Search

Systemic validity has been criticised based on its supposed inability to account for the validity of so-called extra systemic norms and unconstitutional statutes. The article argues that these criticisms are not sound by demonstrating that no truly extra-systemic norm is actually recognised as valid within the legal system and by claiming that there is nothing non-systemic with unconstitutional statutes. On the other hand, with respect to norms of public international law, foreign law applied in cases of conflict of laws and the norms of the former legal system, what is concerned is not the incorporation of the norms themselves, but the contents thereof. This means that there is a norm within the legal system identical in content with an actual extra-systemic norm. This content-based incorporation is usually carried out with two different methods respectively called 'dynamic' and 'static' incorporation and neither case provides a challenge for the understanding of systemic validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the application by U.S. federal courts of rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the litigation of foreign law, including the factors adversely affecting the rule's utilization like the use of expert testimony.

The newest and gradually evolving trends in global law-making have been defined by an ever increasing interplay between rules and principles of different legal orders and between national legal orders and international legal order. References in national constitutions to the binding force of international law within the domestic sphere and sometimes the primacy of such internationally-made law over national laws are now a widespread and unsurprising phenomenon. Clauses referring to international human rights, including direct applicability of specific international human rights instruments, also to international organizations such as the UN, or accession to new international organizations, including transfer of sovereignty, can also be found in a significant variety of cases. The most unique feature of these trends could, however, be the establishment of national constitutional and legal order based on, or modeled after, international law and comparative law. At a broader constitutional level, for example, the international community has played a pivotal role in the style and substance of the constitutions of a number of post-conflict, newly-formed or transformed societies (e. g., Constitutions of Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Africa, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, and South Sudan). This process of constitution-making influenced by, based on, or modeled after, international law, has unique features that resonate with a cosmopolitan constitutional law-making. This paper seeks to understand the contours of this phenomenon, ascribe the proper value, and identify the degree to which contemporary constitution-making conforms to the original ideals of cosmopolitanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado is the property of Iprolex SL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines the extent of party autonomy in determining the norms that apply to the substance of a commercial dispute in arbitration. Particularly, it analyses 'principles of law,' the normative basis for arbitration under Ethiopian law. The article further explores whether parties to arbitration are at liberty to mandate the application of foreign law, rules of law and equity. It also examines whether a 'mandate to settle' is enforceable under Ethiopian law. The article concludes that Ethiopian law allows maximum flexibility to parties as regards to the determination of norms applicable to the substance of a commercial dispute. The law can even be construed as recognising 'mandate to settle'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Supreme Court recently employed foreign legal sources to interpret U.S. law, provoking widespread political and legal controversy. Scholars have yet to examine systematically the conditions under which justices cite foreign law, however. Applying theoretical approaches from international relations and judicial politics scholarship, we search every Supreme Court opinion between 1953 and 2009 for references to foreign law. Justices strategically reference foreign law to prop up their most controversial opinions. They also borrow law from countries whose domestic political institutions are viewed as legitimate; and, surprisingly, conservatives are as likely as liberals to cite foreign law. These findings add important information to the discussion over citing foreign law, and highlight how geopolitical context influences domestic legal policy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

