Foreign Country Judgments Research Articles

Private International Law Bibliography 2021: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English

This bibliography covers private international law or conflict of laws in a broad sense. In particular, it covers judicial or adjudicatory jurisdiction, prescriptive jurisdiction, choice of forum, choice of law, federal-state conflicts, recognition and enforcement of sister-state and foreign-country judgments, extraterritoriality, arbitration and related topics. It includes books and law journal articles published in English during 2015, or earlier but not included in the 2014 bibliography. It does not include articles or essays published in books (as opposed to journals), or writings appearing only in electronic form.

Private International Law Bibliography 2019: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English

This bibliography covers private international law or conflict of laws in a broad sense. In particular, it covers judicial or adjudicatory jurisdiction, prescriptive jurisdiction, choice of forum, choice of law, federal-state conflicts, recognition and enforcement of sister-state and foreign-country judgments, extraterritoriality, arbitration and related topics. It includes books and law journal articles that appeared in print during 2019, or earlier but were not included in the 2018 bibliography. It does not include articles or essays published in books (as opposed to journals), or writings appearing only in electronic form.

Private International Law Bibliography 2017: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English

This bibliography covers private international law or conflict of laws in a broad sense. In particular, it covers judicial or adjudicatory jurisdiction, prescriptive jurisdiction, choice of forum, choice of law, federal-state conflicts, recognition and enforcement of sister-state and foreign-country judgments, extraterritoriality, arbitration and related topics. It includes books and law journal articles published in English during 2017, or earlier but not included in the 2016 bibliography. It does not include articles or essays published in books (as opposed to journals), or writings appearing only in electronic form.

Private International Law Bibliography 2015: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English

This bibliography covers private international law or conflict of laws in a broad sense. In particular, it covers judicial or adjudicatory jurisdiction, prescriptive jurisdiction, choice of forum, choice of law, federal-state conflicts, recognition and enforcement of sister-state and foreign-country judgments, extraterritoriality, arbitration and related topics. It includes books and law journal articles published in English during 2015, or earlier but not included in the 2014 bibliography. It does not include articles or essays published in books (as opposed to journals), or writings appearing only in electronic form.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards: What Hath Daimler Wrought?

In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Supreme Court confirmed what it had only hinted at previously — that general jurisdiction over a corporation was limited to a state that could be regarded as its “home.” In doing so, the Court brought the United States closer to the rest of the world in its approach to general jurisdiction. What may have been overlooked, however, is the impact of Daimler on actions brought to recognize and enforce foreign country judgments and foreign arbitral awards if the Daimler standard is applied in that context. Some courts have already done so. Professors Silberman and Simowitz offer an overview of the present jurisdictional regimes for recognition and enforcement actions with respect to both foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Their own analysis concludes that a jurisdictional nexus should be required for recognition and enforcement but that the context of recognition and enforcement presents unique differences from a plenary action. Thus, they argue that Daimler needs to be tailored to fit such actions. Professors Silberman and Simowitz also examine various alternative bases of jurisdiction — property-based jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, and consent — that may be pressed into service if Daimler is extended to recognition and enforcement actions and find both promise as well as limits in those alternatives.

Private International Law Bibliography 2014: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English

This bibliography covers private international law or conflict of laws in a broad sense. In particular, it covers judicial or adjudicatory jurisdiction, prescriptive jurisdiction, choice of forum, choice of law, federal-state conflicts, recognition and enforcement of sister-state and foreign-country judgments, extraterritoriality, arbitration and related topics. It includes books and law journal articles published in English during 2014, or earlier but not included in the 2013 bibliography. It does not include articles or essays published in books (as opposed to journals), or writings appearing only in electronic form.

Faith and Scepticism in Private International Law: Trust, Governance, Politics, and Foreign Judgments

