scholarly journals Federalism and Private International Law: Implementing the Hague Choice of Court Convention in the United States

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-309
Author(s):  
Stephen B. Burbank
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Hague

Should Great Britain and the United States be Represented at the Hague Conferences on Private International Law

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 774-780
Author(s):  
Arthur K. Kuhn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
British Government ◽  
The Hague

At the Antwerp meeting of the International Law Association in 1903, a paper was presented by Mr. Justice Phillimore indicating the desirability of having Great Britain participate in the Hague Conferences on Private International Law. At the same meeting, a resolution was adopted on the motion of Mr. Justice Kennedy to the effect that the Association “should take steps respectfully to lay before the British Government the points dealt with in that paper” with a view to its participation in the conferences. Although not referring in terms to America, the resolution was seconded by Dr. Gregory, an American member, and the discussion showed plainly that it was the sense of the meeting that the resolution was intended to apply also to the United States.

The Hague Evidence Convention: Practice in the Netherlands

1989 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
Eric P. A. Keyzer ◽  
Marion Th. Nijhuis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Differences Of Opinion ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Hague

The Hague Evidence Convention – officially the Convention On the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters – was realized in 1970 by The Hague Conference for Private International Law. The Convention gave rise to several differences of opinion between Europe and the United States. The European countries and the United States, in particular, disagree about the (optional or obligatory) character of the convention-procedures. This article will, among other things, deal with the consequences to be expected in The Netherlands of a recent American Supreme Court judgement on this issue: The Aérospatiale case1. The subject will be treated in five sections: 1.The Hague Evidence Convention; 2.The Netherlands and The Hague Evidence Convention; 3.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for The Netherlands; 4.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for Dutch parties involved in litigation in the UnitedStates; 5.Aérospatiale and conclusion.

Różne perspektywy dotyczące skutków art. 95 CISG

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Danuta Pohl-Michałek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Sale Of Goods ◽  
Conflict Of Law

The 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was adopted in order to provide uniform rules governing the international sale of goods. It has already been ratified by an impressive number of 92 Contracting States, with the major trading countries taking the lead. The CISG applies to contracts for the sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States, where the States are CISG Contracting States (Article 1(1)(a)). Moreover, it applies to contracts for the sale of goods when the contracting parties have their places of business in different States and when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a CISG Contracting State (Article 1(1)(b)). However, at the time of ratification, the prospective Contracting States are given the possibility of making additional reservations, including one set out in Article 95 CISG, which limits the application of Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention. Although there are some CISG Contracting States that initially applied the reservation but have since withdrawn it, there are still a few Contracting States where the reservation remains[1], including the two largest trading countries – China and the United States. The paper presents various approaches regarding the interpretation of the effects of the reservation set out in Article 95 CISG, which in fact challenge the principle of the uniform interpretation and application of the Convention’s provisions. The author argues that the Article 95 CISG reservation leads to increased confusion and problematic conflict of law issues that bring more chaos than benefits.   [1] The remaining Article 95 CISG Reservatory States are: Armenia, China, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia and the United States of America. Information is based on the official website: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=X-10&chapter=10 (accessed: 9.12.2019).

scholarly journals Legal substantiation of retaliatory measures of the Russian Federation to economic sanctions of the United States, European Union, and their allies

2020 ◽  
pp. 24-37
Author(s):  
Larisa Yur'evna Dobrynina ◽  
Anna Viktorovna Gubareva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors examine the economic sanctions introduced nu the U.S., EU and their allies against the Russian Federation, as well as the legal mechanism of retaliatory measures taken by Russia on the nationwide scale. The changes in the international legal regulation derailed the vector of global development, which was bringing real freedom of economic activity. Establishment of the sanction regime by the aforementioned parties signifies a struggle for own influence, weakening of the positive trade and economic ties, as well as an attempt to institute a regime of protectionism within the international trade turnover exclusively for their own benefit. Based on the analysis of the normative-legal documents, an assessment is made on the legal legitimacy of the introduced discriminatory measures of the allies from the perspective of the norms of international law. This article presents the analysis of the positions of federal laws and other legislative bills of the Russian Federation, establishing gradual constraining countermeasures for foreign subjects in various spheres of activity. The authors substantiate the fact that introduction of retaliatory economic sanctions by the Russian Federation with regards to the United States, European Union, and their allies is directly related to the implementation of the principle of reciprocity, currently existing within private international law. It is noted that all these actions on protection from illegitimate sanctions are realized by Russia practically without participation of UN, WTO and other reputable international organizations in regulation of the “sanctions” issue. The extraterritorial measures introduced by the United States and the European Union justifies the movement of Russian into a new stage of evolution of legal regulation of the foreign economic activity, and in foreign trade – establishment of new markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document