Jurisdictional Conflicts Research Articles

International Collaborative Responses to Transnational Cybercrime: how China Strengthen its Capacity to Combat Transnational Cybercrime

The borderless nature of the Internet has greatly facilitated the growth of crime in cyberspace. Cybercrime today has caused huge economic losses worldwide and is violating the right to privacy on a massive scale. The consequences of cybercrime are serious and often occur in different countries and regions. The priority of territorial jurisdiction has been affected by transnational cybercrime., and its convenient application has been lost when the results of the crime are generalized. The basis of subjective territoriality and objective territoriality would be unclear. The abstract cross-border nature of cybercrime has led to frequent conflicts of jurisdiction among States and may even lead to the legal hegemony of cyber-technology powerhouses. The traditional extradition mechanism has gradually failed to respond to the interstate demand to combat transnational cybercrime. In recent years, China has not only introduced strategic policies at the national level to safeguard cybersecurity and combat cybercrime, but has also made progress in criminal legislation, administrative legislation and international cooperation legislation. China has also accumulated experience in police cooperation to combat transnational cybercrime. In order to better cooperate with other countries in international cybercrime , China should actively participate in the formulation of international conventions and regional multilateral agreements on the punishment of cybercrime. It should also further improve its domestic legislation.

Using res judicata to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between WTO and regional trade agreements’ dispute settlement mechanisms

The WTO has a renowned dispute settlement body, distinguished from other dispute settlement bodies by its compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction. However, regional trade agreements provide for rights and obligations similar to those guaranteed by the WTO thus, causing material jurisdictional overlaps between the WTO institutions and regional dispute resolution institutions. Potentially, a State aggrieved by measures that contravene rights or obligations within such overlaps has two alternative fora for dispute resolution. Where the regional trade agreement dispute resolution mechanism resolves the dispute first, the compulsory and exclusive nature of the WTO jurisdiction allows the matter to be re-determined at the WTO level, causing jurisdictional conflicts and duplicative proceedings. Although it is an established principle in customary international law, res judicata is not provided in any of the instruments guiding the jurisdiction of the WTO dispute settlement system. The jurisprudence of WTO Panels and the Appellate Body are also thin on this matter. Seemingly, the inclination has been to exercise the compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction, without regard to other existing fora. This paper therefore suggests clear recommendations to be employed in widening the existing WTO jurisprudence on res judicata as a solution to jurisdictional conflicts. In doing so, this paper further acknowledges the possible criticisms against res judicata in WTO dispute settlement and provides possible solutions to these challenges to ensure the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of the WTO dispute settlement mechanisms vis-à-vis those of regional trade agreements. Using the South American region as an example, this paper enunciates the jurisdictional overlaps and proposes the application of res judicata by the WTO dispute settlement mechanisms in judicial restraint

Extensive Jurisdiction of State Administrative Courts in Indonesia: Interpretation and Legal Coherence Issues

Prior to 2014, state administrative courts’ authority was constrained due to the limited construction of administrative decisions and exclusion articles in the SAC. The GAA expanded these restrictions in 2014 by modifying those provisions. The court is empowered to review not only written administrative decisions but also unlawful factual government acts. However, the expansions give rise to multiple interpretations and legal coherence concerns. Crucial issues include jurisdictional conflicts between administrative courts and other courts, varying interpretations of legal standing requirements and legal injuries, identifying the government’s factual actions as defined by the GAA, and the existence of exclusion articles in the SAC. This study uses a systematic and conceptual legal interpretation and analysis with three approaches. It concluded that the basic principles and concepts in the SAC should not be neglected when interpreting the provisions of the GAA. There are certain legal coherence issues if the interpretation of the GAA is not linked to the SAC. To solve these problems, the GAA’s implementation and the extensive jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary require the integration and reformulation of substantive and procedural laws and judicial institutional relations.

