all applications must include:

– cover letter addressed to Professor Horatia Muir Watt, Head of the admissions committee
– comprehensive curriculum vitae that includes the list of all past research
– a short-form resume
– Three research samples that demonstrate the candidate’s aptitude for multidisciplinary legal research (maximum of 5 articles and/or books).

Candidates must send these documents to the address below:

Sciences Po – DRH Pôle académique
27 rue Saint Guillaume
75007 Paris

All applications will be carefully examined by an admissions committee as per the requirements laid out by the law 2007-1199 of August 10, 2007 concerning the public employment of teachers. An initial selection round will take place mid June. Those candidates whose applications are retained will be invited to an interview before the members of the admissions committee and the academic community of Sciences Po first weeks of July; the candidate will freely choose the subject of his presentation among his most recent research. He will then be interviewed by the admissions committee on his project both in research and teaching at Sciences Po.

Following the interviews, Sciences Po will make a final offer to the selected candidate.

Another win for the West Tankers’ team in the latest round of the long running litigation. In a decision delivered on 4 April 2012 ([2012] EWHC 854 (Comm)), Flaux J held that EU law (specifically, the decision of the CJEU in West Tankers (Case C-185/07)) did not exclude the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to award damages (specifically, equitable damages) for breach of an arbitration agreement by the bringing of proceedings before a national (Italian) court.

In his Lordship’s view (para. 68):

“In my judgment, arbitration falls outside the Regulation and an arbitral tribunal is not bound to give effect to the principle of effective judicial protection. It follows that the tribunal was wrong to conclude that it did not have jurisdiction to make an award of damages for breach of the obligation to arbitrate or for an indemnity.”

On Friday 27 April 2012, an international symposium will be held in Brussels on “Cross-Border Class Actions: The European Way”. The symposium is part of an inter-university research project on judicial cooperation in regulatory matters and consumer protection. The event will be held at the Stanhope hotel, within a walking distance from the European Commission headquarters. Full details and registration form can be found online.

The programme is as follows:

9:00- 9:15: Welcome Speech

Andrée Puttemans, Dean of the Law Faculty of Université Libre de Bruxelles

Introduction to the conference

Arnaud Nuyts, Université Libre de Bruxelles

Part I – Aggregate Litigation as a New Regulatory Technique

Chair: George Arestis, Judge, European Court of Justice

9:15- 9:40: A Model Typology of Class Actions

Michael Karayanni, Hebrew University 

9:40- 10:20: Introducing a EU Regime for Collective Redress Litigation – The State of Play

• Maciej Szpunar, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (PL), University of Silesia,
• Lukasz Gorywoda, Université Libre de Bruxelles

 10:20-10:45: Collective Redress in the Post-Regulatory State

Horatia Muir Watt, Science-Po Paris

Part II – EU Cross-Border Collective Redress Litigation

Chair: Alexander Layton QC, 20 Essex Street, London

11:25-11:50: Collective Redress and the Brussels I Jurisdictional Model

Burkhard Hess, University of Heidelberg

11:50-12:15: The Consolidation of Collective Claims under Brussels I

Arnaud Nuyts, Université Libre de Bruxelles

12:15-12:40: Recognition, Enforcement and Collective Judgments

Richard Fentiman, University of Cambridge

Luch time: Keynote Speech

Salla Saastamoinen, European Commission

14:10-14:50: The Worldwide Reach of US Class Actions

• Ralf Michaels, Duke University
• Louise Ellen Teitz, Roger Williams University, Hague Conference

14:50-15:10: Collective Redress and Arbitration

Luca Radicati di Brozolo, Catholic University of Milano

Part III – Cross-Border Collective Redress in Specific Fields

Chair: Hakim Boularbah, Université Libre de Bruxelles

15:30-16:10: Collective Redress and Competition Policy

• Michael Hellner, University of Stockholm
• Lia Athanassiou, University of Athens

16:10-16:50: Collective Redress and Consumer Protection

• Cristina González Beilfuss, University of Barcelona
• Malgorzata Posnow, Université Libre de Bruxelles

16:50-17:30: Collective Redress and Financial Markets

• Anna Gardella, Catholic University of Milano
• Charalambos Savvides, University of Cyprus

18:00: Conclusions – Collective Redress and Global Governance

Nikitas Hatzimihail, University of Cyprus,

One year after the expiry of the deadline set by the Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 January 2009, on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday products, resale and exchange contracts,  the Spanish legislator has transposed it through the Royal Decree-Law 8/2012 of 16 March (BOE of March, 17), already in force. The Time-sharing Act (Act 42/1998 of 15 December) is repealed.

