Abstract

As worldwide interest in international commercial courts grows, questions arise as to whether individual nations can or should seek to compete in the “litigation market” by developing their own cross-border business courts. This essay compares the prospects of the United States and Australia in this regard, focusing on whether it is possible (Section II), probable (Section III), and preferable (Section IV) for one or both of these two federalized, common law nations to develop an international commercial court as part of their national judicial systems. The inquiry is particularly intriguing given that one country (the United States) has had a somewhat uneven relationship with international engagements while the other (Australia) is maintaining or increasing its connections to the rest of the world. Although this discrepancy could be used to explain the relative status of the debate about international commercial courts, which is much more advanced in Australia than in the United States, it is also possible that the distinctions between the United States and Australia are motivated by other factors. While neither country appears poised to create an international commercial court at the moment, the current analysis helps identify the types of factors that policy-makers can and should consider when contemplating reforms of this nature.

Highlights

  • As worldwide interest in international commercial courts grows, questions arise as to whether individual nations can or should seek to compete in the “litigation market” by developing their own cross-border business courts.[1]

  • This essay compares the prospects of the United States and Australia in this regard, focusing on whether it is possible (Section II), probable (Section III), and preferable (Section IV) for one or both of these two federalized, common law nations to develop an international commercial court as part of their national judicial systems

  • The inquiry is intriguing given that one country has had a somewhat uneven relationship with international engagements while the other (Australia) is maintaining or increasing its connections to the rest of the world. This discrepancy could be used to explain the relative status of the debate about international commercial courts, which is much more advanced in Australia[2] than in the United States,[3] it is possible that the distinctions between the United States and Australia are motivated by other factors

Read more

Summary

SYMPOSIUM ON GLOBAL LABS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA: POSSIBLE, PROBABLE, PREFERABLE?. The inquiry is intriguing given that one country (the United States) has had a somewhat uneven relationship with international engagements while the other (Australia) is maintaining or increasing its connections to the rest of the world. This discrepancy could be used to explain the relative status of the debate about international commercial courts, which is much more advanced in Australia[2] than in the United States,[3] it is possible that the distinctions between the United States and Australia are motivated by other factors. While neither country appears poised to create an international commercial court at the moment, the current analysis helps identify the types of factors that policy-makers can and should consider when contemplating reforms of this nature

The Possibility of an International Commercial Court
AJIL UNBOUND
The Probability of an International Commercial Court
The Preference for an International Commercial Court
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.