Conflict of Laws: Personal Jurisdiction: Constitutionality of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 417 (b)

1960 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 295
Author(s):  
John L. Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Recent Decisions on Specific Personal Jurisdiction in the United States Civil Procedure

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 447-473
Author(s):  
Young-Ran Choi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL CIVIL PROCESS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (06) ◽  
pp. 259-262
Author(s):  
Akhmurodov Jakhongir ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Civil Process ◽  
Definition Of

This article examines various opinions regarding the international civil procedure as part of private international law and concludes that international civil procedure is directly related to the definition of applicable law, and that substantive regulation of private law relations complicated by a foreign element is generally impossible in practice without addressing both conflict of laws and procedural problems.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Brief of Professors of Conflict of Laws and Civil Procedure as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Whytock ◽  
Zachary D. Clopton
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Information ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
American Law ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Court Proceedings

The Second Circuit held that “when a foreign government, acting through counsel or otherwise, directly participates in U.S. court proceedings by providing a sworn evidentiary proffer regarding the construction and effect of its laws and regulations, which is reasonable under the circumstances presented, a U.S. court is bound to defer to those statements.” In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175, 189 (2d Cir. 2016). This “bound-to-defer” rule is incorrect and unwise.First, the “bound-to-defer” rule is inconsistent with basic American conflict-of-laws principles governing the determination of foreign law. It is inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1’s broad authorization for U.S. courts to “consider any relevant material or source” when determining foreign law. It is inconsistent with the principle that determinations of foreign law should be accurate. And it is inconsistent with the principle of judicial independence in the determination of foreign law.Second, the “bound-to-defer” rule is inconsistent with foreign and international practice. In most other countries, information about foreign law is not binding on courts. Moreover, the world’s two main treaties on the interpretation of foreign law expressly provide that information supplied by foreign governments in accordance with those treaties is not binding on courts. Simply put, foreign governments do not expect each other’s courts to be “bound to defer” to each other’s interpretations of foreign law, much less the interpretation of one executive agency of a foreign government.Third, there are important reasons why deference principles should be kept separate from the principles governing the determination of foreign law. The Second Circuit’s “bound-to-defer” rule would inappropriately delegate to foreign governments power to influence the application of domestic law — and hence the implementation of domestic policy — in a wide range of cases in which the proper application of U.S. law depends on the determination of foreign law. In addition, international comity does not require U.S. courts to defer to foreign governments in the determination of foreign law. International comity is a traditional rationale for choice-of-law rules that require the application of foreign law as a rule of decision under specified circumstances. But in this case, foreign law is at issue because the application of U.S. law depends on the interpretation of foreign law, not because choice-of-law rules require the application of foreign law. Therefore, this case does not implicate the comity rationale for choice-of-law rules. Moreover, the concerns that animate comity doctrines are not the same as those that animate the rules governing the determination of foreign law. The former are concerned with the respect owed between governments, whereas the latter are concerned with ensuring that U.S. courts independently and accurately determine the content of foreign law. In fact, the “bound-to-defer” rule raises issues that are likely to pose significant comity concerns that the ordinary Rule 44.1 approach avoids. U.S. courts can still address comity concerns — separately from their independent determination of foreign law.To be sure, U.S. courts should give respectful consideration to a foreign government’s statements about its law. But as a matter of law, a foreign government’s statements cannot be binding on U.S. courts. Instead, U.S. courts should accurately and independently determine the meaning of foreign law taking into account not only the foreign government’s own statements, but also other relevant information about that law. This independent approach is especially important when — as in this U.S. antitrust case and many other cases — the proper application of American law depends on a determination of foreign law.

scholarly journals The Conflicts Restatement and the World

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 155-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf Michaels
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
International Conflicts ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The World ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Some sixteen years ago, on the occasion one of many symposia on the possibility of a new Restatement on Conflict of Laws to replace the much-derided Second Restatement, Mathias Reimann suggested that a new Restatement should focus on the requirements of what he called “the international age.” Conflict of laws is increasingly international, he pointed out. This remains true today—just recall that three of the four recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on personal jurisdiction concerned international conflicts. A new Restatement must take that into account. Reimann formulated three very sensible wishes for drafters of a new Restatement: they should consider every rule and principle they formulate with international disputes in mind; they should work comparatively; and they should include foreign advisers.

scholarly journals On the Jurisdiction of Foreign Divorce Cases in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Xueer Han ◽  
Hanyue Xue ◽  
Yiou Chen ◽  
Xuelin Liu ◽  
Yitao Liu
Keyword(s):  
General Solution ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Entry Point ◽  
Solution Path ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Judicial Interpretations

This article takes China’s jurisdiction over foreign-related divorce cases as an entry point, and systematically expounds the provisions of China’s foreign-related divorce jurisdiction. According to my country’s regulations, my country’s jurisdiction over a foreign-related divorce is vertically divided into direct jurisdiction and indirect jurisdiction, and horizontally divided into personal Jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction, and jurisdiction by agreement. In my country’s Civil Procedure Law and related judicial interpretations, the domicile of the “plaintiff is the defendant” and the location of the plaintiff under certain circumstances is the main focus. The general solution path of the case; At the same time, my country's regulations on foreign-related divorce cases still have shortcomings, and there are still many areas that need to be improved. This article analyzes the shortcomings and the areas to be improved.

Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz in grenzüberschreitenden Schiedsverfahren

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Mink
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz

The thesis focuses on the difficulties of determining the applicable law in interim proceedings in cross-border arbitral proceedings. First, it examines whether arbitral tribunals have a lex arbitri. Subsequently, the various possibilities of interim measures are described and the question is discussed whether arbitral tribunals have to refer to the Rome I Regulation or Section 1051 of the German Code of Civil Procedure in order to determine the applicable conflict of laws for contractual obligations. Then, it is analysed how the applicable substantive law is to be determined or how to proceed in case of non-determinability of such. Finally, the consequences of the application of a substitute law for the main proceedings are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document