In addition to some rules on the language of pre-contractual information and the contract itself, Art. 17, entitled “Rules of private international law”, states that when according with the Rome I Regulation the applicable law is the of a non-member State of the EEA, the consumer may invoke the legal protection granted by the Royal Decree-Law in the following cases:

a) When the any of the inmovable properties concerned is located whithin the territory of a Member State of the European Economic Area.

b) In the case of a contract not directly related to immovable property, if the trader pursues commercial or professional activities in a Member State or by any means directs such activities to a Member State and the contract falls within the scope of such activities

Also on the applicable law, Annexes I to IV provide for standard forms for different types of contracts which include the following standard term: “In accordance with private international law, the contract may be governed by a law other than the law of the Member State in which the consumer is resident or is habitually domiciled, and disputes may be referred to courts other than those of the Member State in which the consumer has his habitual residence or domicile “

Art. 20 provides for the submission to arbitration and other ADR methods included in the list published by the European Commission on ADR for consumers contracts.

On October 31st, 2011, the Swiss Federal Tribunal ruled again that English freezing (formerly Mareva) orders may be declared enforceable in Switzerland.

The judgment was delivered in German, but it is usefully presented in English by Matthias Scherer and Simone Nadelhofer (Lalive) at the Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

The most interesting contribution of the case is to address the issue of whether obtaining a declaration of enforceability is conditional upon the plaintiff showing that he has a legitimate interest in seeking such declaration. The argument against the existence of such interest was that Swiss banks typically comply with English world wide freezing orders voluntarily. The Federal Court held that this did not prevent plaintiffs from seeking a declaration.  According to Scherer and Nadelhofer:

According to the Supreme Court, the Lugano Convention 1988 does not require that a party shows a legitimate interest in obtaining a declaration of enforceability of a freezing order. Furthermore, the (Swiss) bank’s voluntary compliance with a foreign freezing order is no obstacle to the claimant’s right to have the order declared enforceable. Indeed, once the claimant obtains such a declaration, the foreign freezing order is treated as if it were a Swiss decision. The recognition of a foreign judgment thus results in its equal treatment with domestic judgments. The declaration of enforceability by domestic courts further allows for a facilitated enforcement procedure.

Please see below for a call for proposals for a conference to be held 20-22 June 2012

————————————

Call for Proposals – Collective Redress in the Cross-Border Context

Large-scale international legal injuries are becoming increasingly prevalent in today’s globalized economy, whether they arise in the context of consumer, commercial, contract, tort or securities law, and countries are struggling to find appropriate means of providing collective redress, particularly in the cross-border context.  The Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law (HiiL), along with the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS), will be responding to this new and developing challenge by convening a two-day event on the theme “Collective Redress in the Cross-Border Context:  Arbitration, Litigation, Settlement and Beyond.”  The event includes two different elements – a workshop on 21-22 June 2012 comprised of invited speakers from all over the world as well as a works-in-progress conference on 20-21 June 2012 designed to allow practitioners and scholars who are interested in the area of collective redress to discuss their work and ideas in the company of other experts in the field.  Both events are organized by the Henry G. Schermers Fellow for 2012, Professor S.I. Strong of the University of Missouri School of Law.

Persons interested in being considered as presenters for the works-in-progress conference should submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to Professor S.I. Strong at strongsi@missouri.edu on or before 1 May 2012.  Decisions regarding accepted proposals will be made in early May, and those whose proposals are accepted for the works-in-progress conference will need to submit a draft paper by 4 June 2012 for discussion at the conference.  All works-in-progress submissions should explore one or more of the various means of resolving collective injuries, including class and collective arbitration, mass arbitration and mass claims processes, class and collective litigation, and large-scale settlement and mediation, preferably in a cross-border context.  Junior scholars in particular are encouraged to submit proposals for consideration.

Persons presenting at the works-in-progress conference will have to bear their own costs, since there is no funding available to assist with travel and other expenses.  The works-in-progress conference will be held on 20 and 21 June 2012 at NIAS, Meijboomlaan 1, 2242 PR Wassenaar, The Netherlands.  Wassenaar is approximately 20 minutes from The Hague by car.  The workshop of invited speakers will be held on 21 and 22 June, also at NIAS.

Both the Schermers workshop and the works-in-progress conference are open to the public, although advance registration is required.  More information on both events is available at the HiiL website (www.hiil.org) or from Professor Strong at strongsi@missouri.edu.

