Search

Coercion is any physical or mental act that involves pressuring the other party to perform an act he would rather not wish to do, thus infringing upon his free will and consent to perform said act. These actions can include restraining, detaining, manipulation, threatening etc. The objectives of this research are to deliberate and understand the meaning, scope and extent of coercion. This research aims to deliberate upon this doctrine as evinced within the law and enunciated by the Superior Courts. This research has adopted the doctrinal methodology in order to reach its conclusion. The results show that the Superior Courts have settled the principles involving coercion by relying on British and Indian judgments. It is recommended that the scope and extent of coercion can be widened even more by relying on other foreign judgments such as that of Bangladesh, the USA amongst others etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers whether UK corporate insolvency law and the UK Insolvency Act 1986 have extra-territorial effect post-Brexit, and whether – and to what extent – it is for the courts or the legislature to extend any extra-territorial effect. It does not deal with 'inward recognition', ie the recognition of foreign judgments and orders in the UK. Brexit has left something of a vacuum and provisions which might otherwise have applied extra-territorially, at least within the EU, may now have been deprived completely of extra-territorial effect. But all is not lost and Brexit here presents opportunities. There is room for clarifying that particular provisions which might otherwise have discriminated between EU application and application vis-à-vis the rest of the world can now be given a uniform global interpretation. Courts should, however, proceed incrementally in extending the extra-territorial scope of UK corporate insolvency law. A bolder reform would be to enact legislation that specifies the exact extent to which the UK Insolvency Act applies extra-territorially. Legislation obviously depends on parliamentary time and requires detailed drafting but also provides the opportunity for the UK to showcase that it remains at the forefront of international insolvency developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On September 1, 2023, China amended its Civil Procedure Law, making a historical shift from de facto to de jure reciprocity in judgment recognition and enforcement (JRE) in civil or commercial cases, and provided detailed rules for JRE under reciprocity.[1] This paper exhaustively surveys all published Chinese cases on JRE and analyzes these ground-breaking developments in an international context. It compares Chinese law for JRE with the Convention of July 2, 2019, on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters and the Convention of June 30, 2005, on Choice of Court Agreements. It critically assesses whether Chinese law for JRE would be a substitute for both Conventions in China or serve as a preliminary step to their eventual ratification, and what the remaining challenges are. It also offers useful insights for foreign courts and business actors to understand and plan for JRE in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers if there can be said to be an "Asian" body of principles for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Tapping on the results of a research project which was conducted from 2016 to 2020, it is submitted that the answer to this query is in the negative. However, it is suggested that what marks out the "Asian" approach to private international law is the willingness of Asian countries to look outwards for reform and development and to balance the adoption of international norms against important local norms and objectives. Singapore's approach to the recognition and enforcement is discussed as a case study of this Asian approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the procedural issues in a bankruptcy lawsuit with a foreign element from a Turkish private international law perspective. The article begins with a brief overview of the bankruptcy procedure under Turkish domestic law. It then explores the jurisdiction of Turkish courts in an international bankruptcy lawsuit in detail. The effects of a foreign choice of court agreement and parallel proceedings are also addressed in discussing the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts. The article also touches upon the debates on the possible legal grounds for the inclusion of assets located abroad to the bankruptcy estate established before Turkish courts considering the approaches of universalism and territorialism. Finally, problems related to the recognition of foreign bankruptcy decisions are examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reciprocity principle was first introduced in Vietnam by Decree 83/1998 to allow for the recognition of foreign non-executionary judgments, decisions on family and marriage matters in Vietnam. It was then adapted in the first Civil Procedure Code in 2004 and was later modified in the current Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments from non-treaty countries. This article examines the practical application of this reciprocity principle in Vietnamese courts by analysing cases in which they have recognised or denied recognition to foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters (that is, non-family matters), as well as a recent development in the Supreme Court's Resolution Draft on guidance on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which adopts a presumed reciprocity approach. The article concludes that the courts have not applied the reciprocity principle in a consistent manner. The resolution for this current problem is for the presumed reciprocity approach to be promulgated soon to facilitate a uniform application in the local courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are important reasons for states to recognize and enforce the judgments of other states' courts. There are also reasons that may militate against recognition or enforcement of certain foreign judgments, making it appropriate to calibrate or "fine tune"the presumption favoring recognition and enforcement so it is not applied too broadly. Most calibration principles, such as the principle that a judgment from a court lacking jurisdiction should not be recognized, are case-specific. However, one calibration principle that is, to our knowledge, unique to the law of the United States stands out: The principle of systemic calibration, according to which U.S. courts must not recognize or enforce foreign judgments "rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law."In this Article, we aim to shed empirical light on how U.S.-style systemic calibration operates in practice. We find that state-of-origin indicator scores related to systemic adequacy are on average higher when U.S. courts recognize or enforce foreign judgments than when they refuse to do so. Moreover, the probability of recognition and enforcement increases as these indicator scores increase. However, in only six of the 587 opinions in our dataset did a court refuse recognition or enforcement based explicitly on the systemic inadequacy ground. Thus, while the level of systemic calibration in U.S. courts is high, it is mostly achieved implicitly. Finally, even judgments from states with low systemic adequacy scores are sometimes recognized or enforced by U.S. courts.

