This extensive comparative study of the three most important JRE regimes focuses on what lessons China can draw from the US and the EU in developing a multilateral JRE arrangement for mainland China, ...Hong Kong, and Macao.
This thesis comparatively investigates into thecross-border enforcementof claims to misappropriated cultural objects initiated by states. It identifies and categorises sovereign rights in cultural ...property, and discusses the legal mechanisms tosuccessfully implementthese rights in foreign courts. The results may be used by government officials, museum officials, lawyers, art historians, archaeologists, art dealers, academics.
Private international law is normally discussed in terms of rules applied in litigation involving parties from more than one State. Those same rules are fundamentally important, however, to those who ...plan crossborder commercial transactions with a desire to avoid having a dispute arise -- or at least to place a party in the best position possible if a dispute does arise. This makes rules regarding jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments vitally important to contract negotiations. It also makes the consideration of transactional interests important when developing new rules of private international law. These lectures examine rules of jurisdiction and rules of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the United States and the European Union, considering their similarities, their differences, and how they affect the transaction planning process.
The editors of Recognition and Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitral Awards in Latin America: Law, Practice and Leading Cases, present a country by country review of the law, practice and ...leading cases on the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards in the region.
This 2007 book assists the practitioner seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in the United States or a US-rendered judgment abroad in navigating the lack of procedural uniformity that exists and in ...planning strategies likely to ensure effective enforcement. As a handbook, it provides the practitioner with a framework and resources with which to approach and further research the laws of the relevant state or country. In Part One, the guide takes the practitioner chronologically through the process of obtaining a US court's recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered abroad. Part Two takes the practitioner through the process of obtaining an overseas jurisdiction's recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered in the United States. Part Three assesses the current trends in the US and in the international trade environment regarding enforcement of judgments which may be made by foreign courts.
The print edition is out of print. There will be a 2nd revised edition. This commentary is the first full scale article-by-article commentary in English ever to address the Brussels I Regulation. It ...is truly European in nature and style. It provides thorough and succinct indepth analysis of every single article and offers most valuable guidance for lawyers, judges and academics throughout Europe. It is an indispensable working tool for all practitioners involved in this field of law. The Brussels I Regulation is by far the most prominent cornerstone of the European law of international civil procedure. Its imminence could be easily ascertained by every practitioner even remotely concerned with cross-border work in Europe. However arcane private international law in general might appear to practitioners the Brussels I Regulation is a well-known and renowned instrument.
Foreign Court Judgments and the United States Legal System, edited by Paul B. Stephan, gathers essays from leading thinkers, scholars and practitioners in international law to address the recognition ...and enforcement of foreign court judgments in the United States legal system.
In the EU’s fast-growing Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the principle of mutual recognition should play a key role in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters.Since mutual ...recognition was enshrined as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the EU by the European Council of Tampere in 1999, an increasing number of binding instruments based on this principle have been adopted in the framework of the EU’s Third Pillar.The considerable impact of those instruments on national criminal legal systems has often required a major effort by Member States in adjusting their national legislation so that it complies with the new mechanisms agreed at EU level. What are the real difficulties encountered by Member States in the transposition of these legislative texts into national law and, even earlier, when the texts are being negotiated within the Council of the EU? What lessons can be learned from the early years of their practical implementation by the competent judicial authorities? And, above all, what will be the future role and scope of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters in Europe? The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the adoption of a new multi-annual programme (replacing the Hague Programme) to strengthen the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice are both pending. In this crucial time of transition and uncertainty, the book seeks to provide answers to the above questions and many other related issues. Through its country by country approach covering the vast majority of the Member States, it intends to provide policymakers, practitioners, academics and researchers with a comprehensive analysis of the problems that have emerged and the solutions envisaged by each State in their implementation of mutual recognition instruments. The country chapters are followed by a final EU-wide analysis that seeks to identify common themes and obstacles and to consider future options and possible scenarios. The whole study, based on in-depth research combined with interviews conducted with hundreds of practitioners and experts from across the EU, amounts to a remarkable team performance carried out together with academics and researcher members of ECLAN (European Criminal Law Academic Network).