Contact:  Prof. S.I. Strong at strongsi@missouri.edu

Deadline for proposals:  1 May 2012

For more on the Henry G. Schermers Fellowship at HiiL/NIAS, see:  http://www.hiil.org/organ-bios/prof-s-i-strong

Recently, the March/April issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was published.

• Gerhard Hohloch:” Die „Bereichsausnahmen“ der Rom II-VO – Zum Internationalen Privatrecht in und um Art. 1 Abs. 2 Rom II-VO” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The scope of applicability of the regulation “Rome II” is governed by its art. 1. Art. 1 subpara. 1 defines this scope as the matter of “non-contractual obligations”, art. 1 subpara. 2 traces the limits of this scope by a catalogue of “excepted areas” (lit. a–g). The subsequent article hereinafter has been dedicated to the research of the limits of these “excepted areas” as well as the conflict of laws rules governing these areas. The author underlines that art. 1 subpara. 2 has to be understood on the basis of “European law making”; therefore methods of classification have to follow European, not “national” ideas. The program of harmonization and unification of conflicts of laws (“Rome I”–“Rome V” and more) obliges to describe the scope of each regulation. The “excepted areas” are defined by methods of interpretation of European style, meanwhile their contents are governed by European conflict rules (“Rome I–III”) or by conflict rules based on multilateral conventions or by “national rules”. The author discusses their “border lines” and goes on to the residuary competences of national conflict rules and to look for the future development.

• Dieter Martiny: “Lex rei sitae as a connecting factor in EU Private International Law” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The situs rule is one of the classic connecting principles in private international law, particularly for property law. In European conflict law, which is mainly regulated by different Regulations, the lex rei sitae only plays a restricted role as a connecting factor. Property issues are generally outside the scope of the Regulations. In international civil procedure the situs functions as a basis for exclusive jurisdiction. It is, however, difficult to separate the effects of relationships in contract law, succession and matrimonial property law from questions of property law as such. In international contract law the situs has only a reduced importance in the context of the form of the contract and overriding mandatory rules. Since there is a lack of harmonised property law, problems arise mainly in the context of non-possessory security rights when encumbered assets cross the border. The plethora of problems arising from a change of the applicable law and the recognition of foreign security rights suggest that the creation of an additional uniform security right might be more successful than a solution restricted to private international law.
The scission or dualist approach in matrimonial property law and succession law with its distinction between the law applicable to the person (and movable property) and the law applicable to immovables (the lex rei sitae applying as to the latter) is not followed by the proposed EU Regulations for succession and matrimonial property. However, it is necessary to a certain extent that the law of the place where property is located be applied or at least be taken into account. Property rights in rem, transfer of land and land registers have to be excluded from the scope of application of the EU instruments so long as there is no uniform law. For some separate issues a special connection to the place of location of property is appropriate. Precise definitions are of particular importance given the need to ensure legal certainty and satisfy the expectations of parties.

• Christoph Reithmann on foreign notarial deeds: “Urkunden ausländischer Notare in inländischen Verfahren”

• Timo Nehne: “Die Internationale Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag nach der Rom II-Verordnung – Anknüpfungsgegenstand und Anknüpfungspunkte” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The choice of law rules of the Rome II Regulation have so far been dealt with by a remarkable number of scholarly publications in different countries and languages. Most of them, however, pay only little attention to Article 11. Its legal category and connecting factors give rise to specific questions of construction and application which the following contribution aims to address.

• Susanne Fucks: “Die Zustellungsbevollmächtigung von inländischen Schadensregulierungsbeauftragten ausländischer Kraftfahrzeughaftpflichtversicherer” – the English abstract reads as follows:

According to Art. 4 of the 4th Motor Insurance Directive all motor vehicle insurers are required to appoint a claims representative in each Member State other than that in which they have received their official authorisation. The claims representative should be authorised to collect all necessary information in relation to claims and to take appropriate action regarding the settlement of claims on behalf and for the account of the insurance undertaking in cases where the victim of a motor vehicle accident abroad makes use of his or her direct right of action against the foreign insurance company. If the claim is not settled the insurance company may be sued before the courts for the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled.
This article discusses the decision made by the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken, which concluded that the service of the writ cannot be effected to the claims representative if the representative is not explicitly authorised to receive such a statement of claim. The article attempts to give reasons why Art. 4 of the 4th Motor Insurance Directive suggests such an authorisation and a service of process abroad including the translation of the statement of claim according to the European Regulation on the service of documents is not necessary in that case.