This article shows how enforcement of foreign judgments in Israel works in practice. Using an original hand-coded dataset, the article seeks to determine empirically which factors increase the likelihood of a foreign judgment being enforced by Israeli courts. To do so the article makes use of two major theories about enforcement of foreign judgments – international comity and vested rights. Also, the article hypothesises that enforcement can be influenced by specific characteristics of the Israeli court and the foreign judgment. The article finds that the best predictor of foreign judgment enforcement in Israel is the specific characteristics of the foreign judgment and of the Israeli court – cases with a contractual-commercial nature, and cases brought before one of the central districts of Israel are more likely to be enforced. Additionally, the volume of trade between the issuing country and Israel might also be a certain predictor of enforcement. Finally, the article finds that the due process in individual cases might have some influence on the enforcement decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significant strides have been made in efforts to facilitate the resolution of international disputes in Africa. However, cross-border issues that concern private litigants have remained challenging. One major reason is the legal history of relevant countries which often makes it difficult to contextualize legal principles inherited before independence. It is sometimes unclear how African courts determine the current law and how their discretionary powers should be used. This challenge is complicated where scholars focus on what they consider that the law ought to be without first accepting what the law is. Any sustainable growth of private international law requires a systematic approach to legal developments. Using the main comparators of South Africa and Nigeria, this article examines the connections between legal traditions and the legal methods that are required to ensure that there is a sustainable development of private international law in Africa. The core enquiry is set on a tripartite structure. Law in context, fidelity to context and functionalist approaches are essential elements that should drive the resolution of disputes in private international law matters. A dominant theme is how the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be examined through appropriate interpretational mechanisms.

