Search

Private international law presents a dilemma for legal and political philosophy. Legal and political philosophers have ignored private international law, with only a few scattered attempts to evaluate its claims. Private international law offers a powerful set of counterexamples that put into serious doubt attempts to link law's authority only or primarily to relationships between states and citizens. No society, state, or other practice-mediated relationship can serve as grounds for the authority of private international law to persons to whom it applies but who are outside of such relationships. Private international law affects the normative situations of persons entirely outside these relationships. This article examines these issues from the standpoint of contractualist moral and political philosophy. How can private international law be justified from a moral point of view? The aim of this article is to show that the moral justification of private international law, in particular the law on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, requires an evaluation of the coercive qualities of private international law. Suitably constructed moral principles, which permit reasonable restrictions on liberty, are developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on several questions in front of Utah attorneys related to the multi-level marketing (MLM) model, a business model introduced in foreign jurisdictions. It mentions that counsel lawyers should apply general international business law to assist their clients. It also mentions that the issues Utah lawyers should consider to advise their clients MLM internationally such as standard for packaging materials, consumer protection laws and taxation of business entity.

The American class action is a procedural tool that advances substantive law values such as deterrence, compensation, and fairness. Opt-out class actions in particular achieve these goals by aggregating claims not only of active participants but also passive plaintiffs. Full faith and credit then extends the preclusive effect of class judgments to other U.S. courts. But there is no international full faith and credit obligation, and many foreign courts will not treat U.S. class judgments as binding on passive plaintiffs. Therefore, some plaintiffs may be able to wait until the U.S. class action is resolved before either joining the U.S. suit (and reaping its rewards) or relitigating the case abroad. Transnational class actions thus give some plaintiffs "litigation options." The few courts and scholars that have recognized this phenomenon have proposed methods to identify litigation option holders and exclude them from opt-out treatment. Some U.S. judges, for example, have refused to certify classes that include citizens of foreign countries that may not recognize U.S. class judgments. This Article shows that this conventional wisdom is misdirected: citizenship is the wrong measure, courts are poorly positioned to identify relitigation risks, and the social costs of excluding option holders may well outweigh the benefits. Instead, courts should certify classes of foreign and domestic plaintiffs in service of policy goals such as deterrence and intraclass fairness regardless offoreign preclusion law. At the same time, this Article suggests innovative approaches to achieve some preclusion previously unremarked upon in transnational cases. Prior approaches are insufficient, in part, because they rely on courts without acknowledging the informational asymmetries between courts and parties or the limited tools available for judicial resolution. This Article explains how private incentives and private information may fill the gap in interjurisdictional preclusion law. Parties should be encouraged to negotiate private preclusion agreements in cases in which preclusion matters. In addition, courts can coordinate informally to curb costly relitigation. In summary, this Article uses values derived from lawmaking choices and a practical assessment of the litigation environment to respond to litigation options in transnational class actions not by excluding option holders but instead by permitting aggregation and seeking alternatives to preclusion law. This Article applies these lessons to transnational class actions filed in a single jurisdiction (e.g., a U.S. court), as well as to dueling class actions filed in two countries simultaneously and to U.S. recognition of foreign aggregate judgments whatever their form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at the decision of the High Court of Australia in the case PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd related to the freezing orders against prospective judgment debtor and third party with the enforcement of foreign judgments.

The article looks at a report from Legal Opinions Committee Business Law Section of the American Bar Association (ABA) given by U.S. lawyers in cross-border transactions. Topics of the report include customary practice of the U.S. with the principles in opinion practice in cross-border transactions, international arbitration and enforcement of foreign judgments in the U.S. Other topics include effectiveness of forum selection clause under the 2005 Hague Convention and sovereign immunity.

The article focuses on the legal framework under which U.S. courts operate the foreign judgments confirming, recognizing, or enforcing arbitral awards. Topics discussed include enforceability and preclusive value foreign judgments in the U.S., United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provide guiding force for the foreign arbitral award enforcement in the U.S. and collateral estoppels in the foreign jurisdiction.