• Peter Mankowski: “Autoritatives zum „Ausrichten“ unternehmerischer Tätigkeit unter Art. 15 Abs. 1 lit. c EuGVVO” – the English abstract reads as follows:

„Directing activities“ in Art. 15 (1) (c) Brussels I Regulation is the key term for the width and scope of consumer protection in Europe. Now, the ECJ has adressed and refined it with regard to the most important area, e-commerce. The Joint Declaration of Council and Commission has lost any sway. A test of criteria has been established, creating some guidelines but leaving some remaining uncertainty. Some of the criteria mentioned deserve closer inspection. Going beyond the borders of the State in which a business has its seat is the foundation for a rebutable presumption that the business directs its activities to the consumer’s State. The yardsticks developed in consumer protection law can be transferred to the PIL of unfair commercial practices.

• Heinz-Peter Mansel on the decision of the Disctrict Court Neustrelitz of 18 January 2011: “Rechtsprechungsübersicht zu AG Neustrelitz, Beschluss v. 18.1.2011 – 6 F 106/09”

•  Renata Fialho de Oliveira: “Die Zulässigkeit ausschließlicher internationaler Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen in Brasilien” – the English abstract reads as follows:

In the absence of an express legal rule providing for international choice of court agreements and its effects under Brazilian law, the subject has to be analysed considering the national general legal framework regarding international jurisdiction, legal writing and case law. As far as the latest is concerned, courts in Brazil have adopted in the last decades different approaches when it comes to the derogatory effects of exclusive choice of court agreements. The lack of a clear line of decision in such an important subject for international affairs is source of legal uncertainty. A recent decision of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça gives rise to a brief analysis of the subject in the following note.

• Michael Stürner: “Internationale Zuständigkeit für provisorische Rechtsöffnung nach LugÜ” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Pursuant to Article 22 No. 5 Brussels I Regulation/Lugano Convention 2007, in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced shall have exclusive jurisdiction. The jurisdictional concept of Brussels I/Lugano Convention is based on the assumption that proceedings can either qualify as being part of the enforcement stage or of the adjudication itself, the basis for such qualification being an autonomous interpretation. Given the multitude of different enforcement proceedings and recourses under national law it is not always clear if a particular type of proceeding falls within the scope of Article 22 No. 5 Brussels I/Lugano Convention. The decision of the Swiss Bundesgericht (Federal Supreme Court) of 7 October 2010 discussed here deals with the so-called provisorische Rechtsöffnung, which is a preliminary proceedings taking place before the actual enforcement proceedings. The Bundesgericht holds Article 22 No. 5 Brussels I/Lugano to be applicable, a decision, it is submitted here, which is to be criticised.

• Boris Kasolowsky/Magdalene Steup: “Dallah v Pakistan – Umfang und Grenzen der Kompetenz-Kompetenz von Schiedsgerichten” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The UK Supreme Court and the Paris Cour d’appel have recently confirmed, in connection with the ICC arbitration involving Dallah and Pakistan, that the national state courts are not bound by any determinations made by an arbitration tribunal with regard to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The arbitration tribunal’s Kompetenz-Kompetenz therefore remains subject to full review by the state courts at the recognition and enforcement stage. English and French courts have thus clarified that the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz is effectively just a rule of priority: the arbitration tribunal has the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction first and before any review by the national courts.

• David Diehl: “Keine Anwendbarkeit des US-amerikanischen Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act auf amtlich handelnde Individuen – Das Urteil des US Supreme Court in Samantar v. Yousuf” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) are the two main pillars of the Human Rights Litigation in the United States. While the former constitutes the sole basis for suits against foreign states, the latter is frequently invoked by courts to establish jurisdiction over foreign government officials. However, in Amerada Hess Shipping v. Argentina, the US Supreme Court decided that plaintiffs may only rely on the ATS if the FSIA does not apply to the given case. As the FSIA does not explicitly mention individuals, courts were faced with the question of whether they may be subsumed under the notion of the “state” directly (28 U.S.C. § 1603 (a)) or can be regarded as an “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” (28 U.S.C. § 1603 (b)) when acting in official capacity. Since the decision of the Court of Appeals in Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank, courts have regularly followed the latter interpretation. This interpretation however, has been challenged by other courts in recent years, leading to the decision of the Supreme Court in Samantar v. Yousuf. In this ATS case against the former prime minister of Somalia for torture and arbitrary killings, the highest US Court finally decided that the FSIA may not be read to include individuals at all. Instead, according to the Court, all immunity of foreign individuals is solely governed by the (federal) common law, possibly forcing the courts to determine the scope of individual immunity according to international law in future cases. This may have severe impacts on the Human Rights Litigation in the United States which this article sets out to explore.

