introduction: concept, three processes, renvoi &vorfrage, forum shopping and forum non conveniens Flashcards
ipr
vaak ook conflicts of law maar dat verwijst louter naar stap 2 erwijl ipr streeft naar legal certainty takes precedence over suitability. is ook rustig type niet enkel in conflict
three distinct processes- -which have led to varying degrees of convergence or harmonisation..
1) jurisdiction (what court had jurisdiction to hear the case)
2) applicable law (what law will that court apply)
3) recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
narrow definition of ipr/conflict of law
the rules applied by domstic courts to determine which laws apply to cases that involve people in diffrent countries or diffrent nationalities, or transactions which cross international boundaries.
broader approach IPR
includes recognition and enforcement– what are the rules and needs if any for restricting the authority of domestic courts to hear disputes involving foreigners and foreign transactions, and is there/should there be a binding obligation to recognise and enfoce judgments resulting from adjudication in foreign courts.
pas op!!! all three areas , been an increasing international CONVERGENCE or even harmonisation with the EU as the most advanced!
maar!! IPR conceptually neitehr seeks nor requires regulatory convergence! – remains NATIONAL law!! with the potential and evolving exception of a growing number of subject-matter in Europeaen law
ondanks (notwithstanding) convergence and harmonisation , IPR remains dramatically diffrent from PUBLIC international law in two main aspects
1) it aims to regulate relationships between private parties NOT states
2) it is designed to function primarily at the domestic level in domestic courts
there is limited overlap in particular in sovereign and diplomatic immunity and government seizure of poperty (niet in het Handboek )
sources of PIL
belangrijk ! hague conference van 1893- important source for PIl – active in three areas: 1)protection of children, family and property relations 2) international legal cooperation and litigation 3) international commerce and finance law (including potential future convention on choice of law for contracts ) in total 39 conventions! met 72 member states
UNCITRAL
works mostly through model laws on international commercial arbitartion and contract for international sale of goods
UNCITRAL is concerned with harmonisation of substantive law thus falling outside the traditional scope of PIL
hague conference 1893
On the initiative of Tobias Asser, the First Diplomatic Session of the HCCH was convoked in 1893. Its aim was, and remains, to “work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law”, including by creating, and assisting in the implementation of, multilateral conventions that promote the harmonisation of the rules and principles of private international law (or conflict of laws).
The First to Fourth Diplomatic Session of the HCCH took place in 1893, 1894, 1900 and 1904 respectively. They resulted in a number of multilateral treaties, the Hague Conventions, that unified the rules of private international law in the areas of Marriage (1902), Divorce (1902), Guardianship (1902), Civil Procedure (1905), Effects of Marriage (1905), and Deprivation of Civil Rights (1905).
Since 1955, the HCCH developed 38 international conventions and protocols that establish rules on jurisdiction, applicable law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and on legal and judicial cooperation.[4] They are open for adoption, accession or ratification by any State, including States that are not members of HCCH.
In 2015, the HCCH adopted its first soft-law instrument, the Hague Principles on the Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts.
The HCCH’s instruments cover subject matters in the area of 1)family law and child protection, 2)international civil procedure and legal cooperation, as well as 3) cross-border commercial and finance law. These areas are often referred to as the “three pillars” of the HCCH. The following HCCH conventions are the most ratified:
UNCITRAL
United Nation Comission on international Trade law
In an increasingly economically interdependent world, the importance of an improved legal framework for the facilitation of international trade and investment is widely acknowledged. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), established by the United Nations General Assembly by resolution 2205 (XXI) of 17 December 1966 (see annex I), plays an important role in developing that framework in pursuance of its mandate to further the progressive harmonization and modernization of the law of international trade by preparing and promoting the use and adoption of legislative and non-legislative instruments in a number of key areas of commercial law.
three processes of PIL and standard ‘connecting factors’
1) determination of JURISDICTION/FORUM
2) APPLICABLE LAW/ LEX CAUSAE
3) RECOGN. and ENFORCEMENT
belangrijk voor stap 2 voornamelijk 19/20ste eeuw : Friederich Carl Von Savigny
maar meer en meer relevance for jurisdiction belangrijk voor versch zaken : bv parties willen 1 court mss liever dan ander voor politieke kleur! maar ook voor de predictably van de outcomes!
procedural issues – excluded from PIL
Choice of law/PIL never applies to this issues!! – depends always on the law of the country wherre the proceeding is succesfully brought = lex fori
discussie wat is procedural en wat niet
Recovery of costs and possibility of legal aid are unidsputed examples of procedural issues. nog voobeeld is bv: welke partie uiteindelijk fees moet dragen, obtaining evidence, of trial must by heard by jury , ius novit curiae etc. = procedural dus niet IPR
3 luiken ! pil
1) internationale bevoegdheid (bevpegdheidsrecht)
2) toepasselijk recht (conflictenrecht)
3) erkenning en uitvoerbaarheid buitenlandse onnissen en aktes (exequaturrecht)
cassusen stap voor stap toepassen !