Untangling the Jurisdictional Web in Cyberspace

The ambiguous theme of cyberspace and its broad widespread inflict a major effect on the legal procedures of litigations. Since litigation might include several nationalities, because of the cosmopolitan nature of cyberspace, determining the competent court is not as direct as traditional litigations. Cyber litigations complicate this procedural threshold as the traditional application of jurisdiction determinants might not suit cyber disputes. Furthermore, jurisdiction conflicts in cyberspace frustrate settling the dispute as courts avoid giving their judgments due to invalidity. Therefore, these conflicts introduce a modern issue to private international law theorists. It is indisputable that drafting obvious jurisdictional rules enhances the rule of law in cyberspace. Thus, the research analyses this issue and establishes a comparison to determine the state of the art regarding it. The article reviews the relevant academic contributions and legislation to point out how they crystallize the aspects of the research question. Besides, it studies relevant case laws from the UK and US judiciaries to conclude the legal principle they adopt to settle these conflicts and to enhance the validity of their judgments. Eventually, it introduces a comprehensive theory on settling jurisdiction conflicts regarding cyber litigation, which enhances the rule of law in cyberspace. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by RITHA Publishing. This article is distributed under the terms of the license CC-BY 4.0., which permits any further distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Канонический и церковно-административный аспекты спора о прерогативах митрополитов Никеи и Никомидии на Халкидонском соборе

Introduction. On October 30, 451, during the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the dispute between Metropolitan Eunomius of Nicomedia and Metropolitan Anastasius of Nicaea was considered. Eunomius believed that his rights as the metropolitan of the entire province of Bithynia, in regard to ordinations, were violated by Anastasius of Nicaea, who had deposed a number of clerics of the city of Vasilinopolis. Information about this lawsuit is taken from the published acts of the 14th session of the Chalcedon Council. Methods. The work is based on the application of the historical-critical method of data processing of the source text used in the original in Greek according to the standard critical edition and quoted by the author in his own translation. Analysis. Based on the analysis of the act material, the author restores the course, content and internal logic of the conciliar audition of the claim of Eunomius of Nicomedia. It also reveals the cause of the claim, external factors and figures that had influenced the course of the case and become the cause of its occurrence. The factors include the unsettled status of the Metropolitan of Nicaea within the province of Bithynia, the limits of his competence and jurisdiction. Similar factor is the unsettled status of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia as bishop of the provincial capital (metropolis), that lead to a conflict of jurisdictions over the Bithynian city of Vasilinopolis. Decisive is also the influence in Bithynia of the patriarchal see of Constantinople and persons who occupied it, beginning with John Chrysostos. The decision of the Ecumenical Council on this lawsuit turns out to be half-hearted: the city of Vasilinopolis and its clergy are recognized as belonging to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, declared the first Metropolitan of Bithynia, but the question of the subordination of the Metropolitan of Nicaea, recognized as the second, remains open. This is evident from later sources, in which the Metropolitan of Nicaea is designated as an independent ruling metropolitan within the province of Bithynia, with his own district and jurisdiction. Results. The decision of the Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon failed to approve in Bithynia the canonical definition of the Council of Nicaea that there should be only one ruling metropolitan in the province. It is obvious that the decision of the judges was influenced by the ancient tradition of intercity rivalry between Nicaea and Nicomedia, dating back to pre-Christian times. The latter was clearly manifested in the fact that the main argument of the litigants was the recognition of the secular title of metropolis for both cities, confirmed by imperial letters. Thus, the dispute between Nicaea and Nicomedia shows that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were embodied in church-political and church-administrative practice in so far as they corresponded, or at least did not contradict the established tradition of socio-political relations.

Digital Evidence in Foreign Jurisdiction and Quality of Justice

In an increasingly interconnected digital world, the concept of the right and access to digital evidence from a foreign jurisdiction has emerged as a fundamental human rights issue in the globe. This right asserts that individuals and/or States should have the right to access information stored beyond their national borders, reflecting the globalized nature of data storage and its profound implications for ensuring justice in true sense universally. This article explores the legal framework and associated challenges of the right to online evidence under international law. International human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provide a foundationfor its recognition. However, the extraterritorial nature of online information storage and States’ reluctance question the quality of justice globally resulting in a complex landscape. On top of that the challenges associated with this right include conflicts of jurisdictions, issues of state sovereignty, and the extraterritorial application of domestic laws. Case studies involving cross-border data access also illustrate the complexities involved. Furthermore, the paper discusses the potential discriminatory consequences of this asymmetry, as jurisdictions with greater access to online evidence may enjoy a distinct advantage in legal proceedings involving foreign parties. This raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the global legal system and underscores the need for international cooperation and equitable frameworks for evidence sharing.