• Fritz Sturm: “Schweizer Familiengut in Liechtensteiner Stiftungshut” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The assets of a family foundation regularly incorporated in Vaduz (Liechtenstein) have been spoiled by one of the managers of a credit institution in Geneva, where it had opened an account. The bank, however, refused to indemnify the foundation for its loss asserting that infringing the prohibition to create new family foundations (art. 335 sec. 2 Swiss Civil Code) the foundation as plaintiff could not be a subject of legal rights and duties. Following the Genevan instances, the Federal Court of Lausanne in a ruling dated 17/11/2009 rejected this argumentation. It stated that art. 18 Swiss Code of Private International Law can not be applied, the prohibition invoked not being intended to protect guiding principles of the Swiss social, political and economic policy.

• Hilmar Krüger: “Zum auf Schiffspfandrechte anzuwendenden Recht in der Türkei”

• Carl-Johan Malmqvist: “Die Qualifikation der Brautgabe im schwedischen IPR” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Sweden and Germany have become two multicultural countries with large Muslim minorities. This situation reflects on the court system and raises questions about some Muslim traditions and legal elements and their legal status within Swedish and German law. One example is the Mahr, the amount to be paid by the man to the woman at the time of marriage. This article is about the classification of Mahr according to German and Swedish law, but with main focus on the latter legal system. As part of this description, two basic Swedish cases regarding Mahr will be presented and analyzed and hopefully contribute to a clearer view on the Swedish standpoint on Mahr within the private international law.

• Karl Peter Puszkajler on the conference of the University of Belgrade: Current questions on international arbitration: “Aktuelle Fragen der Internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit – Tagung der Rechtsfakultät der Universität Belgrad”

The first issue of French Journal du droit international (Clunet) for 2012 was just released. It contains five articles and several casenotes.
Four articles explore private international law issues.

In the first one, María Mercedes Albornoz and Jacques Foyer (both from Paris II University) compare the Interamerican Convention on the law applicable to international contracts with the Rome I Regulation (Une relecture de la Convention interaméricaine sur la loi applicable aux contrats internationaux à la lumière du règlement « Rome I »). The English abstract reads:

The substantive and formal changes undergone by the Rome Convention as a result of its transformation into a European Community Regulation have altered the terms of comparison between the Rome and Mexico systems on the law applicable to international contracts. An analytical re-reading of the Inter-American Convention in the light of the Rome I Regulation shows that even if the Rome system may continue contributing to the interpretation of the Mexico system, Rome I’s introduction of new interpretive elements is limited.

In the second article, Gian Paolo Romano (University of Geneva) wonders whether private international law fits within Emmanuel Kant’s theory of justice (Le droit international privé à l’épreuve de la théorie kantienne de la justice).

Kant’s legal writings are becoming increasingly popular and so is the idea that Law purports to ensure consistency of the domains of external freedom of the rational agents – in Kant’s view : both individuals and States – so as to prevent or resolve conflicts, which are simultaneous and mutually incompatible claims asserted by two agents over the same domain of freedom. If it is commonly held that private international law is also centered around coordination, the Kantian account on how Law comes into existence, both at the national and international levels, suggests that what cross-border relations between private persons require is actually a twofold consistency, i.e. that of domains of external freedom of States, which freedom consists here in securing, through their national laws and adjudications, mutually consistent domains of external freedom of private persons which are parties to those relations. Positivism and natural law, liberty and necessity, universalism and particularism, multilateralism and unilateralism : those dualisms with which conflict of laws thinking and methodology has been grappling for some time also feature within the Kantian tradition and the way the latter manages to come to terms with them may assist the former in readjusting its paradigm. Which readjustment arguably mandates reconciling the contention that conflict of laws ultimately involves a conflict between States with the idea that conflicts between private persons are the only ones truly at stake here.

In the third article, Xavier Boucobza and Yves-Marie Serinet (both Paris Sud University) explore the consequences of a recent ruling of the Paris court of appeal on the application of human rights in international commercial arbitration (Les principes du procès équitable dans l’arbitrage international).

