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
New issue alert: RabelsZ 89(2005)
Issue 1/2025 of RabelsZ has just just been released. It contains the contributions to a family law symposium held at the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg in June 2024. All content is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 and more articles are available Online First.
Anne Röthel, Preface to this family law special, pp. 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2025-0003
AMEDIP’s upcoming webinar: Private International Law in the Inter-American system: A glance in the light of the 50 anniversary of the CIDIP (27 February 2025 – in Spanish)
The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on Thursday 27 February 2025 at 14:30 (Mexico City time – CST), 21:30 (CET time). The topic of the webinar is ‘Private International Law in the Inter-American system: A glance in the light of the 50 anniversary of the CIDIP’ and will be presented by OAS Director Dante Negro (in Spanish).
CIDIP is the Spanish acronym for the Inter-American Specialized Conferences on Private International Law. For a history of the CIDIP, click here. Read more
Book Launch: Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law – Oxford, March 19, 4pm-6pm
In 2024, Oxford University Press published Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law, edited by Roxana Banu, Michael S Green, and Ralf Michaels. The book represents the first inter-disciplinary engagement with questions of private international law from a philosophical perspective, covers a wide range of philosophical questions in private international law and brings philosophers in conversation with private international law scholars to demystify the analytical tools of each discipline in relationship to the other. More information on the book, including a table of contents, is here.
Now, Oxford University is organizing a hybrid book launch on March 19, 4pm-6pm. An introduction from the Editors will be followed by a discussion on key themes by Gabriel Encinas, Verónica Ruiz Abu-Nigm, Robert Stevens, Antonios Tzanakopoulos, and Emmanuel Voyiakis. More information on the event and on how to sign up for physical or virtual participation is here.