Breaking wind: A comparison between U.S. and European approaches in offshore wind energy leadership in the North Atlantic region

The United States has only recently begun investing in commercial-scale offshore wind energy (OWE). Although the United States is slow to progress, it is uniquely positioned to build on the existing knowledge that coastal European countries have applied for their own energy transitions. In this study, we analyze how federal and regional plans for expanding the OWE sector in the United States brought to the surface decade-long tensions related to multi-scale governance mismatches, jurisdictional conflicts, and unclear pathways for implementing national industrial policies. Drawing upon the European experience with OWE, we employ a dynamic multi-level perspective framework enriched by socio-ecological elements to examine the United States energy transition through its most promising technology. From our framework we identify six categories of OWE developments characterized by both unique and shared elements between the United States and European coastal countries. These elements are: (1) role of local communities, (2) governance structures, (3) multi-scale government interactions, (4) regional socioeconomic structures, (5) socio-ecological impacts, and (6) relationships with existing industries. Drawing upon our analysis, we identify and conceptually map four research areas in need of further development for the United States and the research community— (1) knowledge, (2) potential, (3) adaptation, and (4) learning. These insights provide critical information to ensure that the United States expansion into offshore energy generation is characterized by elements of justice, equity, and inclusive regional economic development.

M.G. Mohanty vs. That State of Odisha

The Commercial Courts Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "CC Act") was established to speed up the resolution of commercial disputes promptly and with as little interference as possible in the highest courts. The law also gives the Commercial Court jurisdiction to hear commercial arbitration proceedings. Although the intention is noble, the legislators inadvertently left jurisdictional inconsistencies in the law, resulting in a conflict with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996. The conflict of jurisdiction arises due to the distinction between the commercial courts established by law, presided over by Civil Judges Senior Division, and the provisions outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act). According to the AC Act, exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to arbitration lies with the Chief Civil Court of the respective district. This discrepancy has given rise to uncertainty regarding the authority of newly established Commercial Courts to entertain applications under the Arbitration Act. While a definitive legal resolution to this jurisdictional conflict remains elusive, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, following the Appellate Court's precedent, has determined that irrespective of the claim's value, cases pertaining to arbitration must be adjudicated within the purview of the District Civil Court. It has been observed that commercial disputes connected to arbitration, as governed by Sections 9, 14, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration Law, fall under the jurisdiction of a commercial court situated within the domain of a district judge or an additional district judge. No Class I Civil Judge or any Small Claims Court can adjudicate disputes.

To which prosecution service? Analyzing the way the Union resolves conflicts of criminal jurisdiction

Conflict of jurisdiction is an issue that is not a new problem, but is one that is becoming more prevalent in recent times. This is especially true in the European Union with its four freedoms. One way the Union has tackled conflicts of jurisdiction is through Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA. This measure is designed to handle positive conflicts of jurisdiction, in particular attempting to prevent ne bis in idem violations. Recently the Union established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a new measure designed to not only resolve positive conflicts of jurisdiction, but negative ones as well. This article will highlight that the EPPO is not only a prosecution service but also a way to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. It will do this by conducting a comparative analysis between the two measures by reviewing their respective function, communication, and determination of jurisdiction. Function examines what each measure is capable of doing. Communication examines the way authorities communicate and share information. Determination of Jurisdiction examines the criteria that is used by the mechanism to resolve the conflict. Using these methods will enhance our understanding of the measures the Union has to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction while also highlighting the role that EPPO will play in the years to come.

The Right to Freedom of Religion and Jurisdictional Conflicts in Malaysia

In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution provides significant legal protections for religious freedom. Article 11 guarantees the right to practice and propagate one's religious beliefs freely, except for restrictions on propagation concerning Muslims under federal law. Furthermore, Islam holds a unique position in the country, according to Article 3 (1). The Malaysian legal system consists of two court systems, the Syariah courts and civil courts. While the Syariah courts serve as an essential institution for Muslims and maintain the Islamic identity of the nation, issues of jurisdiction can arise, particularly in interfaith cases. This study explores Malaysia's Universal Periodic Review of religious freedom and analyses jurisdictional conflicts through interviews with national law experts. After carefully considering Malaysia's unique historical and socioeconomic context, it is concluded that upholding the Federal Constitution is of utmost importance and implementing UPR recommendations should be separate from it.