The affirmation of fundamental right to a fair hearing before the international arbitrator emerges clearly from the ruling handed down by the Paris Court of Appeals on November 17, 2011. The ruling states, in part, that arbitration decisions are not exempt from the principle according to which the right to a fair trial implies that a person may not be deprived of the concrete possibility of having a judge rule on his claims and, furthermore, that the principle of contradictory implies that all parties are in an equal position before the arbitrator. In light of of these principles, the decision taken in application of the rules of arbitration of the ICC to regard counter-claims as withdrawn because of the failure of the defendant to advance fees, constitutes an excessive measure because of the impecuniousness of the claimant.

The solution that emerges has positive implications from the point of view of the politics of arbitration. The guarantee of the right to arbitration, until now invoked in order to facilitate arbitration, has evolved into an actual duty, which is the corollary of the promotion of this form of settling claims. Ultimately, arbitration law can never be totally independent of and exempt from universally recognized fundamental principles.

Finally, Sandrine Maljean-Dubois (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) discusses the impact of international environmental norms on businesses (La portée des normes du droit international de l’environnement à l’égard des entreprises).

International environmental law must reach enterprises to be effective. It nevertheless grabs hold of them only imperfectly. While enterprises are among the final addressees of international rules, its apprehension by international law is generally indirect, requiring the mediation of domestic law. It is commonplace to say that in an international society made from States enterprises are secondary actors, « non-prescribers ». Though they are thirds to interstate relations, enterprises are actively involved. And though they do not have an international or internationalized status, enterprises can all the same enjoy rights or be subjected to obligations stemming from the interstate society by means of international law. In practice, international law makes them enjoy more rights than it lays down obligations. In spite of this, regulatory constraints on enterprises are increasing. Their forms and terms are varied. Traditional, interstate sources of international law are but one of the many layers of the « normative millefeuille » gripping enterprises. Newer – rather global or transnational – sources also regulate their activities. Paradoxically, binding law (customary and conventional law) only binds weakly, since it binds mediately. On the contrary, incentive law actually manages to grab hold of and to compel enterprises, complementing more traditional rules and instruments and under pressure of citizens-consumers-unions-shareholders-investors.

As part of a series of compendia on foreign commercial and business law in German language, a fully revised edition on English commercial and business law has just been released. The book is edited and authored (with two additional co-authors) by Volker Triebel, a German Rechtsanwalt and English barrister, Martin Illmer from the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg and Wolf-Georg Ringe, Stefan Vogenauer as well as Katja Ziegler, all from the University of Oxford.

The book attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of English commercial and business law while at the same time explaining and analyzing the differences between German and English business law as well as the increasing interfaces between English and European law. For readers of this blog the chapters on international civil procedure, private international law, international insolvency law and international arbitration, all written by Martin Illmer, may be of particular interest. They present the autonomous common law rules in these fields as well as the interfaces of the European regimes (such as Brussels I, Rome I, Rome II and the Insolvency Regulation) with English law which are often are only rarely covered. Other areas explored by the treatise are the legal sources of English commercial law, contract law (with sale of goods in particular), company law, labour law, insolvency law and competition law.

More information is available on the publisher’s website.

On Thursday 15 March 2012 the Hanenburg-Yntema Foundation convenes a seminar on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Mediation in China, with a focus on “People’s Mediation in China”.

The “Hanenburg-Yntema Fonds” is Belgian foundation, based at the University of Leuven, whose key goal is to promote academic research on the law of the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China on Taiwan (further info on the Foundation is available at www.hanenburg-yntemafonds.be).

To this end, the foundation offers a yearly prize of EUR 2.500 for a dissertation at master’s level on one of these topics. The prize is open to graduates of outstanding academic merit who are graduating from their initial master degree.  At the occasion of the price award ceremony the foundation uses to organize an expert seminar where the prize winner presents his/her thesis and where some renowned experts shed light on the topic of the thesis from connected angles. The prize for 2011 was awarded to Selina Schmidt, a Swiss student, for her excellent thesis on arbitration and mediation in the PRC (Die Rolle des Rechts in der Schlichtungspraxis in der VR China. Analyse einer Sammlung von ‘Volksschlichtungsfällen’). Accordingly the upcoming edition of the seminar will revolve around alternative dispute resolution.

The event will take place in Leuven; full programme is available at www.law.kuleuven.be/hyfonds/nl/mediation_2012.htm. The seminar starts at 16:00 and lasts until 19:15. The language will be English. Participation is free of charge, but previous registration is required at jacoba.hanenburg@law.kuleuven.be.

Many thanks to Dimitri Droshout for the tip.