Conflictoflaws

The second annual conference of the Australasian Association of Private International Law will be held from Friday 17 to Saturday 18 April at Ashurst’s offices in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, sponsored by Ashurst.

We are pleased to invite the submission of paper proposals for the conference on any aspect of private international law, broadly understood.  This includes issues of jurisdiction, choice of law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (including how they relate to cross-border issues within a federation), and all areas of private law that raise cross-border and transnational issues.

Paper proposals should be made on this form by Friday 30 January 2026. We also welcome panel proposals. Please email m.keyes@griffith.edu.au if you have a proposal for a panel. Proposed presenters on any panel will be required to submit individual paper proposals.

We welcome anyone interested in private international law, including from the judiciary, legal practice, government, and the academy, from any jurisdiction.  Attendees, including presenters, will be required to pay a registration fee. A conference dinner will be held on the evening of Friday 17 April, at an additional cost.

To keep up to date with AAPrIL events, please connect with us on LinkedIn.

You are invited to the next Migration Talk organized by the Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the European Union and in Türkiye by Leyla Kayac?k (Human Rights Expert/ Council of Europe Former Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration and Refugees) on “Border Control & Migration: Safeguarding Fundamental Rights in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”.

Venue: Online via Zoom
Date: 17 December 2025, Wednesday
Time: 12:30 – 13:20 (UTC +3)
The Zoom link shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr

I. Introduction

Reciprocity is probably one of the most discussed requirements in the field of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. While its legitimacy appears to be on the wane (see Béligh Elbalti, “Reciprocity and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: A Lot of Bark but Not Much Bite,” 13 JPIL 1 (2017) 184), reciprocity can still strike hard – particularly when it is applied loosely and without sufficient consideration.

The case presented here, decided by the Egyptian Supreme Court (Appeal No. 11434 of 21 June 2025), provides a good illustration. Despite the Court’s well-established case law imposing certain restrictions on the use of the reciprocity requirement, this recent judgment shows that, when not applied with the necessary rigor, reciprocity can still produce significant effects that undermine the legitimate expectations of the parties.

 

II. Facts

The case concerned the enforcement of a Canadian divorce judgment rendered in Quebec, ordering the appellant (Y) to pay a specified sum of money with interest.

X, in whose favor the judgment was issued, sought to have the Canadian judgment enforced in Egypt. The Court of First Instance rejected the claim. X then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the first-instance judgment and ordered the enforcement of the Canadian decision.

Dissatisfied with this outcome, Y brought an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In support of his appeal, Y argued that the Court of Appeal had ordered the enforcement of the Canadian judgment without establishing the existence of any legislation in Canada permitting the enforcement of Egyptian judgments there, as required under Article 296.

 

III. The Ruling (Summary)

It is established in the case law of this Court that Article 296 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes clear that the rule is founded on the principle of reciprocity or mutual treatment. Accordingly, foreign judgments in Egypt must receive the same treatment that Egyptian judgments receive in the foreign country whose judgment is sought to be enforced. In this respect, the legislature limited the requirement to legislative reciprocity and did not require diplomatic reciprocity established by treaty or convention. The court must ascertain the existence of legislative reciprocity on its own initiative.

In the present case, the Court of Appeal ordered the enforcement of the Canadian decision on the basis that a foreign judgment may be relied upon before Egyptian courts so long as no Egyptian judgment between the same parties on the same matter has been issued and become enforceable, without determining whether any convention exists between Egypt and Canada concerning the enforcement of judgments that provides for reciprocity, as required under Article 296 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This constitutes a violation of the law and requires that the judgment be quashed and the case remanded.

 

IV. Comments

The Court’s decision raises significant concerns.

First, the Supreme Court appears to contradict itself. After reiterating its longstanding position that “diplomatic reciprocity” – that is, reciprocity established through a treaty – is not required under Egyptian law, it nevertheless held that reciprocity with Canada was not established because the Court of Appeal did not determine whether any convention with Canada exists. This is not the first time the Court has adopted such reasoning. In a previous case decided in 2015, the Supreme Court relied on a similar approach when evaluating the enforcement of a Palestinian judgment (Appeal No. 16894 of 4 June 2015). Such reasoning is difficult to reconcile with the Court’s own affirmation that treaty-based reciprocity is irrelevant under Article 296.

