Vietnam’s International Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters – with Focus on Hague Service Convention and Hague Evidence Convention

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 431-499
Author(s):  
Changmin Choi
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Zinian Zhang

AbstractThis study empirically investigates China’s participation in the globalized cross-border insolvency collaboration system. It is the first time for the development of China’s cross-border insolvency law to be examined against the background of private international law on foreign judgment recognition and enforcement. The findings of this article reveal that foreign bankruptcy representatives face considerable difficulties in satisfying the treaty and reciprocity requirements when seeking judicial assistance from China, and that local protectionism in favour of China’s state-owned and state-linked companies undermines foreign bankruptcy representatives’ confidence in approaching China’s courts for support. Although there are several court recognitions of foreign bankruptcy judgments in China, this article finds that they are only used to acknowledge the legal status of foreign bankruptcy representatives to meet the demands of government authorities; Chinese courts have not taken a substantial step in recognizing a foreign bankruptcy judgment so as to bar individual creditors’ action in the interest of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. On the contrary, for Chinese bankruptcy representatives seeking assistance abroad, they could take advantage of the liberal judicial infrastructure, especially of some advanced jurisdictions, to obtain recognition and relief.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-164
Author(s):  
Charlie Irvine

AbstractWhen mediation places decision-making power in the hands of lay disputants it raises troubling issues. Can justice be delivered without judicial assistance? What is the effect on the legal system? And how should outcomes thus achieved be regarded? Critics have tended to answer negatively, pointing to a range of harms including individual oppression and the vanishing trial. Such views, focusing too narrowly on conformity to legal norms, overlook ordinary people's capacity for justice reasoning. A recent Scottish pilot study of small-claims mediation parties illustrates the richness and complexity of their thinking around whether, and for how much, to settle. This suggests that mediation settlements, rather than representing second-class justice, may enhance the legitimacy of the legal system. Implications for theories of justice are considered.


Author(s):  
Hirad Abtahi ◽  
Philippe Kirsch

By virtue of its longevity, territorial scope, mandate, and resources, the UN has been pivotal in the development of international criminal justice. While its contribution has been mostly institutional, in terms of genesis, establishment, and functioning of international and hybrid criminal courts, the UN has also shaped their procedural and substantive law. Starting with the first to be established—the ad hoc tribunals—the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII, adopted the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) statutes and fully managed them. To a lesser extent, the same could be said of Timor Leste’s Special Panel for Serious Crimes. Regarding the creation of hybrid criminal courts, that is, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), and Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), the UN served as a bilateral treaty-making forum for the negotiation and conclusion of UN-member states’ agreements. Through the ICTY completion strategy and rule 11bis, the UN also internationalized domestic courts (War Crimes Chambers) to enhance national judicial capacity building to prosecute international crimes. Finally, the UN served as the ultimate multilateral treaty-making body in the ICC’s half-century-long creation; starting with the Genocide Convention, and continuing with the ILC and subsequent negotiations leading to the adoption of the ICC Statute, which created a complex institutional and jurisdictional relationship with the UN. Institutionally, this has included cooperation and judicial assistance, dispute settlement functions, UN treaty functions, and adherence to the UN common system. Jurisdictionally, this has involved Chapter VII referrals and deferrals and jurisdiction over a range of crimes close to other UN created tribunals.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document