Ordres et conflits de juridictions. L’appel comme d’abus: levier processuel, objet politique

Abstract Orders and conflicts of jurisdictions. The procedure of appeal against an abuse of ecclesiastical power, processual lever, political object. The procedure of appeal as abuse was profoundly reformed by King François I, in the great ordinance signed at Villers-Cotterêts in August 1539. The concept underlying this reform set it up as a political lever in the fight against ecclesiastical jurisdictions, in a Gallican perspective. From the 16th to the 18th century, jurists thus turned a simple procedure into a real political tool in the service of their ideas.

Parallel Arbitral Proceedings: An Analysis of the Issue of Parallel Arbitrations in International Commercial Arbitration within the European Legal Space

Abstract Avoiding lis pendens within the EU has always been considered a guarantee for effective judicial cooperation. However, since arbitration is excluded from the scope of European procedural law, questions have been raised as to how parallel arbitral and state court procedures will be regulated. This article aims to illustrate the mechanisms that have been proposed to resolve this issue outside the European Regulations’ scheme with a focus on parallel arbitrations. Under this scope, the author attempts to discuss the potential solutions that have been introduced in respect to “lis pendens” between an arbitral tribunal and a state court as well as their effectiveness. Taken the tie from this analysis, the last part of this article focuses on the issue of parallel arbitral procedures and whether conflicts of jurisdiction can be resolved by using the same mechanisms as adopted in the case of parallel the arbitral and state court proceedings.

Establishing baseline criteria for the mitigation of the illegitimate sale of health-related products using the DNS

ABSTRACT There is no unified framework or accepted set of recommendations concerning the sale of health-related products online, which negatively impacts the most vulnerable populations. We propose the DNS as an avenue for advancing solutions via the broader DNS community, outside ICANN’s remit. The existing mechanisms available to curb malicious action are inconsistent due to a combination of jurisdictional conflicts and a lack of guidelines, and the establishment of baseline criteria would lay the groundwork for regulation and the creation of relevant Trusted Notifiers. The current status quo hinders legitimate online pharmacies while facilitating illegitimate operations. Our scope is limited to legal medicines, focusing on medicines requiring a medical prescription. Making use of the DNS in this manner may be a blunt tool, but it is effective if used in a measured manner to stop threats to human safety. We conclude by proposing that there are recommendations that can be transposed to the online world to help assess actor legitimacy, with the following initial criteria: requirement of a valid prescription; requirement of a licensed pharmacist on staff; clear indication of the country in which the pharmacy is based; and limited dispensing of controlled substances.

China's Practice and Response Strategies for ASI of Standard-essential Patent Disputes

The Anti-suit injunction (ASI) system originated from the common law system. Its function has developed from the initial solution of domestic parallel litigation to the present widely used in coordinating the handling of international parallel litigation jurisdictional conflicts. In recent years, international parallel litigation is frequent in the Standard-essential Patents (SEPs), and the ASI has become an important institutional tool for resolving jurisdictional disputes over SPEs. In particular, the Chinese judiciary has started the practice of "ASI" in SEP disputes by way of behavior preservation, which has aroused widespread concern of the international community. AS Chinese law has not established an ASI system, the current judicial practice mainly refers to the trial experience in the United Kingdom and the United States, and relies on China's behavioral preservation system to make decisions. However, there are many shortcomings in this ruling itself, for example, Chinese judicial organs have paid attention to the lack of sufficient basis for the time sequence of parallel litigations, their arguments in respect of the public interest and international comity are not sufficient, and the ASI is excessively broad in terms of remedies and territorial coverage. Therefore, it is not only necessary but also urgent to establish a perfect legal system of ASI for China's legislation and judicial practice.