Second, the Court’s ruling is inconsistent not only with the prevailing view in the literature (for an overview, see Karim El Chazli, “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions in Egypt,” 15 YBPIL (2013/2014) 400–401), but also with the Court’s prior stance affirming reciprocity on the basis of “legislative reciprocity”. Under this approach, reciprocity exists if, according to the enforcement law of the State of origin, Egyptian judgments would be enforceable there. Indeed, in earlier cases, the Court conducted a comparative analysis of the enforcement requirements under the law of the State of origin and under Egyptian law, and concluded that reciprocity was satisfied when the two sets of requirements were broadly comparable (see, e.g., Appeal No. 1136 of 28 November 1990, admitting reciprocity with Yemen; Appeal No. 633 of 26 February 2011 and Appeal No. 3940 of 15 June 2020, both admitting reciprocity with Palestine). In addition, in some cases involving the recognition or enforcement of judgments rendered in a country with which Egypt has not concluded any international convention, the Supreme Court did not examine the issue of reciprocity as required under Article 296 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor did it invoke it sua sponte as the Court has repeatedly affirmed. Instead, it directly examined the requirements for recognition or enforcement under the conditions laid down in Article 298 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see, e.g., Appeal No. 2014 of 20 March 2003 regarding the enforcement of a New Jersey judgment ordering the payment of damages resulting from breach of contract; Appeals No. 62 and 106 of 25 May 1993 regarding the recognition of a Californian divorce judgment. In both cases, however, recognition and enforcement were rejected, inter alia, on the ground of public policy).

Third, the Court’s stance in this case is likely to create more problems than it solves. Even setting aside the contradiction noted above, the Court gave no indication on how “legislative reciprocity” should be established when the foreign judgment originates from a federated province or a state within a federal system, each having its own autonomous legal regime (on the difficulty of establishing reciprocity emanating from federal states, notably the United States, see Béligh Elbalti, “La Réciprocité en matière de réception des décisions étrangères en droit international privé tunisien – observations critiques de la décision de la Cour d’appel de Tunis n°37565 du 31 janvier 2013” 256/257 Infos Juridiques (mars-2018) 20 (Part I), 258/259, Infos Juridiques (avril-2018) 18 (Part II)).

The situation of Canada is particularly striking. In Quebec, where a civil-law approach prevails in the field of private international law, the rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are comprehensively codified (see Gérald Goldstein, “The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions in Québec,” 15 YBPIL (2013/2014) 291) and differ substantially from those applicable in the common-law provinces (see Geneviève Saumier, “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canadian Common Law Provinces,” 15 YBPIL (2013/2014) 313). If the Court insists on applying the criterion of “legislative reciprocity,” how are Egyptian courts to assess reciprocity in relation to a province such as Quebec? Would it be sufficient that Egyptian judgments are enforceable in another Canadian province where enforcement is governed by common-law principles? Does it matter that, in the common-law provinces, recognition and enforcement are not codified and are largely based on case law? And if, as would be expected, “legislative reciprocity” had to be established by reference to Quebec law, would it be relevant that under Quebec law, reciprocity is not a requirement for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments at all? In this respect, Egyptian courts would be well advised to consider the generous approach followed in Tunisia, whereby the Supreme Court established a presumption in favor of reciprocity, placing the burden on the party challenging enforcement to prove its non-existence (for details, see Béligh Elbalti, “La réciprocité en matière d’exequatur?: Quoi de nouveau?? Observations sous l’arrêt de la Cour de cassation n° 6608 du 13 mars 2014”published in Arab Law Quarterly (2025) as an online-first publication).

Finally, this case, along with several others concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments, illustrates the difficulty of enforcing such judgments in Egypt in the absence of an applicable treaty (for recent examples, see Appeal No. 25178 of 17 November 2024, which rejected the enforcement of an Irish judgment on the ground of public policy, and Appeal No. 3493 of 4 December 2024, which rejected the enforcement of an Austrian judgment because the various conditions laid down in Article 298 were not satisfied. By contrast, where a bilateral convention exists, enforcement is somewhat generally easier (see, e.g., Appeal No. 200 of 14 May 2005, which allowed the enforcement of a French custody judgment pursuant to the bilateral convention between the two countries; but contra, Appeal No. 719 of 8 October 2013, which rejected the enforcement of a similar French judgment).

It must be admitted, however, that the conclusion of such a convention does not necessarily guarantee smoother enforcement (see, for instance, my previous comments on the enforcement of judgments rendered in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, available on this Blog here and here).

The issue of “foreign law” and its application, long considered essential to the functioning of private international law (PIL), continues to trigger interesting discussions and debates.

In this context, Professor Dr. Carlos Esplugues (University of Valencia) has recently published a special course entitled New Dimensions in the Application of Foreign Law by Courts (and Arbitrators) and Non-Judicial Authorities in the Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law – Recueil des cours, Volume 449, which offers new perspectives on this long-discussed topic.

In this course, Prof. Esplugues discusses the traditional state-centred and binary (“domestic vs. foreign”) perspective and views it as outdated. He argues that the application of foreign law cannot be treated as a single, unified reality and that understanding the topic requires a broader, “propedeutic” approach that takes into account the functioning of PIL as a system with internal contradictions, pressures, and limitations.

