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.

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]

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]

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]

In this article, the author explore how the French courts struggled to balance the dictates of French law, which promoted the secularization of marriage, and foreign law, which reflected the principles of religious law. It states that the tensions between French law and foreign law led to the denial of civil protections to foreigners in France. It also mentions these tensions in French courts were slow to resolve.

Should courts consider cases from other jurisdictions? The use of foreign law precedent has sparked considerable debate in the United States, and this question is also controversially discussed in Europe. In this article and within the larger research project from which it has developed, we study the dialogue between different European supreme courts quantitatively. Using legal databases in Austria, Belgium, England and Wales,France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, we have hand-collected a dataset of transnational citations between the highest courts of these countries for the time between 2000 and 2007. In the present article we show that citation of foreign law by supreme courts is not an isolated phenomenon in Europe, but happens on a regular basis. We found 1,430 instances in which these courts have cited the supreme courts of the other nine countries. The majority of these citations have been made for purely comparative reasons. We also undertook regression analysis in order to understand the differences between the cross-citations. Whether such citations take place and in what quantity depends on the particular legal culture and its relationship to others. Austria and Ireland, which stand in an asymmetric relationship with Germany and England respectively, seem to be particularly receptive to foreign influence on their legal systems. But even controlling for these outliers, we have been able to identify that the population of the cited country and a low level of corruption, native languages and language skills, legal origins and families, and cultural and political factors all matter for which courts are likely to be cited. More specifically, knowledge of the language of the cited court appears to be a more important factor driving cross-citations than legal traditions, culture or politics. Thus, to facilitate a transnational market of legal ideas, it can be suggested that courts should strive to make their decisions available in languages that possible readers understand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article overviews the proof of foreign law in U.S. courts under the application of the Lacey Act in the criminal prosecutions. It discusses the judicial opinion of the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of Bodum USA v. La Cafetière, which focuses on the Bodum methodology regarding the interpretation of the foreign law by trial judges in the U.S.

The article presents information on the evidence obtained through the foreign police regarding the role and enforcement of foreign law and its admissibility of the U.S. The enforcement of the foreign law includes the application of military law, court martial under the military courts of the country. Information on the role of the foreign interrogations and the foreign searches regarding the foreign law is also presented.

The article discusses the concept of judicial notice as well as its advantages and disadvantages in the U.S. The author says that judicial notice enables court to consider a proposition as conclusive without requiring any party to present evidence of that proposition's truth. It is noted that the Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence reportedly supports such notice as long as the opinion is generally known and can be easily verified. An overview of the case United States v. Newland is presented.

Foreign law lies at the heart of private international law. After all, a true conflict of law cannot be resolved unless and until the content of foreign law is established. Despite this, the pleading and proof of foreign law remain among the most under-explored topics in Australian private international law. In light of the High Court of Australia's significant change of direction on choice of law since 2000, most notably in cases such as John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson, Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang and Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd, it is all the more important to answer some of the basic questions about the pleading and proof of foreign law. Who pleads foreign law? What law do they plead? Are they obliged to do so? How do they prove its content? When can local law be applied in the place of foreign law? This article addresses these and related questions with a particular focus on Australian law as it has developed since 2000. It concludes that Australian courts take a more robust and pragmatic approach to these issues than might be supposed. In particular, the so-called presumption of identity is a label that masks a much richer and more complex reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay analises the subject of non evidence of proof of foreign law. The darkness of the spanish statutes norming the aplication of foreign law on courts (art. 12.6.1 Cc., art. 281.11 LEC 2000) does not allow show which must be the behaviour of the judge before this situation. Non estimation of the claim, one of the options used on courts, should not be considered as a suitable answer. Several reasons hold this affirmation. On one hand, difficult adaptation to procedure rules: in spanish Private International Law, foreign law is not a matter of fact; non estimation cannot be understood as a punitive sanction before non aplication of conflict rule; it is not equivalent to a case of non-admission of the claim; and it is not possible talk about a new procedure object of the claim. On the other, difficult adaptation of constitucional statutes: non estimation of the claim is not a resolution relative to the reclamation of the plaintiff, nor one of the cases of process resolution without solving the claim of the plaintiff; it is not suitable in cases of existence of the court duty of colaboration with the parties, nor in the rest, excesive sanction before the behaviour of the party of not pleading or proofing foreign law. Non estimation of the claim does not suit within art. 24 Spanish Constitution, risk of non provision of justice on courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses a debate over foreign law in Roper v. Simmons in the U.S. Background on the case; Decision of the Supreme Court on the case; Similarities between the case Atkins v. Virginia and the Roper case.

Examines the evolution of a judge-made transformation of Canadian conflict of laws principles specific to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments exemplified in the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Beals v. Saldanha. Revision of the English formula in relation to the inter-provincial context in the Court's seminal ruling Morgard Investments Ltd. v. DeSavoye; Facts of the Beals case; Rulings of the lower courts.

Discusses the application of the law of foreign countries in the U.S. Requirement for the litigants to plead and prove the content of the law; Regard for the law of sister states; Achievement of a uniform result regardless of where suit is brought.

Addresses the questions, under what circumstances the court of the forum makes a presumption of foreign law, and what presumption it makes. Three possible rules which indicate when the court of the forum will shift the burden of going forward with evidence as to the foreign law upon the party not having the burden of proof of the whole issue of which the foreign law is a part; Cases which make plain the way courts recognize which of the American and European states have fundamentally the common-law system and those which have not.

Presents Federal and Supreme Court decisions and rulings on various cases pertaining to bankruptcy, disclosure of medical records, decisions without opinions, and foreign law.