IPR regelt recht van toepassing op privaatrechtelijke relaties= twee prive personenen of prive persoon en OH als deze handelt privaatrechtelijk = IURE COMERCII
MAAR IPR geen internationaal recht is meer een BRuggenbouwer tss veschillende rechtssystemen
Bijzondere positie van het VK, Ierland en vooral Denemarken zijn de buitenbeentjes, hiermee altijd oppassen bij casussen!
lex fori
recht van de rechtbank - procedural issues
ius novit curia
the bench is supposed to know this itself
application of law
even when applicable law is determined, not all judges will apply it in the same way – vooral waar OPEN-ENDED (ex. general welbeing) + CULTURAL context
+ diffrences in competence and know-how
GLEICHLAUF: the circumstance in which the court with jurisdiction (the forum) applies his “own” law to the dispute may often seem attractive – soms in commercial kan zelfs andersom dat ze willen dat engels recht wordt toegepast door een niet-engelse court– omdat die het anders zou inetrpreteren
reden waarom niet voor bepaalde court: Bias, incompetence, corruption
gleichlauf
GLEICHLAUF: the circumstance in which the court with jurisdiction (the forum) applies his “own” law to the dispute may often seem attractive – soms in commercial kan zelfs andersom dat ze willen dat engels recht wordt toegepast door een niet-engelse court– omdat die het anders zou inetrpreteren
rechtsmacht en toepasselijk recht lopen samen
Carl Friederich van Savigny (1779-1861)
boek geschreven over Roman international law– laatste deel covered a BLINDFOLD approach to PIL
the rules of PIL identify applicable law without taking account of the contents of that law or any other
Carl rejects both the personal focus- roman empire of tribal law and the territorial focus of early middle ages
von savigny focusis on the SITZ /seat of a relationship in law –
wich legal order has the closest CONNECTION to the specific facts at issue, where lies the nexus of the case
in von savigny approach conflict of laws ought to become neutral
maar zijn th toch dominant nu in PIl voora in stage van applcale law (step 2) = 3 onderdelen
step 2 applicalbe lew lex causae = 3 stappen
1) characterisation (french: qualification) of legal question: requires the facts be accommodated within one or more legal categories to which a choice of law may be applied– crucial step (harmonised or not, national courts have full discretion or not)
2) connecting factor: each legal category has than a connecting factor (EU law calls it linking factor) Whcih legal system connects most closely with this category of legal questions??
3) lex causae: apply substantive law
bv. capacity to marry = qualification of a belgian (= connecting factor) is determined by belgian law = applicalble law
standard factors are divided in two categories! 1)personal 2)causal
connecting factors
1) personal bv. domicile, recidence, nationality
2) causal: lex domicilli, lex contractus, lex delicti, lex loci delicti commissi, lex damni etc.
stap 1 van stap 2 applicable law = characterisation of legal question
requires the fact to be accommodated within one or more legal categories– this categories are branches of private law bv : capacity to matty, marital property law, dependece, succession, torts, contracts, = direct result of Savigny’s influence: one employs an objective approach in search of the sitz of the facts = wich legal order has the closest connection to specific facts f teh issue = sitz
verschil met US theory of governmental intrest analysis= which holds that the stae with the greatest intrest in having its law applied to a given case should see it applied.
US theory of governmental intrest analysis
which holds that the stae with the greatest intrest in having its law applied to a given case should see it applied.– verschil von savigny theory
european private law sitz?
for correction of the objective sitz theory to have the law apply with the CLOSEST and MOST REAL connection
subcategory of characterisation is INCIDENTAL issue/VORFRAGE
wanneerbeslist welke characterisation, welk applicable law is most connected to the legal category however before one may apply it – need to decide on the actual existence of the category in the facts at the issue! = Vorfrage = Rechtsvraag die incidenteel rijst naast de hoofdvraag, het materieelrechtelijke antwoord op deze rechtsvraag determinieert en tot een andere verwijzingscategorie behoort dan de
- Zelfstandige aanknopingstechniek: De incidentele vraag wordt behandeld alsof ze de hoofdvraag is en het IPR van het forum stipt de toepasselijke wet aan. (Vorfrage als hoofdvraag oplossen naar IPR van het forum)
- Onzelfstandige aanknoping= waarbij het IPR van de materiele wet, die voor het oplossen van de hoofdvraag van toepassing is, op de voorvraag wordt toegepast. (Vorfrage na hoofdvraag oplossen volgens IPR van materieel recht dat werd aangewezen door het forum bij oplossing hoofdvraag)
twee cases: Ogden v Ogden + Schwebel v. Ungar
1) Ogden v Ogden : court of appeal england+wales had to determin wheter the marriage, celbrated in england between english and french national was valid evne no parental consent was given. court of appeal held that this was a matter of formal validity of marriage = characterisation wich lead to the lex locus celebrationis! dus applicalbe law is english law – this made consent nor relevant maar als ze oordelen is capacity to marry was applicable law the capaicity of marriage= nationality of person = french law en daar kan dan niet! dan aws marriage invalid!
2) schwebel v ungar: canadian supreme court jewish husband and wife married and domiciled in hungary en route to relocta to israel they stay in italy where the husband divorces his wife by “get” neither hungarian or italy recognices “get” maar israel their subseuent domicile of choice does! wife moves to canad but remains docilied in israel went to a 2 marriage – husband zegt nullity of marriage on basis of bigamy
main question is capacity of of marrying of the wife a characterisation that under candian law calls for the application of lex domicilli = israel = incidental question however relates to the validity of divorce which under canadian law leads to lex domicilli of taht time = hungarian law or italian law – supreme court nevertless applies israeli law– law of main question
maar super weinig vorfrage cases! – ehrenzweig famous referring to vorfrage as another miscreant of a conceptualism gone rampant!
maar in european law kan wel belangrijk zijn – zien we dat ze dat gebruiken om te oordelen of idd court wel bevoegd is – is zelfs deesl gecodificeerd bv artikel 10(1) rome I regulation on applicable law in contracts – zegt existence and validity of contract shall be determined by law wwhich would govern it under this regulation= CANCELS out lex fori to decide the vorfrage!!
