Hague Judgments Convention Research Articles

The Hague Judgments Convention

AbstractThe Hague Judgments Convention of 2005 is the first global convention on international jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The author explains the political and legal background of the Convention, its content and certain crucial issues during the negotiations of it. Finally, the author discusses the perspectives for international trade given that, in 2009, the USA and the European Union signed the Convention.

Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention 2005: Background, Negotiations, Analysis and Current Status

The article outlines some of the negotiating history of the failed Hague Judgments Convention (1992-2001) and of the successful Hague Choice of Court Convention (2002-2005). The latter was chosen from amongst the small areas of consensus within the Judgments Convention negotiations. In doing so the article argues that the Permanent Bureau was right in 1992 to argue for a recognition and enforcement Convention that would outlaw exorbitant jurisdictions, what the author describes as a 'flexible mixed Convention', and that the time is ripe for the Hague Conference to begin work again on such a project. The article does not provide a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Hague Choice of Court Convention but instead reviews the Article by Article analysis made by Ron Brand and Paul Herrup, two of the US negotiators of the Convention, in their book on the Convention. In doing so the article highlights where there are differences of interpretation of the Convention by Brand and Herrup and by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, the rapporteurs for the Convention who wrote the official explanatory report. From time to time the author sets out interpretations that differ from those given by both Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report, notably on whether the existence of a choice of court 'agreement' is a concept susceptible to analysis as a question of fact, or is a matter for the law of the forum, or can only be looked at under the rules in the Convention on formal validity and the choice of law rules on substantive validity and capacity. The author also tries to shed some more light on some of the provisions of the Convention to augment what Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report have done, eg on declarations and reservations and the relationship with Community Law. Finally the article sets out the prospects for the Convention being adopted in some key countries and notes that the signature of the US and the EC in early 2009 will hopefully stimulate many countries to take the steps to become bound by the Convention. It sends the right signal to commerce at this time of global recession if commercial parties are given the opportunity to reduce litigation costs by ensuring that disputes are resolved in the courts that they have chosen in their contracts.

The Draft Hague Judgments Convention: Some Perspectives from Arbitration

This article analyses the draft Hague Judgments Convention against the backdrop of arbitral jurisprudence. It points to certain problems that might arise in the Convention's functions. Although the draft Convention represents a significant improvement over the status quo in relation to international commercial litigation, it remains subject to a number of potential problems, in as much as it does not adequately deal with the issues of parallel jurisdiction, inconsistent verdicts, consent, or interim relief, which cause significant problems in commercial parties. In the worst case, these problems could lead to the convention not commending itself for adoption, which could have adverse consequences for commercial dispute resolution as a whole.

Commodifying Justice for Global Free Trade: The Proposed Hague Judgments Convention

Commodifying Justice for Global Free Trade: The Proposed Hague Judgments Convention

Thoughts about a Multinational Judgments Convention: A Reaction to the von Mehren Report

I am much intrigued by Arthur von Mehren's paper setting out a call for a Hague Judgments Convention.1 I think his proposal for a mixed convention, with green, red, and yellow lights for jurisdiction (or black, white, and shades of gray, if you prefer) is quite ingenious. I like making law-which is why I enjoyed being a Reporter for the Foreign Relations Restatement and why I envy Professor von Mehren his role as prospective drafter of the multilateral judgments convention. For political or negotiating reasons, being a member of the United States delegation, he carefully avoids saying what such a convention should provide. I can well understand that he does not want his proposal to place the item on the agenda of the Hague Conference shot down by someone who does not like a particular provision that might be contained in such a convention. Clearly, as an official U.S. spokesman, Professor von Mehren does not want to negotiate the merits of a multilateral judgments convention before agreement has been reached on the shape of the table. No such constraints apply to me. I am not a spokesman for the United States, nor a member of a delegation, and I cannot imagine that anyone other than my own self would be embarrassed by what I say. Whether the initiative led by Peter Pfund and Arthur von Mehren is worthwhile, however, will depend a good deal on what is said or written at the table, once agreement is reached on its shape. I propose, therefore, to set out here what I think a sound convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments should contain. My thoughts are the product in part of experience with recognition of judgments in both directions-that is, U.S. judgments abroad and foreign judgments in the United States-in part on experience with the U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York