Dans un contexte où le recours au mécanisme des lois de police apparaît de plus en plus fréquent et facilité sur le plan des conflits de lois, la perte d’impérativité que connaissent ces dispositions ...du fait des solutions libérales retenues sur le plan des conflits de juridictions, conduit à s’interroger sur la possibilité d’apporter des correctifs. En droit positif, l’admission généralisée des clauses de prorogation de for, étatique et arbitral, malgré l’applicabilité d’une loi de police, associée à un système de reconnaissance pratiquement automatique des jugements étrangers et des sentences arbitrales au stade du contentieux de l’exequatur, conduit à rendre ces dispositions globalement semi-nécessaires dans les rapports internationaux. Alors que la mise en œuvre des lois de police devant un for étatique étranger ou arbitral apparaît très incertaine et que la violation de ces dispositions ne fait pas obstacle à la reconnaissance d’un jugement ou d’une sentence qui les aurait négligées, les clauses de prorogation de for apparaissent comme des instruments à la disposition des parties pour se livrer au forum shopping et contourner les impérativités étatiques. Cette solution, paradoxale et peu satisfaisante, compte tenu de l’importance et de la nature des intérêts par principe mis en cause à travers ces dispositions, incite à envisager une solution permettant de restaurer l’impérativité des lois de police dans les conflits de juridictions. Dès lors que ce résultat apparaît comme la conséquence du maintien du principe traditionnel de l’indépendance des compétences législative et juridictionnelle malgré le lien existant entre forum et jus en matière de lois de police, ce constat conduit à s’interroger sur la possibilité de déroger exceptionnellement à ce principe pour consacrer un forum legis impératif et exclusif, fondé sur l’applicabilité d’une telle disposition. Cette solution, restaurant efficacement l’impérativité des lois de police dans leur for d’origine, devrait néanmoins être associée à la mise en place d’un mécanisme de coordination des systèmes permettant de prolonger son efficacité devant les fors étrangers. Il pourrait trouver ses fondements dans certains procédés préexistants, susceptibles d’être adaptés à la réalisation de l’objectif de protection des impérativités étatiques poursuivis. La mise en place de différents mécanismes, apparentés à celui du forum non conveniens, fondés sur un système de coopération interjuridictionnelle ou inspirés de la méthode de référence à l’ordre juridique compétent envisagée par P. Picone, pourrait permettre d’assurer, à l’étranger, le respect des lois de police du for dans des hypothèses différentes. De manière transversale, la restauration de l’impérativité des lois de police pourrait être assurée grâce à un recours à la notion d’ordre juridique prépondérant. Désignant un ordre juridique dont une loi de police mettant directement en cause un intérêt étatique réellement fondamental serait applicable au fond du litige, elle devrait pouvoir fonder la reconnaissance de la vocation plus forte de celui-ci à faire valoir ses vues pour la résolution d’un litige. Elle pourrait fonder à la fois la revendication de compétence juridictionnelle prioritaire de celui-ci pour trancher le différend et un effacement des fors étrangers pour faire prévaloir le point de vue qu’il retient. Une telle solution, étroitement délimitée et justifiée au regard de l’importance des intérêts mis en cause, assurerait une solution satisfaisante permettant à la fois d’articuler harmonieusement la poursuite de la politique libérale qui s’impose dans les conflits de juridictions avec le respect des lois de police et de réconcilier la protection des impérativités étatiques avec la coordination des systèmes.
In times of mandatory provisions becoming more and more prevalent, based on conflict of law, the concept of mandatory enforcement appears to be somehow diluted regarding the liberal solutions found in conflicts of jurisdictions. In positive law, mandatory rules do not prevent the enforcement of a forum clause, no more than they are considered during the enforcement stage of decisions. While the application of these rules before foreign courts and arbitrators is very uncertain and does not raise obstacles to the recognition of foreign judgments or arbitral judgment which overlook them, choice of forum clauses has become an instrument of forum shopping in order to avoid mandatory regulations. This solution paradoxically induces a search for a solution to restore there international imperativity. This result has appeared as a consequence of the principle of separation of conflicts of law and conflicts of jurisdictions. That observation leads to ask questions about the possibility of an exemption to this general principle. Indeed, this encourages to consider the possibility to admit a correlation between forum and jus in order to establish imperative and exclusive competence, based on the applicability of such mandatory rules. This forum legis would require to maintain the litigation in its courts and could ensure their application in international relations. However, unilateralism that governs rules of judicial competence should involve the establishment of a mechanism of different legal systems coordination. Depending on the type of mandatory rules concerned, it could be based on an adapted form of forum non conveniens, on international judicial Co-operation processes, or be inspired by the method of reference to the competent legal order envisaged by P. Picone. The deployment of these solutions could be based on using preponderant state notion, that would be the one with the most widely public policy involved. It would lead to the recognition of the strong vocation of it to assert its views for the resolution of a dispute and would justify both the priority jurisdiction of its courts and circumspection of the other jurisdictional authorities to exercise their competence. Such a solution, tightly defined and justified in view of the importance of the interests involved, would provide a satisfactory solution to both harmoniously articulate the pursuit of liberal politics required in conflicts of jurisdictions with respect of public policy, and reconcile the protection of imperativities with the coordination of legal systems.
