Judgments Convention Research Articles

Consensus and Compulsion: The Extra-territorial Effect of Chinese Judicial and Specially-Invited Mediation in Common Law Countries

This article conducts exhaustive research on case law in major common law jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK, and the US) regarding the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judicial mediation decisions (MTS). In contrast to the rich literature criticizing the systematic deficiency of Chinese judicial mediation where an adjudicator plays the dual role of mediator and judge in the same case and the consequent injustice to the parties, the deficiency is not an issue currently in recognition and enforcement of MTS in common law jurisdictions. Why is this so and what would be the future trend? Answering these questions, this article explores the recent expansion from judicial mediation to Specially-Invited Mediation at the people's courts in China and discusses whether the features of Specially-Invited Mediation impact the recognition and enforcement of MTS at the common law jurisdictions. It also addresses controversies on applicable law, challenges to the enforceability of civil liability clauses, debates on the finality of MTS, and recognition and enforcement of MTS under China's judicial assistance agreements, the Hague Choice-of-Court Convention, the Hague Judgments Convention, and the Singapore Mediation Convention.

The Classification of Dual-Purpose Contracts in European Private International Law

Consumers, as the presumed weaker party, are granted with favourable jurisdiction and choice of law rules under the Brussels Ibis Regulation and Rome I Regulation. The identity of a person as a consumer is the precondition of applying consumer protective rules. However, what if a person is acting partly for professional purpose and partly for private purpose? What criterion should be relied upon to classify a dual-purpose contract? Whether the private purpose must be predominant or primary, or it is irrelevant as long as the professional purpose is non-negligible? What if a person changes the purpose after the conclusion of contract? Whether the original purpose or the subsequent purpose should be decisive? This article aims to clarify the notion of hybrid consumer or dual-purpose contract in European private international law. The CJEU case might show that a less strict criterion is adopted to determine the legal nature of dual-purpose contracts. Compared to the notion of consumer in EU consumer directives and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, it might be advisable to adopt the non-predominant or primary purpose criterion. Accordingly, a dual-purpose contract is a consumer contract if the person is acting primarily outside of his trade or profession (primarily for personal, family or household purposes), or the professional purpose is so limited as not to be predominant. Meanwhile, a dynamic or ex post approach, albeit secondary to the static or ex ante approach, shall be adopted in examining the purpose of a dual-purpose contract. The subsequent change of purpose is relevant.

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook

Conflicts in insolvency jurisdiction

The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 contains an insolvency exception. The paper suggests that the proposed Hague Jurisdiction Convention should contain an insolvency exception that mirrors that contained in the existing Hague Judgments Convention. It is also submitted that international instruments in the field of insolvency, and related matters, are best dealt with by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

The indirect criteria for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

The twenty-second diplomatic session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law closed on 2 July 2019 with the adoption of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions in Civil and Commercial Matters, also known as the Judgments Convention. The present work focused on analyzing the indirect criteria that are provided for in art. 5 of the Conference of the Hague for the recognition and enforcement of judgments. This is an ambitious project that will give rise to a global enforcement regime on the circulation of judgments. The shortcomings are still many as well as the debate between civil and common law, but the time is ripe for a concrete project of broader inspiration, more political and less juridical. The method used in our work is based on comparative doctrine and jurisprudence on a global level.

Incremental international law-making: The Hague Jurisdiction Project in context

The Hague Conference on Private International Law is currently working towards a new instrument on jurisdiction and parallel proceedings. But critics ask if we need another instrument, in addition to the Hague Choice of Court Convention of 2005 and the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019. This article gives reasoned arguments for a “yes” and explores possibilities for the substantive content of the new instrument. It does so by looking back and contextualising the new instrument with regard to the two preceding Conventions, and by looking forward to what is still to come, ie the interpretation and application of all three instruments. On this basis, it argues that a holistic approach is required to avoid the risk of a piecemeal result. Only such a holistic approach will avoid contradictions between the three instruments and allow for their coherent interpretation. If this advice is heeded, incremental law-making may well become a success and perhaps even a model for future negotiations.

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Perspectives from the United States and Canada

The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention: Perspectives from the United States and Canada

Implementing The Hague Judgments Convention

Implementing The Hague Judgments Convention

The Hague Judgments Convention in the United States: A "Game Changer" or a New Path to the Old Game?

