scholarly journals Covenant Marriage and the Conflict of Laws

2015 ◽  
pp. 815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lily Ng
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Divorce Rate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Covenant Marriage ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Recently, three American stales introduced covenant marriage as a new form of marriage in response to the rising divorce rate. The author examines the threedistinguishing characteristics of covenant marriage that distinguish it from the current form of marriage offered in the United States and Canada. For the United States, the author canvasses the possibility of separating jurisdiction from choice of law. separating subject matter jurisdiction from personal jurisdiction, and recognition of the parties' intent, as three possible alternatives that non-covenant marriage states can utilize in order to respect the parties' intentions and the covenant marriage state's legislative intent. For Canada, the author canvasses the possibility that while Canada could take jurisdiction on the "ordinarily resident" basis, they may refuse jurisdiction on the basis of <i>forum non conveniens</i> or, alternatively, that they may apply the substantive law of the covenant marriage state on the basis that the Declaration of Intent signed by the parties represents an express choice of law clause.

Weltover, Inc. v. Republic Of Argentina

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 560-564
Author(s):  
Joseph D. Pizzurro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs, two Panamanian corporations and a Swiss bank, brought an action against the Republic of Argentina and Banco Central de la República Argentina (Banco Central) for breach of obligations arising out of the issuance of certain bonds. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1602-1611 (1988)) (FSIA). In the alternative, defendants moved for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The district court denied the motions and held that: (1) the acts of the defendants in issuing, and breaching the payment obligations under, certain bonds were commercial, and the failure to pay on those bonds, which contemplated payment in New York, constituted a direct effect in the United States even though the plaintiffs were non-U.S. entities; (2) the aggregate of the defendants’ contacts with the United States, together with the promise to pay the plaintiffs in New York, satisfied the minimum contacts requirement under the due process clause; and (3) the defendants had not made a sufficient showing to justify a dismissal of the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

scholarly journals Introduction to Symposium on the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law School ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Third ◽  
American Law

The American Law Institute (ALI) has recently embarked on the project of elaborating a new Restatement of Conflict of Laws. Its first two Restatements on this subject have been enormously influential. The Ali began its work on the First Restatement in 1923, naming Joseph Beale of the Harvard Law School as its Reporter. Adopted in 1934, the First Restatement reflected the highly territorialist approach to the conflict of laws that had long prevailed in this country. Even before the First Restatement’s adoption, the First Restatement’s territorialist approach, and the “vested rights” theory on which it was based, was subjected to intense scholarly criticism. Nevertheless, the First Restatement’s approach continued to prevail in the United States until the New York Court of Appeals initiated a “choice-of-law revolution” in the early 1960’s with its decision inBabcock v. Jackson. Although most states have departed from the First Restatement’s approach, the First Restatement retains its adherents. Ten states continue to follow the First Restatement for tort cases and twelve states for contract cases.

scholarly journals Doubling Down on Litigation Isolationism

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 57-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela K. Bookman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Last year in the Stanford Law Review, I described an emerging trend in U.S. courts: litigation isolationism. Through developments in personal jurisdiction,forum non conveniens, international comity, and the presumption against extraterritoriality, I argued, courts have developed increasingly strong tools for avoiding transnational litigation. Decisions advancing litigation isolationism often fail to accomplish their stated goals—typically promoting separation of powers, avoiding interstate friction, and protecting defendants from the inconvenience of U.S. litigation. They also undermine important U.S. interests, often by excluding or dismissing cases that have close ties to the United States. At the end of that article, I cautioned against the continuation of the trend.

scholarly journals ISLAMIC JURISDICTION: SHARIE‘A COURTS AND THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC POLICY

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-26
Author(s):  
Mohamed Arafa
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Future ◽  
Western Media

Recently the issue of the Sharie‘a courts has been drawing the attention of the Western media, especially in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Legal scholars and legal activists are quite reluctant to contribute to the discourse held mostly by reporters, religious figures and politicians. This could be why the matter is covered cursorily resting upon emotional, prejudiced and politically inspired debates and valuations. Moreover, the Sharie‘a court’s jurisdiction is not always obviously specified and fundamentally various issues of these courts get mixed and sometimes led to the conflict of laws (choice of law) questions.

Comparing Interstate and European Conflict of Laws from a Constitutional Perspective: Can the United States Inspire the European Union?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Meeusen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Interest ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Interstate Conflicts ◽  
Set Up

Abstract The still-recent process of Europeanization and constitutionalization of conflict of laws in the European Union can benefit in some respects from a comparison, from a constitutional perspective, with interstate conflict of laws in the United States. The quasi-absence of federal choice-of-law rules, the Supreme Court’s approach of minimal constitutional constraints to choice of law and the focus of U.S. interstate conflicts law on substantive policies and interests stand out as three major differences from the development of EU conflict of laws. Learning from the American experience and taking into account the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality, the EU legislature should be open, in particularly sensitive areas, to the recognition method as an alternative to the unification of choice-of-law rules. Neither the Supreme Court’s minimal constraints doctrine nor its prioritization of individual-fairness concerns over federal interests should be followed in Europe. Although it recognizes that conflict of laws can contribute in different ways to the European general interest, the Treaty of Lisbon has set up a rather disappointing framework to that effect. Amendments and clarifications are needed to enable EU conflict of laws to fulfill its ambitions and really contribute to the EU’s quasi-federal integration process.

Territoriality and Its Troubles

2020 ◽  
pp. 371-388
Author(s):  
George Rutherglen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
The United States ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Government Power ◽  
Case Count ◽  
Federal Statute

This chapter examines what the presumption against extraterritoriality means and how it operates. The presumption against extraterritoriality itself presumes a set of complicated rules about which features of a transnational case count: which features make a case territorial and within the scope of a federal statute because these features can be located within the United States or, if they cannot, make the case extraterritorial and outside the statute’s scope. The dependence of the presumption upon a network of other rules both complicates its operation and makes it a less than certain guide to statutory interpretation. The chapter then considers the justification for territorial allocation of government power generally, and addresses the question of whether any presumption about the territorial scope of statutes must await a new consensus on the appropriate rules of choice of law. It argues that the presumption against extraterritoriality requires a flexible interpretation that makes it more of a principle than a rule. From that premise, the chapter studies the choice between an ad hoc and a principled application of the presumption, both of which are exemplified in recent decisions.

Free Speech in the Balance: An Examination of Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme for its Bearing on Conflict of Laws, Global Free Speech, and the International Regulation of the Internet

Global Jurist ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Ziaja
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Transnational Communication ◽  
Communication Calls

The global proliferation of the Internet, given the ease with which it permits transnational communication, calls into question the applicability of traditional territorial legal systems in governing its use. Conflict-of-laws instruments and the regulation of speech are two thorny areas of concern in this vein that interrelate in a 2006 case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States, Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme. Yahoo! offers an entry point, through its bearing on conflict-of-laws and freedom of speech jurisprudence, into examining the appropriateness of traditional legal schemes to the task of regulating Internet-enabled conduct. Focusing on the substantive issues in Yahoo!, this paper takes up the adequacy of traditional conflict-of-laws instruments as regards Internet-enabled conduct, possible alternatives to the use of conflict-of-laws instruments to regulate Internet-enabled conduct, the applicability and weight of the French law against the First Amendment in a United States court, and, finally, the possibility of developing a common core of global values regarding speech on the Internet.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document