scholarly journals Parochial Procedure

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie Gardner
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Path Dependence ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Institutional Capacity ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Common ◽  
Over Time

69 Stanford Law Review 941 (2017)The federal courts are often accused of being too parochial, favoring U.S. parties over foreigners and U.S. law over relevant foreign or international law. According to what this Article terms the “parochial critique,” the courts’ U.S.-centrism generates unnecessary friction with allies, regulatory conflict, and access-to-justice gaps. This parochialism is assumed to reflect the preferences of individual judges: persuade judges to like international law and transnational cases better, the standard story goes, and the courts will reach more cosmopolitan results.This Article challenges that assumption. I argue instead that parochial doctrines can develop even in the absence of parochial judges. Our sometimes-parochial procedure may be the unintended result of decisionmaking pressures that mount over time within poorly designed doctrines. As such, it reflects not so much the personal views of individual judges, but the limits of institutional capacity, the realities of behavioral decisionmaking, and the path dependence of the common law. This Article shows how open-ended decisionmaking in the midst of complexity encourages the use of heuristics that tend to emphasize the local, the familiar, and the concrete. These decisionmaking shortcuts, by disfavoring the foreign, put a parochial thumb on the scale—but that tilt is not limited to individual cases. Rather, it is locked in and amplified through the accumulation of precedent, as later judges rely on existing decisions to resolve new cases. Over time, even judges with positive conceptions of international law and transnational order will find themselves, in applying these doctrines, consistently favoring U.S. litigants over foreigners and U.S. law over foreign or international law.To explore this theory, the Article traces the evolution of four procedural doctrines: discovery of foreign evidence, forum non conveniens, service of process abroad, and the recognition of foreign judgments. The decisionmaking pressures outlined here can explain why the first two (framed as open-ended standards) are often criticized as parochial while the latter two (framed in more rule-like terms) are not. And if that account is at least plausible, it supports the primary claim of the Article: that the occasional parochialism of our courts does not necessarily reflect the personal prejudices of our judges. If so, then avoiding the costs of parochialism will require structural, not just personal, solutions.

scholarly journals Forum Non Conveniens in Australia: A Comparative Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Gray
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This paper critically examines the law of forum non conveniens, in particular the use of the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test in Australia, compared with the ‘more appropriate forum’ test applied in jurisdictions such as the UK and the US. It traces the development of the law in the UK in relation to forum non conveniens, including the English acceptance of the doctrine, and how it has been applied in various cases. Some criticism of the ‘more appropriate forum’ test is noted, and it is not recommended that the courts adopt the ‘laundry list’ approach evident in some US decisions, where up to 25 different factors are considered in assessing a forum non conveniens application. It considers the Australian ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test, and concludes that the ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test should no longer be followed in that it is unnecessarily parochial and is not consistent with other goals of the rules of private international law including comity. Links between Australia and the subject matter may well be tenuous. Confusion attends the application of the test in Australia at present, the court has rejected the English approach but claims to apply some of the factors mentioned in the English approach in the Australian test, and there is an undesirable schism between statutory rules applicable in domestic cases and the approach when the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens is used. The law regarding forum non conveniens should be harmonious with choice of law rules, and interest analysis can assist in formulating the desired approach to forum non conveniens applications.

scholarly journals Roles of the Courts in New Zealand in Giving Effect to International Human Rights - with Some History

1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J Keith
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Effect ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

The Right Honourable Sir Kenneth Keith was the fourth speaker at the NZ Institute of International Affairs Seminar. In this article he describes and reflects upon the role of courts and judges in relation to the advancement of human rights, an issue covered in K J Keith (ed) Essays on Human Rights (Sweet and Maxwell, Wellington, 1968). The article is divided into two parts. The first part discusses international lawmakers attempting to protect individual groups of people from 1648 to 1948, including religious minorities and foreign traders, slaves, aboriginal natives, victims of armed conflict, and workers. The second part discusses how from 1945 to 1948, there was a shift in international law to universal protection. The author notes that while treaties are not part of domestic law, they may have a constitutional role, be relevant in determining the common law, give content to the words of a statute, help interpret legislation which is in line with a treaty, help interpret legislation which is designed to give general effect to a treaty (but which is silent on the particular matter), and help interpret and affect the operation of legislation to which the international text has no apparent direct relation. 