선박압류 관할권과 해사사건의 실체적 관할권에 관한 법률문제 연구

선박압류는 해양산업분야의 가장 특색있는 법률제도 중 하나로서 선박압류 과정에서 두 가지 관할권의 문제가 발생할 수 있는데, 첫 번째가 선박압류 관할권에 관한 사항이고, 나머지 하나가 해사사건의 실체적 관할권에 관한 사항이다. 영미법계 국가와 대륙법계 국가는 일찍이 "선박을 압류한 법원이 사건에 관련된 선박을 압류함으로써 해사사건의 실체적 관할권을 취득할 수 있는지 여부"에 대해 그 견해를 달리하고 있었다. 이 문제에 관해 해상 선박의 나포에 관한 특정 조항에 관한 1952년 통합 국제 협약、버거 규칙 및 1999년 선박나포에 관한 국제협약은 선박압류 관할권과 해사사건의 실체적 관할권의 관계를 규정하고 있으며, 해사사건의 실체적 관할권의 충돌을 완화하기 위하여 적극적인 노럭을 하고 있다. 그러나 국제협약 자체의 한계, 각 국가의 국내법 차이 등으로 인해 국제 해사 분야의 실체적 관할권 충돌 문제는 여전히 해결되지 못하고 있다. 이에 본 논문은 선박압류와 관련된 국제협약 및 영미법계와 대륙법계 국가의 입법상황을 살펴봄으로써 선박압류 관할권과 해사사건의 실체적 관할권 사이의 관계를 정립하고, 이를 바탕으로 중국의 선박압류 관할권과 해사사건의 실체적 관할권에 대한 입법적·사법적 지위에 대한 분석을 통해 중국의 정당한 선박압류 관할권 및 해사사건의 실체적 관할권제도의 문제점과 입법적 보안을 제시하고자 한다. Arrest of ships is one of the most distinctive legal systems in the maritime field. In the process of arresting ships, there may be two kinds of jurisdictions involved, one is the jurisdiction to arrest ships, and the other is the substantive jurisdiction of maritime case. There are different view in common law and civil law countries as to "whether the court arresting a ship can acquire the substantive jurisdiction of maritime case because of the arrest of the ship involved".In order to coordinate the differences between the two legal systems on this issue,〈International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952〉,〈Hamburg Rules〉 and 〈International Convention on Arrest of Ships 1999〉 have stipulated the relationship between the jurisdiction to arrest ships and the substantive jurisdiction of maritime case, which has made a positive exploration to ease jurisdictional conflicts of international maritime action. However, due to the limitations of international conventions, legislative differences between different countries and forum shopping of maritime claimant, the jurisdictional conflicts of international maritime action is still serious. This paper analyzes the development history of the relationship between the jurisdiction to arrest ships and the substantive jurisdiction of maritime case by analyzing the international conventions related to the arrest of ships and the legislative status of the common law and civil law countries, and on the basis of the analysis of the legislative and judicial status of the jurisdiction to arrest ships and the substantive jurisdiction of maritime case in China, it makes several suggestions to improve the jurisdiction to arrest ships and the substantive jurisdiction of maritime case in China, namely, the Chinese courts should adhere to the principle of international comity in the judicial practice of maritime litigation, introduce the doctrine of forum non conveniens into 〈Special Maritime Procedure Law of the People"s Republic of China〉, and strengthen international judicial cooperation, in order to ease the jurisdictional conflicts between countries.

CCI’s Jurisdictional Conflict with the Proposed Cement Industry Regulator: An Analysis

Controversial activities by manufacturers in the Indian cement industry have repeatedly invited investigations by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for allegations of anti-competitive cartelising agreements. These manufacturing firms have created an artificial scarcity of production and supply in the market, using their association meetings as a front for illegal collusive activities. In spite of CCI having penalised the firms for their activities, the continued cartelisation in the cement market has led the Indian government to propose the establishment of a cement and steel industry regulator for proper governance. Along these lines, this paper aims to achieve a middle ground for removing conflict and ensuring cooperation between CCI and the proposed regulator. The author takes the initiative to study the nature of the cartelising activities of Indian cement manufacturers and the action taken by CCI through analysing the stance of the Supreme Court on the primacy of institutions in competition law matters relating to the cement industry. The paper additionally discusses competition enforcement against cement cartels in China and South Africa—two developing nations competing with the growing Indian economy and facing the same issues of deep-rooted cartelisation in the cement industry.

Judicial application and perfection of commercial bribery of Transnational Corporations in China

With the wave of economic globalization, the problem of commercial bribery of multinational companies, who play an important role in the international market, has gradually become a global problem. The commercial bribery of transnational corporations is harmful to the market order of fair competition in China. Therefore, China should severely crack down on the commercial bribery of multinational companies. Judging from the current judicial situation, there are still many shortcomings in anti-commercial bribery of transnational corporations. This paper will use empirical analysis to study these problems. This article will start with the GlaxoSmithKline case, introduce the current judicial interpretation in China, point out the shortcomings of the legal system, the applicable object, the jurisdictional conflict, and the actual situation of law enforcement. Then, the paper will further analyze the reasons for the shortcomings of the applicable object, the jurisdictional conflict, and the intersection of justice and civil justice. Based on this, these measures should be taken including expanding the scope of application and the scope of jurisdiction, adding a civil compensation system, and strengthening international cooperation.

