I. The 20th Session Of The Hague Conference: A New Choice Of Court Convention And The Issue Of Ec Memebership

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thalia Kruger

On 30 June 2005 a Convention to respect choice of court agreements was finally born. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements aspires to be parallel to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (‘New York Convention’). The exception is that if an equally broadly accepted convention exists with respect to choice of court agreements,1 business parties will have an alternative to choosing arbitration in their contracts. If they have the assurance that a judgement will be recognized and enforced in a large number of States, some might be more inclined to insert a choice of court clause instead of an arbitration clause. This assumption has been confirmed by ICC research.2

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 9-27
Author(s):  
Magdalena Aksamitowska-Kobos, ◽  
Jakub M. Łukasiewicz

This publication presents the evolution of international law acts in the scope of alimony execution from the obliged one residing on the territory of Spain, for the benefit of a child, having the enforcement order and residing in Poland. In this context, it is worth noticing that in case of the discussed Polish-Spanish relations, the performance of scientific discourse concerning alimony execution seems particularly interesting, due to the fact that the prescriptive material being a kind of achievement of international diplomacy in the practical aspect, is often useless. Despite the formal introduction of other legal acts, that is the New York Convention of 1956, the Hague Convention of 1973, the Lugano Convention of 1988 and the Brussels I Regulation (regulation 44/2001), it can be stated that during the practical use of law, a jumping evolution occurred which was the fact that Polish courts only utilized the New York convention and skipped other, indicated acts herein, until the moment of implementation of the regulation 4/2009. The aim of the authors is to point the reasons of such a condition and the presentation of the process leading the obtainment of the benefits due to the entitled one.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Marina Senicheva

The article sheds some light on problems that impede the ratification by the Russian Federation of the Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements of July 2, 2019. As a result of analysis of the risks and prospects of ratification by the Russian Federation of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign judgements of July 2, 2019, the author concludes that there are no legal contradictions that could adversely affect ratification of the convention in question. In this regard it is possible to conclude that these are political contradictions and the Russian Federation’s reluctance to build a cross-border system for recognizing and enforcing decisions of foreign courts that can impede the convention's ratification


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-96
Author(s):  
Luciane Klein Vieira ◽  
Taísa Nara de Oliveira Barbosa

O presente artigo tem como foco a cobrança internacional de alimentos, sua natureza e seus procedimentos, tendo em vista a recente ratificação da Convenção de Haia sobre a Cobrança Internacional de Alimentos em Benefício dos Filhos e de outros Membros da Família, pelo Brasil, em 2017. Neste sentido, busca estudar, em matéria de alimentos, o processo de reconhecimento e de execução de decisões estrangeiras a que estão submetidos os países signatários da referida Convenção, preocupando-se menos com um olhar individual e específico sobre como as sentenças transnacionais são reconhecidas e executadas no Brasil e mais com uma visão ampla sobre os principais aspectos da Convenção sobre as obrigações alimentares. O principal objetivo é demonstrar como a cooperação internacional, através das autoridades centrais, permite uma comunicação mais rápida e eficaz entre os Estados partes, beneficiando, deste modo, ao alimentando, objeto da tutela pretendida Abstract This article analyzes the international recovery of alimony, its nature and its procedures, in view of the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, ratified by Brazil in 2017. The article seeks to study, in the matter of alimony, the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions to which the signatory countries of the Convention are subject. This seeks less an individual and specific look at how transnational sentences are recognized and enforced in Brazil and a broader view on the main aspects of the Convention on maintenance obligations. The main focus is on the objective of demonstrating how international cooperation between the states, through the central authorities, which allows for a faster and more efficient communication between the States Parties, thus benefiting the weak party, the object of the intended protection.


Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C

This chapter considers recognition and enforcement under the Hague Convention. Hague applies only to judgments given by a court of a State to which the Hague Convention applies, and it applies only if the court of origin had jurisdiction under a choice-of-court agreement. The position under Hague is different from that under Brussels 2012 and Lugano 2007 since the court addressed is not precluded from deciding for itself whether the choice-of-court agreement was valid and the claim was within its scope. Apart from this, Hague has a great deal in common with Brussels and Lugano, though there are a number of additional provisions in the former that find no counterpart in the latter. The relevant provisions are found in Part III of the Convention. Article 8 lays down the general conditions for recognition; Article 9 provides certain specific grounds for non-recognition and subsequent Articles deal with special issues. Each of these provisions are considered in turn.


Author(s):  
Moses Margaret L

This chapter considers whether an arbitration clause that requires all disputes arising out of a trust instrument to be arbitrated can be enforced under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, more commonly known as the New York Convention. To address the question of whether a mandatory arbitration provision in a trust instrument falls within the scope of the Convention, a court must consider: whether the dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration; whether there is an agreement in writing to arbitrate the subject of the dispute and whether that agreement binds all the parties to arbitration; whether the dispute is foreign; in some cases, whether the agreement arises out of a legal relationship, contractual or not, which is considered ‘commercial’; and (v) in some cases, whether the agreement provides for arbitration in the territory of a state party to the convention (Contracting State).


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-318
Author(s):  
Wei Cai ◽  
Jonathan Kolieb

Abstract In September 2017, China signed the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. There are no obstacles preventing China from ratifying the Convention. However, the possible reservations China may declare appear to be a key concern for the success of the Convention. This article identifies the key conflicts between the Convention and Chinese law and practice, and analyses the pros and cons of some possible reservations the Chinese authorities may consider when ratifying the Convention. China’s ratification of the Convention would have a positive impact on the global recognition and enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments. Although China may have some specific concerns (e.g. national security) in its recognition and enforcement of particular foreign judgments, it is desirable that China adopts a pragmatic approach and minimize the number and extent of its reservations to the Convention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document