John, Gulati, & Köhler: The Elgar Companion to the Hague Conference on Private International Law

Thomas John (Grotius Chambers), Rishi Gulati (London School of Economics and Political Science), & Ben Köhler (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law) have published The Elgar Companion to the Hague Conference on Private International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This comprehensive Companion is a unique guide to the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to developing multilateral legal instruments pertaining to personal, family and commercial legal situations that cross national borders. The Companion is a critical assessment of, and reflection on, past and possible future contributions of the HCCH to the further development and unification of private international law.

Written by international experts who have all directly or indirectly contributed to the work of the HCCH, chapters analyse its structure and working methods, as well as explore its significant achievements in the areas of international family law, civil procedure, legal co-operation, commercial and finance law. The contributors also discuss the many challenges both the HCCH and other global organisations are facing, including the advent of regionalism and renewed nationalism.

New Addition to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law

The Codification Division of the UN Office of Legal Affairs recently added a lecture to the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law. It was given by Gérardine Goh Escolar on “Introduction to The Hague Conference on Private International Law and Its Work” and is available in English, French, and Spanish.

Conference: What Law Governs International Commercial Contracts? Divergent Doctrines and the New Hague Principles

On October 18, 2013, Brooklyn Law School will host a conference on "What Law Governs International Commercial Contracts? Divergent Doctrines and the New Hague Principles." Here's the idea:

With the continued dramatic growth of international commerce, a critical question has become even more important: What law governs the contracts behind the commerce? Key issues include:

In much of the world, courts accept the choice of the parties to a contract as to what law will govern it – but this principle is not accepted everywhere. Even in nations where it is accepted, differences abound.

Should the ability of parties to select the law governing their contract be approached differently in the increasingly prevalent world of international commercial arbitration?

In many arbitral systems, parties may select not only the law of a sovereign state, but also “rules of law” emanating from non-state sources, such as “principles” promulgated by international organizations. Should courts show the same deference to the parties’ choice of non-state law?

The Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts, prepared by the Hague Conference on Private International Law and now nearing completion, are expected to be quite influential, both in establishing the principle of party autonomy to select the law governing commercial contracts and in developing the principle and its limits.

This symposium addresses the important issues described above – from the perspectives of both current law and the “best practices” represented by the draft Hague Principles.

Brand: Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project

Ronald A. Brand (Univ. of Pittsburgh - Law) has posted Jurisdictional Developments and the New Hague Judgments Project (in A Commitment to Private International Law - Essays in Honor of Hans Van Loon, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

A Working Group of the Hague Conference on Private International Law is revisiting possible multilateral rules on the recognition of foreign judgments. This was the subject of broader negotiations on jurisdiction and judgments that ran from 1992 until 2005, concluding in the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Any effort to coordinate judgments recognition rules necessarily requires consideration of the jurisdictional bases of authority of the court from which a judgment originates. Problems of coordination are exacerbated because differences in existing jurisdictional bases are colored by: (1) basic differences between civil law and common law approaches to judicial analysis, (2) differences in the extent to which jurisdiction is a constitutional matter, and (3) differences in focus on the interests of plaintiffs and defendants. Recent developments in both the United States and the European Union have both highlighted existing differences in approaches to adjudicative jurisdiction, and demonstrated some areas in which there may be greater hope for common ground. While rules on general jurisdiction may be moving closer together, rules on specific jurisdiction seem to be suffering greater divergence. Any new multilateral efforts will also have to take into account the impact on parallel efforts to obtain ratifications of the Choice of Court Convention. While there are jurisdictional bases on which agreement should not be difficult in a new judgments project, those are probably the bases for which recognition and enforcement abroad will be least valuable to the judgment creditor.

Symeonides: The Hague Principles on Choice of Law for International Contracts: Some Preliminary Comments

Symeon C. Symeonides (Willamette Univ. - Law) has posted The Hague Principles on Choice of Law for International Contracts: Some Preliminary Comments (American Journal of Comparative Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This Article discusses The Hague Principles on Choice of Law for International Contracts, a new soft-law instrument recently adopted by the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

The Principles will apply to “commercial” contracts only, specifically excluding consumer and employment contracts. For this reason, the Principles adopt a decidedly liberal stance toward party autonomy, exemplified inter alia by a strong endorsement of non-state norms. Such a liberality would be unobjectionable, indeed appropriate, if a contract’s “commerciality” alone would preclude the disparity of bargaining power that characterizes consumer and employment contracts. The fact that — as franchise contracts illustrate — this is not always the case makes even more necessary the deployment of other mechanisms of policing party autonomy. The Principles provide these mechanisms under the rubric of public policy and mandatory rules, but their effectiveness is not beyond doubt.

The Principles are intended to serve as a model for other international or national instruments and as a guide to courts and arbitrators in interpreting or supplementing rules on party autonomy. Like other international instruments, the Principles are as good as the consensus of the participating delegations would allow. But the real test of success for these Principles depends not on academic approbation but on their reception by contracting parties, courts, and arbitrators. While it is too early to tell whether the Principles will pass this test, there is reason for optimism.