N/A

Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

Abstract Specific jurisdiction in the European Union (EU) is in a state of flux. While its theoretical foundation varies among legal systems, the explanatory model in EU law—established by the Brussels Ia Regulation—is the close geographical connection between a dispute’s subject matter and a court. It is believed that the court with such a connection is best positioned to judge the matter. Therefore, Article 7 of the Brussels Ia Regulation allocates jurisdiction over subject matters as broadly defined as contracts and torts to the court of an array of predetermined locations. However, in reality the courts so identified will not always have a close connection to the dispute. Nonetheless, the court of that place has jurisdiction. This article will evaluate the legitimacy of denying a more concrete role to the linkage between a forum and a dispute. It will also contrast the current state of play in the EU with the approach taken in the jurisdictional filters featuring in the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

The Hague Judgments Convention and Mainland China-Hong Kong SAR Judgments Arrangement: Comparison and Prospects for Implementation

Abstract The year 2019 saw the arrival of the Hague Judgments Convention and Mainland China-Hong Kong SAR Judgments Arrangement, which is not a coincidence. Both instruments mark a historical culmination and constitute a milestone, at the global level and the at the level of territorial units within a country respectively. With novelties created to avoid the failures shadowing the past Hague Judgments Project, the 2019 Convention reflects the global trend and maximizes the common grounds countries could agree to, though it still falls short of some longstanding expectations. Similarly, the 2019 Arrangement advances judgment circulation between territorial units within China despite that room for further collaboration is still large. In significant respects, the 2019 Arrangement is heavily modelled on the 2019 Convention, while the Arrangement also addresses special concerns of the two regions. Undeniably, it may be another success for the Convention to be able to influence judgments recognition instruments targeting territorial units within a country and show its model effect. Recent years have witnessed Mainland China’s efforts to promote transboundary movement of judgments and its contribution to the arrival of both the 2019 Convention and Arrangement. As an important global player with increasing ambition of claiming more international presence, China will welcome both instruments and the instruments are expected to fare well as desired.

The 2019 Judgments Convention: The Need for Comprehensive Federal Implementing Legislation and a Look Back at the ALI Proposed Federal Statue

In this short piece, which will eventually be published in a tribute volume to Professor George Bermann, Professor Silberman presents an argument for comprehensive federal legislation to implement the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. To that end, she provides a brief overview of the Convention and offers suggestions for the components of a federal implementing statute. Professor Silberman refers back to the 2005 ALI project (for which she was a co-Reporter) that had proposed a federal statute on judgment recognition, even in the absence of an international Convention. She highlights a number of specific issues on recognition and enforcement that are worthy of federal attention. Professor Silberman points out that the interest of the United States in this Convention is to ensure that U.S. judgments will be enforceable in other countries that were previously hostile to foreign recognition generally and to U.S. judgments in particular. She believes that federal legislation is necessary to establish a uniform regime of recognition and enforcement that will incentivize other countries to join the Convention rather than allowing them to continue to take advantage of liberal recognition/enforcement under state law without necessarily requiring reciprocal treatment.

Some reflections on the way ahead for UK private international law after Brexit

Since 1 January 2021 the UK has moved out of the implementation period for its withdrawal from the European Union (EU) and it is an appropriate time to reflect on the way forward for the UK in developing private international law. This article considers the practical steps that the UK should take in the near future. There is significant work that the UK can do to progress its commitment to the “progressive unification of the rules of private international law” by improving its commitment to the effective functioning of several key Conventions concluded by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). Some of these steps can and should be taken immediately, notably accepting the accessions of other States to the Hague Evidence and Child Abduction Conventions and extending the scope of the UK’s ratification of the Adults Convention to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. Other things require more consultation and time but there are great opportunities to provide leadership in the world by ratifying the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 and, when implementing that Convention which is based on minimum harmonisation, providing leadership in the Commonwealth by implementing, at least to some extent, the Commonwealth Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments. Within the UK, as a demonstration of best constitutional practice, intergovernmental cooperation between the UK Government and the devolved administrations should take place to consider how intra-UK private international law could be reformed learning the lessons from the UK Supreme Court’s highly divided decision in Villiers. Such work should involve the best of the UK’s experts (from each of its systems of law) on private international law from academia, the judiciary and legal practice. Doing so, would avoid accusations that Brexit will see a UK run by generalists who give too little attention and weight to the views of experts. This use of experts should also extend to the UK’s involvement in the future work of HCCH at all levels. The HCCH will only be able to be an effective international organisation if its Members show a commitment to harnessing the talents of experts in the subject within the work of the HCCH.

