CONTRADICTION TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS A GROUND FOR CANCELLATION OF THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT AND REFUSAL TO ISSUE A WRIT OF EXECUTION

The contradiction with the public order of the Russian Federation is an unconditional basis for cancellation of the decision of the arbitration court and refusal to issue a writ of execution. What is meant by the public policy? There is no definition in the legislation. According to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation under the public policy are understood the fundamental legal principles (principles) having the highest imperative and universality. Study and analysis of the practice of consideration and resolution of cases about the cancellation of arbitration court decisions and refusal to issue writs of execution by arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction shows that the content of the concept of public policy in view of the abstract nature of normativity, inherent in the concept of fundamental principles of Russian law, is interpreted by judicial practice very widely. Since establishing in what cases the decision of an arbitration court violates the fundamental principles of Russian law, and hence the public policy of the Russian Federation, refers to the discretion of the court considering the case, and the boundaries of application of this ground for reversal of decision are determined by the discretion of the court in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. The article also concludes that the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which lies in the fact that since the arbitration courts do not exercise judicial power and are not part of the judicial system of the Russian Federation, the state courts are not empowered to verify the legality of decisions of arbitration courts, which involves identifying the correctness of interpretation and application of law by the court of arbitration, must be understood systematically. According to the author, it is necessary to take into account that the function of state courts to control arbitration proceedings consists, among other things, in ensuring compliance of the results of arbitration proceedings with fundamental legal values, which include the legality of decisions rendered by arbitration courts in terms of interpretation and application of rules of law.

AI for Judges

As artificial intelligence transforms the economy and American society, it will also transform the practice of law and the role of courts in regulating its use. What role should, will, or might judges play in addressing the use of AI? And relatedly, how will AI and machine learning impact judicial practice in federal and state courts? This report is intended to provide a framework for judges to address AI.

Civil Liability for Sex Abuse by Muslim Clergy in Spain

State courts of civil law and common law jurisdictions alike are used to applying the rules of direct and indirect tort liability to Christian churches in different ways and with different results. But recent court decisions have put the issue of the civil liability of religious groups for acts of sex abuse by clergy in a different context, that of Islam. A common denominator in the reasoning of courts worldwide is the relevance of religious authority – authority to appoint and supervise clergy or authority vested in clergy – as an important factor in the attribution of civil liability. But Islam is a religion whose organizational structure and ministers are simply too different from those of the various Christian churches, so that state courts run the risk of wrongly applying to Islamic communities and Muslim entities the same categories and legal principles they usually apply in other, more common, cases of sex abuse.

Judicial Review

The conventional account of judicial review starts with a US Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. But judicial review in truth starts with the state courts and the state constitutions, not the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution. Before the US Constitution existed, the state courts established American judicial review and were the first courts to wrestle with the complexities of exercising it. Judicial review also is foremost a structural story, not an individual-rights story. The delegation of power to the judiciary to decide the meaning of our constitutions laid the groundwork for the growth in power of American courts—especially the federal courts, which have become the go-to answer for so many who-decides questions in American government over the last seventy-five years. This chapter begins a search for insights in resolving the dilemma of judicial review by looking at how the state courts innovated the concept and the ways they initially practiced it. It shows that the early state courts were deferential to the democratic branches of government. They rarely invalidated state laws and did so only when these laws violated a clear constitutional rule. That approach offers lessons for federal and state courts alike.

THE LONG ARM OF TORT LAW. THE COMPETENCE OF U.S. COURTS IN DEFAMATION CLAIMS AGAINST FOREIGN DEFENDANTS

Jurisdiction of American state courts over out-of-state defendants is determined by state law, but is limited by constitutional considerations. If the defendant does not have sufficient contacts with the state, it is unconstitutional for the state court to consider the dispute. With respect to defamation suits, not only does the defamatory information actually reach a sufficient number of state residents, but also the foreign defendant’s purposeful actions directed at that state are necessary for state court jurisdiction over the out-ofstate defendant to arise. In the case of the media, such a purposeful action might be, for example, selling a significant number of copies of a magazine in that state or advertising its website in that state. However, the posting of defamatory information on a website available in that state does not, by itself, create jurisdiction over the publisher in state courts. If, for example, a foreign-language website describes events outside the United States, a U.S. court would probably not have jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff’s reputation in the United States was damaged. But if an English-language publication on some website intentionally defames a state resident by describing his or her activities in that state, the publication will likely be found to be “directed at” that state, and a state court will consider the defamation claim. The plaintiff’s location in this state in a defamation action is not sufficient to give rise to state court jurisdiction over a defendant who does not have sufficient minimal contacts in the state. To hear such a dispute in that state would violate the defendant’s constitutional right to “due process” because of the burdensome nature of his participation in the process.

Civil Liability in Australia for International Human Rights Violations

Peter Cashman reviews the current state of play in Australia regarding the imposition of civil liability on multinationals for human rights abuses and environmental damage occurring overseas. He considers cases based on a direct tort law-based duty of care and the relevance in that regard of developments in English law and also environmental damage associated with the operations of Australian multinationals, in particular the historic OK Tedi litigation against BHP Billiton and the recent class action trial of the claim by Indonesian seaweed farmers arising from the Montara oil spill. Important aspects of the law on jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and choice of law and the opt-out class action regime in federal and State courts are outlined. The rules relating to the running of cases by private law firms and third party litigation funders on the basis of contingency fee agreements are explained

THE CONCEPT OF ACCUMULATION (CONCENTRATION) OF SOCIALLY SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ELEMENTS IN LEGAL RELATION AS A BASIS FOR NON-ARBITRABILITY OF A DISPUTE

This article examines a relatively new phenomenon of domestic law enforcement practice – the arbitrability of disputes with a “public element”. Increasingly, the possibility of arbitration in disputes in which there is a so-called public element is being questioned. The courts do not disclose the concept of a public element. From the general understanding, it is only deduced that we are talking about public entities as participants in civil law relations, about the involvement of public property and budget financing in such relations. All the above relationships form an urgent problem of arbitration, which has a consequence in the form of refusal of state courts to enforce arbitral awards. This controversial judicial practice also gave rise to a controversial concept, which in the doctrine is called the concept of accumulation (concentration) of socially significant public elements. This concept raises questions from the point of view of the theoretical perception of this phenomenon: neither foreign nor domestic doctrine knew this phenomenon. Until this moment, only minor attempts were made to analyze this concept, as well as to analyze individual public elements and their impact on the legal relationship in terms of the possibility of a dispute from this legal relationship to be considered by arbitration. Bridging this gap is this article.