In any event, and regardless of whether they will be widely accepted, the Principles will enrich the quality of the international discourse by providing a guiding light in the search for proper solutions to the problems encountered in honoring, and defining the limits of, contractual choice of law in international contracts. This alone would be a significant contribution to the advancement of the art and science of law-shaping.

Treaty Transmittal: Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support

Yesterday, the President transmitted to the Senate, for its advice and consent to ratification, the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, adopted at The Hague on November 23, 2007. The United States signed the Convention upon its adoption. The transmittal package (Treaty Doc. 110-21) is here.

Call for Papers: Journal of Private International Law Conference

The Journal of Private International Law will host its third major conference at the New York University, April 17-18, 2009. Here's the call for papers:

The Journal of Private International Law will hold its third major conference at New York University on April 17-18, 2009. As was the practice at the prior conferences at the University of Aberdeen in 2005 and at the University of Birmingham in 2007, we are including a “call for papers” to be presented at the conference with a view to having the final papers submitted for consideration for publication in the Journal. Thus, in addition to a number of previously-invited speakers, a limited number of paper-presenters will be selected on the basis of abstracts of 500 words submitted to Professor Linda Silberman at New York University (linda.silberman@nyu.edu) and Professor Paul Beaumont at the University of Aberdeen (p.beaumont@abdn.ac.uk) by October 31, 2008. The abstracts will be considered by Professor Silberman and the editors of the Journal, Professor Paul Beaumont and Professor Jonathan Harris, and a decision made by 1 December, 2008.

There are three specific conference panels planned over the course of the afternoon of April 17th and the full day on April 18th. They are

• International Commercial Law
• US and European Conflicts Methodologies: Is It Time for a U.S. Restatement?
• Transnational Litigation and Arbitration

We will be selecting papers and presenters related to these topics. Even if your paper is not selected for presentation at the Conference given the limited number of slots, we hope you will consider submitting the paper to the Journal for eventual publication. In addition, the morning of April 17th will be devoted to presentations of papers by legal scholars at an early stage in their academic or professional careers, and we particularly encourage doctoral students, students completing fellowships, and those who have relatively recently completed their doctoral studies to offer abstracts on any aspect of private international law. We contemplate smaller parallel sessions in order to offer opportunity for presentations by a large number of such scholars.

Also note that on April 16, 2009, there will be a day-long conference in tribute to the work of Professor Andreas Lowenfeld of New York University. Journal Conference participants may wish to attend that event as well.

Brand & Herrup: The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: Commentary and Documents

Ronald A. Brand (Univ. of Pittsburgh) & Paul M. Herrup (Office of Foreign Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice) have published The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: Commentary and Documents (Cambridge Univ. Press 2008). Here's the abstract:

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements was concluded on June 30, 2005, and promises to become an important instrument in judicial relations throughout the world, making choice of forum clauses both more likely to be honored and more likely to lead to judgments that will be recognized and enforced around the globe. The convention, and the proposed treatise, will serve as an indispensable source for both transactions lawyers drafting the transnational commercial contracts of the future and for litigators involved in the resolution of disputes between parties to important transnational commercial transactions.

U.S. Ratification of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption

Today, the United States deposited its instrument of ratification for the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. (New York Times story here; NPR story here.) President Bush signed the instrument of ratification on November 16. The Senate had provided its advice and consent to ratification on September 20, 2000. The Convention is implemented by the Intercountry Adoption Act and Department of State and Department of Homeland Security regulations. Implementation also required extensive work with state officials, as noted by the State Department spokesperson at today's press briefing. (For more complete background, see the Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs website.) According to the State Department, "The Convention establishes international norms and procedures for intercountry adoption cases with other Hague Convention members. It mandates safeguards to protect the interests of children, birth parents, and adoptive parents. It also provides that member nations recognize adoptions that take place within other Hague Convention countries." The Convention will go into force for the United States on April 1, 2008.

Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support

On Friday, delegates from sixty-eight States and the European Community finalized the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance at the 21st Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The United States immediately signed the Convention, the first (and, thus far, only) State to do so. Upon signing, the U.S. delegate stated:

The United States is delighted to sign the new Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support, which we believe represents a major step forward in the development of a global system for enforcement of child support obligations in transnational cases. Every child deserves the support of both the child’s parents. And yet recovering child support when the child and one parent are in one country and the other parent is in another is difficult and often impossible. The legal and practical obstacles often mean that little or no support ever reaches the parent and child. Given the importance of this topic to U.S. families, and because the number of transnational cases will continue to increase, the United States has been an active participant in this negotiation. This new convention is necessary to modernize and improve the existing international system, which is outdated and does not meet the needs of an increasingly global world.

The Convention, which will enter into force three months after the second ratification, complements three other Hague Conventions: the Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction (1980); the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (1993); and the Convention on the Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996).