Trust law is highly deferential to settlor intent, however, under the public policy doctrine, any trust or trust provision contrary to public policy is unenforceable. Echoing that doctrine is a conflict of laws rule providing that a settlor's express choice-of-law designation is enforceable if the trust assets are movable, the designated state has "a substantial relation to the trust," and "the application of its law does not violate a strong public policy of the state with which, as to the matter at issue, the trust has its most significant relationship." The conflict-of-laws rule sets aside choice-of-law designations only when they violate a strong public policy, but trust law's public policy constraints often inform the determination of conflict-of-laws disputes. Such disputes have become increasingly common as state laws have diverged on sharply disputed issues such as the validity of self-settled spendthrift trusts, the eligibility of trust settlors and beneficiaries for public benefits, and the enforceability of trustee exculpation provisions. A recent wave of trust legislation reveals an especially muscular approach by some legislatures seeking to fortify state public policy under local trust law. In one notable trend, a few states have enacted legislation that seeks to inoculate local trusts from invalidation elsewhere as contrary to the public policy of another state or federal law. In 2021, for instance, a South Dakota statute declared that local domestic asset protection trusts were immune from invalidation under any contrary public policy of another state and that courts were prohibited from enforcing foreign judgments against property held in a local trust unless and until a South Dakota state court ruled on the matter. Elsewhere, however, courts have succeeded in pushing back. In 2018, for example, the Alaska Supreme Court held unconstitutional a state statute that granted Alaska courts exclusive jurisdiction over out-of-state disputes arising from local self-settled asset protection trusts. Likewise, in 2021, a Minnesota appellate court struck down a state statute that denied Medicaid benefits to an irrevocable trust settlor who had fully complied with federal eligibility requirements. This Article contributes to the conflict-of-laws literature by examining recent developments in trust law's public policy doctrine. The Article focuses on three major fault lines of policy divergence: (1) the validity of self-settled asset protection trusts; (2) the use of trusts by applicants for government assistance; and (3) the enforceability of trustee exculpation provisions. This Article concludes by discussing implications for state legislatures, courts, trustees, and trust settlors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the question of admissibility of recognition of foreign judgments on commencement of bankruptcy proceedings on the basis of international treaties on legal assistance. It examines the background of these international treaties, as well as the practice of their application in respect of this category of foreign judgments. The authors conclude that foreign court decisions on opening of insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings should be regarded as "judgments in civil matters" for the purpose of the international treaties on legal assistance. This category of foreign judgments should be recognised on the basis of international treaties in the Russian Federation, despite the existing approach of Russian courts (including the Judgment of the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of the Ural District of 09.10.2019 in case No. A60-29115/2019). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When litigation outside the United States needs discovery inside the United States, U.S. judges provide assistance to their foreign counterparts. 28 U.S.C. § 1782 was designed to provide the statutory mechanism for this form of judicial assistance. But a recent empirical study has shown that, nowadays, a majority of requests for discovery assistance under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 come from private parties rather than from tribunals. And the proportion of private-party § 1782 requests has been growing in recent years. Drawing on the history of judicial assistance in general and § 1782 in particular, this Note argues that there are two problems when U.S. judges assist private parties abroad. One, doing so is inconsistent with the historical understanding of the judicial power vested in the federal judiciary. Two, this assistance is inconsistent with Congress's intent in legislating § 1782. To avoid these problems, this Note proposes that U.S. judges adopt the presumptive requirement that the foreign tribunal must consent to the private-party request for judicial assistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many scholars in the field of private international law in Asia are taking commercial conflict of laws seriously in a bid to drive harmonisation and economic development in the region. The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is an important aspect of private international law, as it seeks to provide certainty and predictability in cross-border matters relating to civil and commercial law, or family law. There have been recent global initiatives such as The Hague 2019 Convention, and the Commonwealth Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Scholars writing on PIL in Asia are making their own initiatives in this area. Three recent edited books are worthy of attention because of their focus on the issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Asia. These three edited books fill a significant gap, especially in terms of the number of Asian legal systems surveyed, the depth of analysis of each of the Asian legal systems examined, and the non-binding Principles enunciated. The central focus of this article is to outline and provide some analysis on the key contributions of these books. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales 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.)