 

The blurb reads as follows:

Private international law is a field of law that is particularly permeable to its environment. This openness to the outside world has historically manifested itself in the question of the application of foreign law, the answers to which, far from being strictly legal, have also reflected political, economic and geostrategic reasons. Starting from this premise, the course will, firstly, assess the validity of the equation “foreign law = foreign State private law”, based on the triple idea of the reformulation of the role of the State at the national and international levels, the acceptance – even encouragement – by the State of the presence of private providers of legal services, and the reappearance of normative realities outside the State, which enjoy varying degrees of acceptance and sympathy. Second, it analyses the usual incoherence between theoretical positions on the nature of applicable law and their practice in most places in the world. This is done, thirdly, overcoming the traditional US-Eurocentric approach to the subject by opening up the study to the responses of a large number of jurisdictions outside the US and Europe, where the future of the discipline will be decided.

 

The table of contents, in its main lines, is as follows:

 

Introduction. A polymorphic issue requiring a global and asymmetric approach

Chapter I. Beyond the legal discourse: Geopolitics, Private International Law and the admission of foreign law
1. Those early days when PIL did not exist
2. The emergence of the first PIL responses
3. A step further: The development of the principle of comity (and vested rights)
4. The paths diverge: Continental Europe, Anglo-Saxon countries and Ibero-America
5. Diving into the fog: Admitting, as a rule or exception, the possible application of foreign law

Chapter II. The playing field for foreign law: The pier and the quicksand
1. First: The changing terrain for foreign law
2. Second: The end of the State’s judge as the sole actor in the process of applying foreign law
3. Third: The evolving and relative meaning of “application” of foreign “law”
4. A slippery issue and the fluctuating reality of PIL: Not such a beautiful friendship

Chapter III. The nightmare in practice: How is foreign law applied?
1. The application of foreign law by national authorities
2. The system in practice: The link between the treatment of foreign law before national authorities and its legal, factual or hybrid consideration
3. Foreign law before State courts
4. The application of foreign law by State non-judicial authorities
5. A fully particular world: The application of the law governing the substance of the dispute by the arbitrators

Epilogue. The never-ending story . . . until the consolidation of AI?

Bibliography

A symposium on “Judicial Independence and Liberal Democracy Under Threat: The Challenge of Implementing the ELI Mt Scopus Standards on Judicial Independence” will take place from 10 to 12 December 2025 at the University of Nicosia. The event is organised by the Procedural Law Unit in cooperation with the International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace (JIWP) and will be held at the UNESCO Amphitheatre.

For conflict-of-laws scholars, the theme is of direct relevance. The operation of mutual trust, the circulation of judgments and the effectiveness of cross-border cooperation depend upon structurally independent courts capable of delivering fair and impartial justice. Recent developments in several jurisdictions have renewed the discussion on whether systemic deficiencies can undermine recognition and enforcement mechanisms. The symposium aims to examine these questions against the background of the ELI Mt Scopus Standards, which provide a comprehensive framework for assessing judicial independence in both institutional and functional terms.

The Opening Session, chaired by Assistant Professor Nicolas Kyriakides, will include contributions from representatives of the justice ministries of Greece and Cyprus, members of the Cyprus judiciary and parliament, the Cyprus Bar Association, the European Commission and the European Law Institute. Professor Shimon Shetreet, President of JIWP and Co-Reporter of the Mt Scopus Standards, will also address the audience.

The programme subsequently turns to comparative perspectives, with interventions by Marieta Safta, Graham Zellick, Mikhail Antonov, Alexander Trunk, Daniela Piana, Matthias E. Storme and Achilleas Demetriades. A further session on the contemporary role of courts will feature Valentina Pavlicic, Dragana Kolaric, Amnon Reichman, Gralf-Peter Calliess, Christos Clerides, Takis Tridimas and Giuseppe Franco Ferrari.

The afternoon sessions will consider judicial appointments and structural guarantees, with contributions from Fryderyk Zoll, Sophie Turenne, Caroline Expert-Foulquier, Serhii Kravtsov and Stephanie Laulhé Shaelou, followed by a panel on judicial ethics and accountability with Natasa Plavsic, Philippe Jougleux, George Kontis and Andrea Danuser. The final session, addressing judicial independence in democratic governance, will include Ruti Teitel, Martin Sabelli, Haim Sandberg and Hiram Chodosh, with concluding comments by Maimon Schwarzschild and Elina Asimakopoulou.

For those interested in the institutional foundations of private international law, the symposium offers a timely opportunity to revisit the structural assumptions that underpin cross-border judicial cooperation.