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House 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 reviews the recognition and enforcement procedure adopted in the Brussels I bis Regulation, including the much-debated abolition of intermediary exequatur proceedings. It examines the new responsibilities of enforcement organs and discusses some of the doctrinal concerns in this regard. The article then underlines the new regime's potential flaws with respect to both the debtor's and the creditor's rights during enforcement. Such shortcomings include the problematic discretion of Member States either to delay the satisfaction of the creditor's claim well beyond the time limits formerly set in Brussels I, or to impose irreversible enforcement measures much sooner than the debtor's rights of defence previously allowed. Overall, this analysis seeks to show that the optimistic goals of the Brussels I reform - some of them based on questionable assumptions - are hardly fulfilled by the final Recast. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an analysis of the domestic judicial interpretation of one core international human rights convention, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). It mentions that utility of a comparative international law approach and the jurisdictions in which CEDAW was referred. It also mentions that interpretation of CEDAW by national judges and the interpretation of national constitutional and statutory law in foreign judgments.

The article offers the author's insights on the status quo of the enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments and mentions the Speech Act which was adopted by U.S. Congress on August 10, 2010.

The article discusses the court case In re Wilde related to professional disciplinary proceedings against American attorney Jinhee Kim Wilde in the District of Columbia regarding stoling dollars from a fellow passenger. It mentions that D.C. Office of Bar Counsel has charged disciplinary proceedings against Wilde. It also mentions that offensive issue preclusion regarding the recognition of foreign judgments.

The article evaluates the enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria. Topics discussed include the 1958 Ordinance and the 2004 Act, the New York Convention and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) regulating the registration and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Nigerian courts and the need for the reform of the law on the registration and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Nigeria.

In both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), the law governing the enforcement of foreign judgments is evolving, but in different directions. EU law, especially after the elimination of exequatur by the 2012 'Recast' of the Brussels I Regulation, increasingly facilitates enforcement in member states of judgments of other member states' courts, reflecting growing faith in a multilateral private international law approach to foreign judgments. In US law, on the other hand, increasingly widespread adoption of state legislation based on the 2005 Uniform Foreign- Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005 Act), which adds new case-specific grounds for refusing enforcement, suggests growing scepticism. In this essay, I explore possible reasons for these diverging trends. I begin with the most obvious explanation: the Brussels framework governs the effect of internal EU member state judgments within the EU, whereas the 2005 Act governs the effect of external foreign country judgments within the US. One would expect more mutual trust - and thus more faith in foreign judgment enforcement - internally than externally. But I argue that this mutual trust explanation is only partially satisfactory. I therefore sketch out two other possible explanations. One is that the different trends in EU and US law are a result of an emphasis on 'governance values' in EU law and an emphasis on 'rights values' in US law. Another explanation - and perhaps the most fundamental one - is that these trends are ultimately traceable to politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the recent cases and guidelines issued by the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of Russia related to cross-border dispute resolution agreements, interim measures and enforcement of foreign awards and judgments. Topics discussed include jurisdiction of Russian arbitration courts in issues involving foreign parties, arbitrability of certain disputes in Russian law, and interim measures in aid of foreign-seated arbitration.

Recent evidence in the decades-old Chevron I Ecuador litigation suggests that the $18 billion judgment rendered against Chevron by an Ecuadorian court may have been a product of conspiracy and fraud on an almost unprecedented scale. However, these allegations overshadow fundamental problems in the method by which U.S. courts determine whether judgments rendered in foreign jurisdictions may be enforced against defendants in the United States. Under the current jurisprudential regime, courts that are faced with the question of whether a foreign judgment is enforceable in the United States follow what is termed the "international due process analysis." In this analysis, the court must render a value judgment on the overall judicial process of the country handing down the original decree, and decide whether the country generally affords due process in judicial proceedings. If so, and if the U.S. court determines that the judicial system in the country of origin is fundamentally fair, the judgment will be upheld by U.S. courts. However, this analysis raises a potentially troublesome issue because under the guise of judicial efficiency, courts are free to focus only on the foreign court system as a whole and disregard the particular proceedings under which the judgment was rendered. In essence, this means that courts may completely ignore claims by defendants that they did not receive due process in foreign proceedings. Further, courts are afforded unbridled discretion to validate foreign judgments without considering credible extrinsic evidence regarding the political system of the country where the judgment originated. Perhaps even more troublesome is the fact that because U.S. courts are not required to examine particular proceedings, this analysis has the potential to increase fraudulent practices by foreign litigants in "fair judicial systems," who anticipate that unscrupulous tactics will not affect enforceability of their judgments in the U.S. The Chevron I Ecuador case concerns claims that Texaco, which Chevron acquired in 2001, polluted the Lago Agrio oilfield region of Ecuador by improperly dumping billions of gallons of contaminants in the area. After a court appointed expert reported widespread pollution in the region, an Ecuadorian Court ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion dollars in damages. When the plaintiffs sought to collect the judgment in the U.S., Chevron challenged the ruling by the Ecuadorian Court, eventually uncovering evidence that suggested the judgment was a product of a widespread pattern of fraud and conspiracy, including admissions of bribery by one of the presiding Ecuadorian judges. Paradoxically, the existing international due process analysis suggests that a U.S. court determining whether to enforce the judgment should examine Ecuador's court system as a whole, rather than looking into the particular proceedings under which the original judgment was rendered. This article examines the background and application of the international due process analysis, and suggests that rather than promoting judicial efficiency, the existing analysis actually increases the burden on U.S. courts determining the validity of a foreign judgment, and also may lead to judicial incursions foreign affairs, a territory normally reserved for the Executive and Legislative Branches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses cooperative federalism in relation to the implementation of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements which reportedly deals with the rules for the enforcement of private-party agreements on forum selection clauses (FSCs) and the recognition of foreign judgments in domestic courts. U.S. laws on FSCs are mentioned, along with a U.S. forum non conveniens doctrine and state and federal court jurisdiction in America. The U.S. federal government is examined.