It is black-letter law that in order to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment, the rendering court must have had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. While the principle is clear, it is an open question as to whose law governs the question of personal jurisdiction: that of the rendering court or that of the recognizing court. In other words, is the foreign court's jurisdiction over the defendant governed by foreign law (the law of FI), domestic law (the law ofF2), or some combination thereof? While courts have taken a number of different approaches, it seems that many courts regard foreign law as relevant to the question of whether the foreign court possessed personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In this Article, I argue that U.S. courts should not be looking to foreign law (in whole or in part) to determine whether a foreign court hadjurisdiction over the defendant in the original action. I present five arguments in support of this contention: (1) there is no statutory authority pointing to the application of foreign law; (2) U.S. courts are not well-positioned to apply foreign jurisdictional law; (3) re-examining assertions of jurisdiction under foreign law violates international comity; (4) an examination of foreign law is usually unnecessary because jurisdiction is also assessed according to U.S. standards; and (5) U.S. courts do not do a good job applying foreign jurisdictional law. Instead, I argue that courts should apply American law to assess whether a foreign court was jurisdictionally competent. This, in turn, raises the question: What is "American" law? I maintain that courts should apply broad federal standards of jurisdiction, and not state-based ones, to determine whether the rendering court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This Article also looks closely at two particular areas of jurisdiction law that are particularly complicated as they relate to the choice of law issue: submission and notice. With respect to submission, U.S. courts seem to be unclear as to whose law applies in assessing whether a defendant in a foreign action submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. In particular, many U.S. courts defer to the foreign court's interpretations as to whether the acts of the defendant constituted submission. With respect to notice, there is a lack of clarity as to how notice relates to personal jurisdiction in the context of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Here too, there is confusion as to whose law of notice applies in assessing whether a defendant received adequate notice of the proceeding. Consistent with the argument above, this Article takes the position that U.S. standards, and not foreign ones, should ultimately guide the submission and notice inquiries in the recognition context. Finally, because much of the law in this area is codified in either the 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act or the 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, I propose concrete changes to the language of the uniform acts that would address the choice of law problem in the recognition of foreign judgments and would clarify the intersection between notice and personal jurisdiction in the uniform acts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article looks at the rules on proof of foreign law before Icelandic courts. It provides a detailed discussion on the methods available to ascertain foreign law in civil proceedings, as well as a concise comparison to several relevant jurisdictions. The methods, consisting of party and witness testimony, assessment reports and documents and other visible evidence, are not equally suitable for the intended purpose. As fairly obvious, a party testimony is of little use in this respect. On the contrary, and perhaps less obvious for the international reader, Icelandic law does not allow for expert witness testimony on foreign law, unless the expert has been summoned by court to provide an assessment report on the issue. However, recent judgments show that Icelandic courts have begun giving consideration to unilaterally obtained legal opinions, contrary to accepted practise. This, whether down to inconsistency or a deliberate change of course, represents a more flexible approach then previously acknowledged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the applicability of foreign powers of attorney (POAs) to real property transaction in Florida as of 2016, and it mentions how POAs are broken down into three categories under the Florida Power of Attorney Act. Estate plans are examined, along with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws' model Uniform Power of Attorney Act and the drafting of legal documents such as POAs. State laws in places such as Florida and New York are assessed.

The article discusses the dynamic incorporation of foreign law in America in relation to the constitutional regulation of U.S. federal lawmaking and the nation's Lacey Act. According to the article, the dynamic incorporation of foreign law involves the delegation of the ongoing authority to create federal law to another polity. The U.S. Constitution and laws imposing criminal liability are mentioned, along with the U.S. Congress' powers and several nondelegation doctrine-related legal cases.

Foreign law has become an increasingly important element of many cases brought before federal courts. Rule 44.1, which controls determinations of foreign law, is intended to make the process for determining foreign law as painless as possible, but like the regime that preceded it, it has become a procedural minefield for those wishing to rely on foreign law, as courts have declined to apply Rule 44.1 when it should be used, either deliberately or due to uncertainty as to its application. This is in large part due to the lack of concrete standards outlined in the rule. This Note examines the standards associated with the rule and their application in the years immediately after its promulgation and concludes that the reliant party's burden of production with respect to foreign law should vary based on whether statutory text is provided. If a statute is available, the courts should be required to undertake a Rule 44.1 analysis, while if a statute is unavailable, the reliant party should bear the burden of producing substantial evidence of foreign law. This standard, elaborated in the text of Rule 44.1, should ensure that as many foreign law determinations as possible can be resolved on the merits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the lawsuits related to federal practice in Minnesota. Topics discussed include respectful consideration of foreign law in the Animal Science Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., denial of request to amend complaint in Ryan v. Ryan; and denial of motion to remand and request for attorney's fees in Newbauer v. Hill-Rom Co.