Family Provision in New Zealand and Australia

2020 ◽  
pp. 450-476
Author(s):  
Nicola Peart ◽  
Prue Vines
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Her Family ◽  
Reproductive Techniques ◽  
The Common ◽  
Over Time

New Zealand and Australia are named in that order in the title because New Zealand was the first to develop the discretionary family provision jurisdiction, in 1900, that now applies in New Zealand, Australia, and much of the common law world. This allows courts to make awards to family members from the estate of the deceased. Originally benefitting only the surviving spouse and children, family provision has extended the rules of eligibility in line with changes in the meaning of ‘family’. So as well as spouses, claims can also, in many of the Australasian jurisdictions, be made by civil partners, cohabitants, and same-sex partners. Most jurisdictions have also broadened the class of eligible children to include grandchildren and stepchildren who were being maintained by the deceased as well as children born of new reproductive techniques. Both New Zealand and Australia have significant indigenous populations and their eligibility to claim family provision is modified to accord with their customary law. Over time, the courts have adopted a much broader view of a deceased’s ‘moral duty’ to his or her family, particularly in regard to claims by adult children. The size of awards has increased correspondingly. The chapter discusses this development, as well as the increasing relevance of Indigenous customary law and how the courts deal with disentitling conduct. In view of the greatly expanded scope of family provision in New Zealand and Australia, testamentary freedom may be only an illusion in these jurisdictions.

Fundamental Conceptions of International Law in the Jurisprudence of the Permanent Court of International Justice

1936 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Arthur Steiner
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Anglo American

Even in the most highly formalized systems of jurisprudence the rules and practices of the law cannot be entirely separated from the fundamental conceptions of law underlying them. The legal systems of France, The Netherlands and Germany have not been formalized to so great an extent that there is neither occasion nor opportunity for the application of the law to be conditioned by concepts derived from juridical theory. Duguit and Geny, Krabbe, and Kohler and Stammler, in their various works, have made this quite clear. In Anglo-American law the fictions so abundantly found are often no more than concrete formulations of abstract fundamental concepts which judges have thought to be valid and consistent with policy and which they could not conveniently introduce into the law in any other way. That fundamental conceptions of the law may affect its development more than their logical consistency warrants has been amply illustrated in the common law, equity, and American constitutional law. What is true of well-developed systems of jurisprudence is no less true of international law. Fundamental conceptions have probably had a greater influence here, since theologic and scholastic philosophies explain many of the rules of modern practice, and the rules of current practice owe their very existence, in large measure, to the reconciliaation of the philosophical concepts of the State, sovereignty and independence with the conception of a community of nations and a rule of law.

RE FLIGHTLEASE: THE ‘REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION’ TEST FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS FAILS TO TAKE FLIGHT IN IRELAND

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kenny
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Real ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Common

AbstractThe common law rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments were radically reformulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in Beals v Saldanha. Few other common law jurisdictions have considered whether or not to follow Canada in this development in private International Law. In 2012, the Irish Supreme Court definitively rejected the Canadian approach. This note examines the judgment in that case, and assesses the reasoning of the Irish Court.

Reasoning with the Foundations of Rules

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-83
Author(s):  
Duncan Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Rule ◽  
High Court ◽  
Historical Fact ◽  
The Common ◽  
Over Time

In PGA v The Queen, the High Court found that a legal rule ceased to exist well before many people thought it did. In Mabo v Queensland [No 2], the Court found that a legal rule came into existence well before many people thought it did. These conclusions are obviously different, and so are the reasons that led to them. But in both decisions the Court relied on the foundation of a legal rule to account for the rule's validity over time. In PGA, the rule was founded on another legal rule. In Mabo, the rule was founded on an historical fact. I explain how the Court reasoned with these foundations, and what this reasoning suggests about the nature of the common law in Australia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document