The article discusses the enforcement of foreign judgments within the European Union and the public policy (ordre public) exception. It is mainly focused on some recent judgments of Polish and German courts. On 22nd December 2016 and 23rd of March 2021 rulings in cases of infringement of personality rights were issued by the Court of Appeal in Cracow (ordering an apology and correction). The enforcement of the former ruling was dismissed by the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) (IX ZB 10/18) on 19th July 2018. The non-enforcement was justified by invoking German ordre public and "freedom of opinion" as a constitutional right stipulated in Article 5 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). A reference to the CJEU ruling of 17 June 2021 is also presented. After presenting the issue of ordre public in the context of enforcement of foreign judgments within the EU, the authors evaluate as questionable the argumentation of the BGH in its 2018 judgment. The Polish ruling ordering the defendant to correct and apologise for the false statement was included by the BGH in the category of "opinion" (Meinung) protected by the German Constitution. Enforcement of the judgment of the Polish court in Germany was held to be contrary to this German constitutional right and the enforceability of the Polish judgment was denied as being manifestly contrary to German public policy. The authors support the functioning of the ordre public clause in intra-EU relations. It is justified inter alia by the large differences in EU legal systems and future possible changes. However, the common standards of the ECHR should be particularly taken into consideration when applying the public policy clause, because they co-shape the EU legal systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Article provides an insight into the development of the Russian rules of law concerning recognition of foreign judgments on personal status. The analysis reveals that initially the Russian (formerly Soviet) law did not include any specific provisions relating to recognition of foreign judgments on personal status. In this regard such judgments were recognised on the basis of the conflict of laws' provisions of the Family and Civil Codes. In turn the current Article 415 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation addressing the recognition of foreign judgments on personal status and foreign divorces should be considered as a borrowing from the legislation of the former Socialist countries. The authors argue that the concept of "personal status" in Article 415 covers both foreign judgments affecting capacity and regarding filiation (kinship). Therefore, these foreign judgments shall be recognised in Russia in absence of an international treaty and without exequatur proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1992, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) commenced the Judgments Project with the aim of delivering a convention harmonising rules of jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Despite the ambition and promise the project held, the first major attempt at delivering a convention, the 2001 Interim Text, was unsuccessful after it failed to gain consensus among the Conference's Member States. The HCCH scaled back the Judgments Project to focus work on the 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. However, the issue of jurisdiction has not been forgotten, with the Hague having recently established a Working Group to begin drafting provisions for a fresh attempt at the subject which hopefully will succeed where the Interim Text did not. The aim of this article is to explore the issue of how the proposed convention shall address conflicts of jurisdiction in international litigation. A conflict of jurisdiction will typically arise where the same proceedings, or related ones, come before the courts of several fora, or in one forum which considers another forum to be better placed to adjudicate the dispute. One solution to such conflicts is the, originally Scottish, doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that the appropriate forum for the trial is abroad or the local forum is inappropriate. This article argues for the inclusion of a version of forum non conveniens in the proposed jurisdiction convention to settle these conflicts when they arise. However, as there are many interpretations of what makes one forum more or less appropriate to hear a case than another, this article tackles the issue of how such a principle could be drafted to achieve consensus at the Hague Conference. Much of this analysis is based on the original 2001 Interim Text, and upon more modern cross-border agreements which utilise forum non conveniens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Internacional y Comparada de Relaciones Laborales y Derecho del Empleo is the property of ADAPT University Press 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.)

The Preventive Restructuring Directive (PRD) has triggered a new era of regulatory competition. Member States are introducing new laws aimed at making themselves the new destination of choice for corporate restructuring. However, the PRD has failed to provide a clear answer to some key issues: international jurisdiction, recognition and applicable law. This article analyses these questions in detail and proposes answers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the conditions under which Czech courts recognise and enforce judgments rendered in commercial matters by courts outside of the EU. The relevant rules on recognition and enforcement are contained in both the Czech Act on Private International Law and in a number of international treaties binding for the Czech Republic. The authors analyse in detail the Czech national rules with particular emphasis on grounds for non-recognition and on the enforcement procedure, including relevant national case-law. As the Czech Republic is bound by a significant number of bilateral treaties on legal assistance that contain relevant provisions, the authors also bring a brief overview of the rules therein.