Faith and Scepticism in Private International Law: Trust, Governance, Politics, and Foreign Judgments Christopher Whytock* Abstract In both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), the law governing the enforcement of foreign judg- ments is evolving, but in different directions. EU law, espe- cially after the elimination of exequatur by the 2012 ’Recast’ of the Brussels I Regulation, increasingly facilitates enforce- ment in member states of judgments of other member states’ courts, reflecting growing faith in a multilateral pri- vate international law approach to foreign judgments. In US law, on the other hand, increasingly widespread adoption of state legislation based on the 2005 Uniform Foreign- Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005 Act), which adds new case-specific grounds for refusing enforce- ment, suggests growing scepticism. In this essay, I explore possible reasons for these diverging trends. I begin with the most obvious explanation: the Brussels framework governs the effect of internal EU member state judgments within the EU, whereas the 2005 Act governs the effect of external foreign country judgments within the US. One would expect more mutual trust – and thus more faith in foreign judgment enforcement – internally than externally. But I argue that this mutual trust explanation is only partially sat- isfactory. I therefore sketch out two other possible explana- tions. One is that the different trends in EU and US law are a result of an emphasis on ’governance values’ in EU law and an emphasis on ’rights values’ in US law. Another explanation – and perhaps the most fundamental one – is that these trends are ultimately traceable to politics. Keywords: private international law, conflict of laws, foreign judgments, European Union, United States 1 Introduction ‘It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world ....’ 1 So Christopher Whytock is Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. For helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay, I thank Bill Dodge, Deborah Hensler, Stefaan Voet, participants at the Bay Area Procedural Forum at Univer- sity of California, Hastings College of Law, and two anonymous review- ers. R. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (2003), at 3. Christopher Whytock begins Robert Kagan’s 2003 book, Of Paradise and Pow- er: America and Europe in the New World Order. Writ- ing about differences between European and American strategic culture, Kagan argued that Europe favors mul- tilateral solutions to global problems, while the Ameri- can impulse is unilateral. 2 American exceptionalism ‘may be welcomed, ridiculed, or lamented. But it should not be doubted.’ 3 Recent developments suggest that similar differences may exist in European and American approaches to one of the main branches of private international law: the enforcement of foreign country judgments. In both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), this area of law is evolving – but in different directions. Within the EU, the law increasingly facilitates the enforcement in member states of the judgments of other member states, reflecting a growing faith in a multilater- al private international law approach to foreign judg- ments. Most notably, the 2012 ‘Recast’ of the Brussels I Regulation (Brussels I Recast) promises to streamline enforcement by eliminating the declaration of enforcea- bility (exequatur) as a requirement for the enforcement of EU member state judgments in civil and commercial matters. 4 In US law, on the other hand, there is evi- dence of growing scepticism and insistence on more searching unilateral US review of foreign country judg- ments. In particular, US states are increasingly adopting legislation based on the 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005 Act), which contains two new grounds for refusing enforcement: one that allows non-enforcement if ‘the judgment was ren- dered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment’ and the other if ‘the specific proceed- ing in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.’ 5 In this essay I offer some comparative reflections on these trends. I first develop the claim that EU law Id., at 55. Id., at 88. See Article 39 of Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the rec- ognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ 2012, L 351/1 (hereinafter Brussels I Recast). The Brussels I Recast will apply beginning in January 2015. Id., Article 66(1). See Section 4(c) of the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (hereinafter 2005 Act). ELR November 2014 | No. 3

Private International Law Bibliography 2012: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English

This bibliography covers private international law or conflict of laws in a broad sense. In particular, it covers judicial or adjudicatory jurisdiction, prescriptive jurisdiction, choice of forum, choice of law, federal-state conflicts, recognition and enforcement of sister-state and foreign-country judgments, extraterritoriality, arbitration and related topics. It includes books and law journal articles published in English during 2012. It does not include articles or essays published in books (as opposed to journals), or writings appearing only in electronic form.

Foreign Country Judgments and the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws

Foreign Country Judgments and the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: An Addendum

After the writer's article under the above title' went to press, New York adopted with some minor changes the two uniform acts discussed in the article. There were the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act2 and the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.' Another noteworthy development which took place after the article was written was the introduction in the United States House of Representatives of a bill with the provocative title, Non-Recognition of Foreign Country Judgments Act. This bill would give the President power to proscribe by executive order the enforcement of judgments rendered in countries which are committed by treaty to enforce judgments originating in jurisdictionally improper fora.4 As specified in the bill, these are fora based solely on the plaintiff's nationality or domicile, or the mere presence of assets of the defendant in the forum state. bill was introduced by Representative Abner J. Mikva of Illinois. Its purpose is to strengthen the President's hand in negotiating treaties with the Common Market States in derogation from the provisions of the Common Market Convention of September 27, 1968 governing enforcement of judgments rendered in a Community State in favor of a domiciliary against a non-domiciliary. Absent such treaties, the six Member States forming the European Economic Community are bound by the Convention to enforce each other's judgments against nondomiciliaries even if they were rendered in a forum which would be improper under the criteria of Congressman Mikva's bill. bill is drawn along lines suggested in Professor Nadelmann's article, published in Harvard Law Review, The Common Market Judgments Convention and a Hague Conference Recommendation: What Steps Next ?5 article itself appears in the Congressional