Reaching into the Community to Interpret Labor History

Reaching into the Community to Interpret Labor History

Conflict of Jurisdiction between the Federal Supreme Court and the Administrative Judiciary in Iraq

مما هو مُسلّم به، ان النص الدستوري يُعد القاعدة المُلزمة لجميع اشخاص الدولة، حُكاماً كانوا او محكومين، بجميع ما تتضمنه النصوص الدستورية، وبذلك فأن السلطات الثلاث؛ التشريعية والقضائية والتنفيذية ملزمة بمضمون تلك النصوص، إذ من غير الممكن لأي من هذه السلطات ان تُضفي رؤاها الخاصة وتصوراتها على النص الدستوري، فمن المُتعيّن العودة الى ارادة المؤسس الدستوري، بُغية استجلاء المعنى الذي يبتغيه عن طريق وضعه لذلك النص. و من ذلك مضمون المادة (93/ثالثاً) من دستور العراق لسنة 2005، و التي اشارت الى المنازعات التي تختص المحكمة الاتحادية العليا بنظرها، إذ يُعد موضوع الاختصاص و الوارد تنظيمه القانوني في المواد (من 29 الى 43) من قانون المرافعات المدنية رقم (83) لسنة 1969 المعدل، من الموضوعات التي تُثار امام المحاكم، و ذلك نتيجةً للتداخلات التي يُمكن ان تحصل عند تكييف العلاقة القانونية، واسناده الى محكمة دون اخرى، و لما شهده النظام القضائي العراقي من تطورات بعد انتقاله من نظام القضاء الموحد الى القضاء المزدوج، والذي يُعد نقلةً نوعية في تكريس الاختصاص الوظيفي للقضاء، إذ تُعد الاختصاصات و تنوعها دليل على رقي المُجتمع و تنوعه، الا ان في حالة يُمكن ان توصف بأنها نادرة الحصول، نجد ان هناك تنازع في الاختصاص نشأ فيما بين المحكمة الاتحادية العليا و محاكم الدرجة الاولى(محكمة قضاء الموظفين) في محاكم القضاء الاداري، وهذا قلّما يحصل في الانظمة القانونية العالمية، إذ ان النازعات التي تحصل بين المحاكم غالبا بين محاكم الجهة القضائية او الدرجة نفسها. ففي حصول التنازع في الاختصاص بين محاكم القضاء العادي ومحاكم القضاء الاداري، فهنا يُمكن ان تتصدى هيأة تعيين المرجع وفقاً لما نص عليه قانون مجلس الدولة لسنة 1979. او ان يحصل بين محاكم القضاء الواحد، فتكون الكلمة الفصل للمحكمة العليا في هذا القضاء.

Limping relationships in international family law

The article examines a legal phenomenon that has not received a generalized legal characteristic, its research in international family law is fragmentary. The reasons for the “lame” relationships are analyzed: differences in conflict of laws regulation, incorrect application of conflict of laws rules, discrepancy between substantive regulations, conflict of jurisdictions; it is concluded that “lame” relationships are the result of the interaction of conflict of laws, substantive and procedural norms, leading to an undesirable legal effect. The author expresses doubts about the effectiveness of such a method of eliminating “lame” relationships as the convergence of legal systems, suggesting to pay attention to the competing traditional conflict tools and the opposite methodological approach — recognition, the potential of which is underestimated and insufficiently studied. Recognition is seen not as an alternative to conflict method, but as an additional way to overcome “lame” relationships. Replacement of national conflict of laws rules in cross-border family disputes is illustrated by the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Attention is drawn to the existing models of recognition in common law countries and continental legal tradition, the legal nature and place of the norms of Russian family legislation on recognition are analyzed. иThe mechanism of recognition of foreign administrative procedures and decisions, foreign documents in the Russian Federation is assessed. The author comes to the conclusion that implementation in domestic law of various approaches to the recognition of foreign court decisions, administrative procedures and documents issued by the competent authorities of foreign states, proposing to unify them within the framework of a uniform recognition procedure that excludes uncertainty and internal contradictions.