The article discusses the concept of "tort tourism" which involves foreign plaintiffs who circumvent legal limitations by filing tort-related lawsuits in foreign courts outside of the U.S. in order to secure large awards and attempt to collect upon their legal judgments in other nations. The author's call for the development of a U.S. federal law on foreign judgment recognition is mentioned, along with information about American state laws and forum shopping. Personal jurisdiction is examined.

The article focuses on the Canadian court case Yaiguaje v. Chevron, which dealt with the limits of the enforcement of courts' jurisdiction under Canadian constitutional law. Topics include the real and substantial connection (RSC) test used by the courts, the enforcement of foreign judgments, and judicial deference for foreign court judgments.

The article focuses on the British joint appellate case Rubin v. Eurofinance SA; New Cap Reinsurance (in liq) v. Grant, which dealt with the enforcement of foreign judgments in insolvency avoidance proceedings. Topics include conflicts of law, common law in Great Britain, and sui generis proceedings. Information is provided on the theory of modified universalism.

This paper aims to analyze to the regulation of the family matters in the EU "acquiss communautaire" regarding marriage, dissolution of marriage, marital property regimes and parental responsibility. The European Union law of these recent years has shown some increasing trend of intervening in the regulation of family relationships. Community acts in the area of family law are the acts for the recognition of the foreign judicial decisions and for the jurisdiction criteria as well as finally the uniform conflict rules, but no material acts. Thus, this is about rules which exclusively regulate only the international cross-border family matters, leaving unregulated the core of the family matters. The regulation of these cases aims to create, maintain and develop a common area of freedom, security and justice, with a view to the well functioning of the common European market. In accordance with the power provided by the EU Treaty, the European Commission has adopted the Regulations Brussels II bis and Rome III. Also the paper will focus in the study of the institute of marriage and parental responsibilities in the cases of marriages with foreign elements, seen in the framework of the new Albanian Act "On private international law" compared to the previous law and compared with the EU regulations Brussels II bis and Roma III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have long debated the criteria that U.S. courts should use when deciding whether to recognize and enforce money judgments rendered by foreign courts. One of the proposed criteria--reciprocity--would require proof that the rendering court would enforce a U.S. judgment if the situation were reversed. Advocates of reciprocity claim that it is necessary to create incentives for foreign states to recognize and enforce U.S. judgments. Critics argue that a policy of judgments reciprocity is both costly to administer and highly unlikely to bring about any change in foreign state practice. This Article makes two original contributions to the debate. First, it draws on historical examples of successful reciprocal legislation to construct an analytical framework for determining the conditions under which such legislation is most likely to be successful in changing foreign state behavior. These examples show that a particular state's response to such legislation will frequently be shaped by the reaction of interest groups within that state. Second, this Article seeks to evaluate how interest groups within specific foreign states--those that currently refuse to enforce U.S. judgments--would be likely to react to a new U.S. policy of judgments reciprocity. Drawing upon a hand-collected dataset of reported cases and federal complaints, it argues that judgment creditors in many of these states are likely to suffer few, if any, economic losses as a result of such a policy. In the absence of such losses, these judgment creditors are unlikely to lobby their respective home state governments to change their laws. And in the absence of such lobbying, few (if any) foreign states are likely to change their laws to make it easier to enforce U.S. judgments abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges created by the enforcement of foreign judgments in Nigeria in 2014. Topics include the disharmony of laws in Nigeria, statutory dualism, and the development of private international law in Africa. Information is provided on Nigeria's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and how that impacts common law in the country.