The 2019 Judgments Convention: The Need for Comprehensive Federal Implementing Legislation and a Look Back at the ALI Proposed Federal Statute

The 2019 Judgments Convention: The Need for Comprehensive Federal Implementing Legislation and a Look Back at the ALI Proposed Federal Statute

2019년 헤이그 재판협약의 주요 내용과 간접관할규정

1992년 미국의 제안에 따라 헤이그국제사법회의 차원에서 전 세계적인 “민사 및 상사의 국제재판관할과 외국재판에 관한 협약”을 성안하기 위한 작업이 개시되었다. 1999년 예비초안이 작성되었으나 조약은 채택되지 못하였고 결국 2005년 “관할합의에 관한 협약”이 채택되었고 이는 2015. 10. 1. 발효되었다. 그 후 민사 또는 상사에서 외국재판의 승인 및 집행에 관한 협약(“재판협약”)이 2019. 7. 2. 채택되었다. 재판협약은 1971년 민사 및 상사의 외국재판의 승인 및 집행에 관한 협약과 같이 직접관할을 규정하지 않는 단일협약이라는 점에서 아쉬움이 있다. 그러나 외국재판의 승인ㆍ집행을 위한 전 세계적 규범체제를 도입하는 점에서 커다란 의미가 있다. 재판협약은 일정한 간접관할의 근거를 충족하는 체약국 재판의 승인 및 집행을 규정하고(제5조), 그의 승인거부사유를 망라적으로 열거한다(제7조). 나아가 재판협약은 일정한 전속관할에 따르는 것을 조건으로 국내법과 다른 조약에 따른 재판의 승인 및 집행을 금지하지 않는다. 재판협약은 직접관할규칙을 담지 못하고, 제외되는 사항이 많아 큰 성공이라고 하기는 어렵지만, 재판협약이 가져올 수 있는 실제적 효용을 고려한다면 그 의미를 박하게 평가할 이유는 없다. 만일 재판협약이 발효되고 미국과 유럽연합이 가입한다면 우리도 당연히 가입해야 할 것이나, 그 전에 가입할지는 더 검토할 필요가 있다. 이를 위하여 재판협약에 대한 깊이 있는 연구가 필요한데, 재판협약에의 가입 여부는 관할합의협약에의 가입 여부와 묶어서 검토해야 한다.<BR> 주지하듯이 한국 민사소송법과 민사집행법은 외국재판의 승인 및 집행에 관하여 선진적 내용을 담고 있고, 법원도 외국재판의 승인ㆍ집행에 대하여 호의적인 태도를 취한다. 따라서 한국이 재판협약 가입을 서두를 이유는 없다. 우선 국제사회의 추이를 지켜보는 한편, 한국의 재판협약 가입이 초래할 변화를 분석ㆍ평가하고, 선언 기타 재판협약 가입과 관련하여 한국이 취할 조치를 면밀히 검토할 필요가 있다. 그 과정에서 우리 법조인들과 법률가들 사이에서도 국제사법 및 국제민사절차법의 중요성에 대한 인식이 확산되기를 희망한다.<BR> 구체적으로 이 글에서 저자는 재판협약의 적용범위와 정의(定義)(Ⅱ.), 외국재판의 승인 및 집행의 기본체제(Ⅲ.), 간접관할의 근거(Ⅳ.), 외국재판의 승인 또는 집행의 거부사유(Ⅴ.) 재판상화해의 집행(Ⅵ.), 외국재판의 승인 및 집행의 절차와 효과 등(Ⅶ.), 일반조항(Ⅷ.), 최종조항(Ⅸ.), 우리 법에의 시사점과 한국의 재판협약 가입과 관련된 문제(Ⅹ.)와 맺음말-재판협약에 대한 평가와 우리가 나아갈 방향(Ⅺ.)의 순서로 논의한다.