The forum non conveniens doctrine gives courts the discretion to dismiss a lawsuit on the ground that a court in a foreign country is more appropriate and convenient for adjudicating the parties' dispute, and the Supreme Court has provided a list of private and public interest factors to guide this discretion. One of the private interest factors, however, remains poorly understood: the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained. As a result, the judgment enforceability factor is often neglected by judges and lawyers. When it is applied, it tends to be applied inconsistently or in a conclusory manner. This Article explains the proper role of the judgment enforceability factor in forum non conveniens analysis, and provides a simple framework to guide its application by judges and lawyers. Part II explains the context of the Article's analysis by providing a brief overview of the forum non conveniens doctrine and how the enforceability factor fits into it. Part III argues that the judgment enforceability factor is important not only doctrinally, but also for justice and efficiency. Pari TV identifies the problem: Notwithstanding the judgment enforceability factor's importance, it is often neglected; when it is not neglected, it tends to be applied inconsistently; and even when the factor is properly interpreted, it is often applied in a conclusory manner. Part V offers a solution to this problem by drawing on the best practices of judges, the law of foreign judgments, and the realities of transnational litigation to develop a framework for the proper application of the enforceability factor. By taking the judgment enforceability factor seriously, judges can help ensure that the forum non conveniens doctrine will effectively advance the goals of justice and efficiency.

The law market model posits that the most appropriate resolution of choice-of-law disputes in private international law is to permit individuals to choose ex ante the law that applies to them. This is contrasted to the public law model where courts choose law based on the perceived interests of, or the parties' connections with, the states or nations involved. The law market model envisions that consumer choice will lead to optimal competition among jurisdictions to supply the most efficient law. This model has influenced the rise of party autonomy, most notably in the widespread enforcement of many contractual choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses. One area that the model has had little influence on is the enforcement of foreign judgments. In the United States, judgments from other countries face higher hurdles in obtaining recognition and enforcement, as compared to judgments issued by courts of sister states. There has been little discussion in the law market literature of the possibility of ex ante contractually waiving these hurdles, or of choosing the law of states that make it easier to enforce foreign judgments. This reticence appears to be based in part on the assumption that state law on such recognition is mandatory and non-waivable, and that such law reflects the sovereign interests of states. Revisiting this regime through the lens of the law market model suggests that courts and public policymakers should permit parties, within broad limits, to contractually waive or select the law on judgment recognition, as they are permitted to do with other areas of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The determination of the 'international jurisdiction' of the court of origin remains the backbone of the law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters in India and South Africa. Thus, a foreign judgment is ineffective in these jurisdictions unless the court of origin was competent according to the principles of private international law. The grounds to determine the 'international jurisdiction' of the foreign court are narrow and primarily rest on the 'allegiance' of the judgment-debtor towards the State of origin. This paper demonstrates how the rules to ascertain the competency of the foreign forum in these BRICS jurisdictions impede the free movement of judgments and prevent access to justice. The paper accordingly suggests plausible new approaches to overcome these shortcomings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationalism has long been regarded as an important goal of any national conflict of laws system. The three main branches of the subject – jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments – should be developed in a manner sympathetic to the needs of international trade and interaction and allow for recognition of foreign interests. In exceptional cases, however, local public policy should also be available to protect private rights. Internationalism is a major theme in the recent book, The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand. This article assesses the state of internationalism in New Zealand conflict of laws and the contribution of the book to the issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of International Trade & Arbitration Law / Uluslararasi Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi is the property of Journal of International Trade & Arbitration Law / Uluslararasi Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi 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.)

The article explores the modalities for the U.S. to avoid its obligations to a compromised state party in case of deterioration of the judiciary under the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

It was Lord Hoffmann who once spoke of a "golden thread" of modified universalism running throughout English Insolvency Law since the eighteenth century. However, after the UK Supreme Court's decision in Rubin v Eurofinance SA, that golden thread seems to have lost its lustre. This paper critiques the main premise of the Rubin decision by questioning whether the Supreme Court was correct in holding that there can be no separate sui generis rule for recognising and enforcing foreign insolvency judgments. This article also explores the possible solutions, either through statute or the common law, that could be used to remedy the post-Rubin legal lacuna for recognising and enforcing foreign insolvency judgments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]