This Note gives the legal background of the doctrine of dormant foreign affairs preemption, examines the laws governing the recognition of foreign judgments under the lens of dormant foreign affairs preemption, and argues that courts should adopt an objective standard for future dormant foreign affairs preemption cases. Dormant foreign affairs preemption is premised on the idea that the federal government should have exclusive control over foreign affairs. The doctrine allows courts to preempt state laws in some cases where there is no conflicting federal policy or statute. The U.S. Supreme Court has only once held a state statute unconstitutional under the doctrine. In addition, not all scholars agree that courts should apply dormant foreign affairs preemption, and many argue the federal government merely has supreme, rather than exclusive, authority in foreign affairs. However, lower courts continue to apply a wide variety of tests to preserve the federal government's exclusive role in foreign affairs. Dormant foreign affairs preemption is best understood by exploring an area of law that captures the competing interests in current dormant foreign affairs preemption analyses. This Note considers the laws governing the recognition of foreign judgments, an area of traditional state competence that also has a substantial and growing impact on modern conceptions of foreign affairs. Finally, this Note argues that courts would benefit from applying an objective standard that looks at whether other countries would reasonably expect the federal government to have exclusive jurisdiction over an area of law. Unlike current standards, this analysis accounts for changing notions of foreign affairs and protects against encroachments on state sovereignty. Under the objective standard, the federal government would have exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of the recognition of foreign judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A party seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in the UAE can do so through the UAE local courts or the DIFC courts. However, each court applies different considerations in determining whether to recognise and enforce foreign judgments from countries with which the UAE has no treaty. Since there are not many countries with which the UAE has a bilateral or multilateral treaty, careful consideration should be given when selecting the country whose courts will have jurisdiction over any dispute as this may have a bearing on the recognition and enforcement of any judgment in the UAE. This article will assist in these considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards by U.S. courts as of 2014, and it mentions the settlement of arbitration matters, as well as lawsuits involving arbitration clauses. Legal exceptions to enforcement under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) are addressed, along with international arbitration clauses and proceedings and the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act.

The complexities of international intellectual property litigation (including jurisdictional issues, choice of law, lis pendens, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments) contribute to explain why arbitration and alternative dispute resolution systems constitute an attractive method for solving intellectual property disputes. At a time when the European Union has created a new patent court system (as a result of the recent adoption of the European Patent with Unitary Effect and of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court signed in February 2013) which will include the setting up of a new patent arbitration and mediation center, it is critical that this new institution shall take into account the best practices and the experience developed in these fields in other parts of the world, particularly in Korea which has gained considerable experience on these issues. On this basis, the goal of this article is to present the recent developments relating to the use of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for solving intellectual property disputes in Korea and in Europe from a comparative perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the legal framework for extradition as the oldest and most important type of mutual legal assistance in criminal law matters. Extradition is only one of the forms of cooperation between states, and states and supranational bodies in the area of criminal justice. In addition to the Extradition there are still "small" international criminal justice assistance, transfer of criminal prosecution, enforcement of foreign judgments, etc. Through the reforms of corresponding legal framework the area of international legal assistance in Bosnia and Herzegovina is excluded from the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By following the standards adopted in the countries of EU, Bosnia and Herzegovina passed specific legislation in the form of a special Act on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, which has to regulate pro futuro this area unless otherwise stipulated by an international agreement, or a treaty does not exist. The paper also presents some of the practices used by government agencies in the proceedings of international legal assistance, as well as some current issues concerning the institution of extradition, which at this time is causing great attention to Bosnia and Herzegovina's public scene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various problems and possibilities in regards to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in U.S. courts as of 2014, focusing on American federal courts and transnational litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court, the American Law Institute (ALI), and the drafting and revising of international law Restatements are mentioned. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (COCA) and law-related uncertainty are examined, along with legal costs.