2019년 헤이그 재판협약의 우리나라 입법, 해석, 실무에 대한 시사점과 가입방안

민상사의 외국판결의 승인집행에 관한 2019년 협약("2019년 재판협약")은 특정 체약국 거절제도만 적절히 운용되면 2005년 관할합의협약보다 부담이 적을 수 있다. 직접관할을 다루지 않는 단순협약이고, 간접관할의 심사권한에도 제약이 없다. 판결승인집행 거절사유로서의 국제적 이중소송도, 승인국의 선행 중복소송이 승인국과 밀접관련만 가지면 된다. 2005년 관할합의 협약보다 사항적 적용범위가 약간 늘어난 것은 자연스러운 발달이고, 크게 부담되지 않는다. 간접관할규정은 널리 인정되는 것 위주로 규정했고 혁신이 적다. 국가행위 내지 정부 관련 사안의 적용제외와 적용제외선언을 신설했고, 불법행위의 간접관할도 제한적으로만 규정했다. 미확정 종국판결은 승인집행을 미룰 수 있다. 승인집행의 절차도, 그 절차비용의 담보제공의무를 제외하면, 협약이 다루지 않는다.<BR> 외국판결 승인집행에 호의적인 외국법제를 염두에 두고 생각하면, 두 협약 참여의 실익이 적게 여겨질 수도 있다. 그러나 한국보다 외국판결 승인집행에 호의적이지 않은 나라들을 협약 참여로 유도하고, 상호보증 유무확인의 부담을 덜어주는 장점이 클 것이다. 2019년 재판협약 하에서는 2005년 관할합의협약보다 다양한 외국의 판결을 승인집행하게 되므로, 이 혜택이 상당히 클 것이다. 한국판결을 승인집행하는 외국 입장에서도 마찬가지이다.<BR> 한편, 협약이 다루지 않는 부분에서 생기는 변화는 점진적일 것이다. 한국과 어느 외국이 함께 두 협약에 참여한다 하여, 국내법에 의한 승인집행에 관해서도 상호보증이 생기는 것은 아니다. 협약을 적용하면서 체약국 간의 신뢰가 쌓이면, 국내법에 의한 승인집행이 원활해질 수 있다. 국내법의 입법적 개혁이나 양자조약, 지역적 조약의 계기가 제공될 수도 있고, 장차 더 포괄적인 헤이그협약을 교섭하는 기초도 될 수 있다.<BR> 사항별 적용제외선언은 2005년 관할합의협약에서 더 절실하지만, 관할합의가 판결승인집행 단계에서 무효로 판단되더라도 합의법정지국이 2019년 재판협약 소정의 간접관할을 가질 여지가 있다. 그러므로 사항별 적용제외 선언은 두 협약에 공통되는 것이 좋다. 신중히 검토할 필요가 있다.<BR> 협약에 참여하는 수순은, 우선 서명부터 하고, 사항별 적용제외선언 문제를 충분히 검토하여 비준하는 것이 타당하다.<BR> 국내법화의 방식은 국문번역을 붙인 관보 게재로 충분하다. 국제사법 제1장에 외국판결 승인집행에 관한 절(제4절)을 신설하여, 국내법 조문과 국제협약을 지시해도 좋다. 따로 국내시행법을 만들 필요는 없다.<BR> 2019년 재판협약의 국내법에 대한 시사점도 생각해 보아야 한다. 2019년 재판협약이 간접관할규정을 제한적으로 규정한 것은 각국법에 공통된 부분부터 국제협약에 명시하는 취지일 뿐이므로, 국내법상의 관할사유를 반드시 그 한계 내로 좁힐 필요는 없다. 자연인의 직업활동에 관한 주된 사무소 · 영업소 소재지국 일반관할(제5조 제1항 b호)은 새로운 관할사유인데, 우선 개정안의 활동지관할(제4조 제2항), 재산소재지관할(제5조), 동일 피고에 대한 관련사건관할(제6조 제1항)의 작동을 지켜보면서 개정의 필요성을 신중히 검토함이 좋을 것이다. 한편, 신탁의 내부관계에 관한 관할규칙은 원안에서 준거법 소속국 관할을 삭제하고 범용성이 큰 부분만 남긴 것이므로, 개정안에 추가하는 것이 좋다.<BR> 간접관할 외의 승인집행 규정들은 국내법의 해석지침과 입법적 보완의 모델이 될 수 있다. 대부분의 경우에는 협약 규정을 참고하여 국내법을 해석하는 것으로 충분할 것이다. 협약 규정을 모방하여 기존 국내법 규정을 전면 대체할 필요는 없다. 국내법은 간명한 성문법규를 두고 해석에 맡겨도 되지만, 협약에서는 국제적인 통일성을 확보하기 위하여 상세히 규정한 것뿐이기 때문이다. 민사소송법 제217조 제1항 제2호의 송달의 적법성 요건은, 2005년 관할합의협약 제9조 c호 ii와 2019년 재판협약 제7조 제1항 a호 ii를 본받아, 승인국의 근본적 법원칙 위반 여부만 심사하도록 목적론적 축소해석을 하는 것이 좋고, 그렇게 입법적으로 손질해도 좋다. 민사소송법 제217조의2도 비전보적 배상의 승인집행이 항상 배제될 수 있는 취지로 해석되는데, 2005년 협약 제11조와 2019년 협약 제10조처럼 이 점을 문언상 분명히 함이 좋다. 이렇게 하면, 전보적 배상의 과다가 예외적으로 일반유보조항(민사소송법 제217조 제1항 3호)으로 통제가능한 점도 조문체계상 더욱 분명해질 것이다.<BR> 2019년 재판협약에 이어 국제이중소송협약이 논의되고 있다. 그 내용이 어떻게 되는지에 따라 2019년 재판협약의 실제적 의미가 달라질 수 있으므로, 논의에 참여하여 적절히 대응할 필요가 있다.

The 1971 and 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions: Compared and Whether China Would Change Its Attitude Towards The Hague

Abstract Under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, decades of endeavours brought about the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, being the newest achievement and a milestone. Serving the basic modern values of promoting access to justice and facilitating multilateral trade, the 2019 Convention reflects the global trend and maximizes the common grounds countries could agree to. As a historical culmination, the 2019 Convention refers to the experience of the past Hague conventions, in particular the 1971 Convention. On the one hand, the 2019 Convention duplicates the 1971 Convention in significant respects, maintaining its virtues; on the other hand, novelties are created to avoid the failures shadowing the 1971 Convention. Overall, the 2019 Convention is acceptable though it falls short of some long-lasting expectations. Recent years have seen China’s efforts to promote transboundary movement of judgments and its contribution to the arrival of the 2019 Convention. As an important global player with increasing ambition of claiming more international presence, the Convention is expected to fare well in China.

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: New Trends in Trust Management

On its 22nd Diplomatic Session on 2 July 2019, the Hague Conference on Private International Law concluded its Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. The adoption of this Convention completes intense efforts of the HCC and the participating State Parties since 1992. One of the controversial issues in the last steps before the adoption was what has been called, in other contexts, “trust management”. This concept refers to the question how to embark on meaningful judicial cooperation in civil matters with participating states whose administration of justice is perceived as not sufficiently trust-worthy by other participating states – the “real elephant in the room”. At the same time, judicial integration in civil matters is an indispensable part of regulating transnational trade relations. Undoubtedly, international commercial arbitration should have the fullest possible freedom and support. However, without any effective alternative, there is no “alternative” dispute resolution and no “freedom of choice”. Rather, nations and regions, particularly those trading within frameworks of economic integration and thus on an intensified scale, should strive for an “integrated approach”. Against this background, the text explores new trends of trust management of the new HCCH instrument.

The Hague Judgments Convention and How We Negotiated It

Abstract In July 2019, the Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. As an outcome of the Judgments Project, this Convention will exert a great influence on the global circulation of foreign judgments. China attached great importance to the Judgments Project and participated in the full negotiation process. This paper is a reflection of some of the Chinese negotiators’ approaches in handling certain very difficult but important issues in the process, with the hope that it may shed some light on China’s negotiation practice and the principles it adheres to in the international law arena, which are fully in line with the principles of equity and justice, mutual benefit, and win-win outcome.

The Hague 2019 Judgments Convention - from failure to success?

The author discusses the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters adopted on 2 July 2019 by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. After tracing the history of the Convention, the author discusses its scope of application, and concludes that although the scope is relatively narrow, it will in return improve the possibility of a more widespread acceptance of the Convention. The author also finds that the rules of indirect jurisdiction are likely to be acceptable globally. Although most provisions have been inspired by civil law, common law concepts have had a significant impact. The author stresses that the Convention together with the Hague Choice of Court Convention of 30 June 2005 should be taken as “a package”. The author finds that the provisions on recognition and enforcement by and large are uncontroversial, as they to a large extent have been copied from the 2005 Convention. In relation to the possibilities under the Convention for States to deposit declarations and reservations, and to make use of the Convention’s flexible bilateralization mechanism, the author concludes that the Convention is based on political realism making the likelihood of success for the Convention feasible.