The programme is available here: https://www.unic.ac.cy/event/procedural-law-unit-5th-annual-symposium/

To follow the event online, you may watch the YouTube livestream here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQ8sRIRQZs

By Marketa Trimble, Samuel S. Lionel Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Co-Director of the IP Law Concentration, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

It is neither new nor surprising that international treaties affect the design and application of conflict-of-laws rules; not only international conventions on private international law but also other international treaties shape conflicts rules, with human rights treaties being the primary example. But a recent decision concerning the interpretation of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”) could have profound and arguably unprecedented effects on the conflict rules that are applied in intellectual property (“IP”) cases, such as cross-border cases concerning copyright infringement, trademark ownership, and patent licenses.

In July 2025, an arbitration panel decided in a WTO dispute between the European Union and China that the Chinese anti-suit injunction policy that led Chinese courts to issue anti-suit injunctions in disputes involving standard-essential patents violated the TRIPS Agreement (China—Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, WTO, Award of Arbitrators, WT/DS611/ARB25, 21 July 2025). The decision, which concerned the Chinese version of anti-suit injunctions, which are referred to as “behavior preservation orders,” was rendered on appeal from a panel report from April 2025. In the absence of a functioning WTO Appellate Body, the appellate decision was rendered under the alternative Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement that was concluded pursuant to Article 25 of the WTO dispute settlement understanding.

The EU complaint to the WTO in the case was certainly not the first, or the only, attack on anti-suit injunctions that national courts have issued in patent cases in order to stop parties from litigating in parallel in foreign jurisdictions. Opponents of anti-suit injunctions have been successful, for example, in the Paris Court of Appeal and in the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court; these courts found that in the particular cases, U.S. court-issued anti-suit injunctions violated parties’ rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (IPCom GmbH & Co. Kg v. Lenovo (United States) Inc, No 14/2020, Paris Court of Appeal, 3 March 2020; Huawei v. Netgear, UPC, Munich Local Division, Order of 11 December 2024, File No. ACT_65376-2024 UPC_CFI_791-2024). But while the effects of those decisions have been limited and focused on anti-suit injunctions, the arbitral panel decision in the WTO case could have much wider implications.

The arbitral panel in the WTO case found that TRIPS Agreement Article 1.1, according to which WTO “[m]embers shall give effect to the provisions of [the TRIPS] Agreement,” creates a corollary obligation for WTO members “to do so without frustrating the functioning of the systems of protection and enforcement of IP rights implemented by other Members in their respective territories.” Because the anti-suit injunctions policy at issue affected the patent holders’ ability to enforce their rights that WTO member countries provided for in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement, the panel held that the policy violated the TRIPS Agreement. The panel acknowledged that “the TRIPS Agreement does not address issues of private international law,” but concluded that “the TRIPS Agreement … requires that Members not frustrate the effective protection of trade-related IP rights in the territories of other Members.” It explained that “[t]he provisions of the TRIPS Agreement would be rendered inoperative if Members were allowed to frustrate the implementation by other Members of their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.”

Although the arbitral panel decision concerns anti-suit injunctions in patent cases, its reasoning raises the question whether the panel’s interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement could affect the application of other conflict-of-laws rules and affect the rules in any cases involving IP rights covered by the Agreement. Anti-suit injunctions are not the only means through which conflicts rules can impact the ability of a foreign country to protect the IP rights that the foreign country provides. Justiciability of foreign IP rights violations allows courts to adjudicate IP rights infringements arising under foreign countries’ laws, which foreign countries could perceive as depriving their own courts of the opportunity to vindicate the countries’ IP law violations and preventing the countries from fulfilling their obligation to “give effect to the provisions of [the TRIPS] Agreement.” Choice-of-law rules that direct courts to apply the law of the forum to remedies in cases of foreign IP rights infringements could also be viewed as diminishing or frustrating foreign countries’ protection of their IP rights, and any denials of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments concerning foreign IP rights, which might, for instance, be because of their repugnancy with the public policy of the recognizing court’s forum, clearly frustrate foreign countries’ enforcement and protection of their IP rights.

A pessimistic reading of the decision could lead to the conclusion that the arbitral panel’s interpretation forecloses the application of many principles and rules of conflict of laws that assist or could assist in the cross-border litigation of IP cases. In the past two decades, teams of conflicts & IP law scholars in the United States, Europe, and Asia have proposed sets of conflicts principles and rules that would overcome strictly territorial approaches to IP rights enforcement and promote greater flexibility in cross-border IP litigation, such as wider justiciability of foreign IP rights violations, greater numbers of courts with broader jurisdiction over IP disputes, concentrations of proceedings of related causes of action concerning IP rights in different countries, and the application of a single country’s law for ubiquitous (such as online) IP rights infringements. Among the several proposals, the projects by the American Law Institute, the European Max Planck Group, and the International Law Association have been the most detailed. Much of this work could now seem to be to no avail in light of the arbitral panel’s interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement.

An optimistic reading of the arbitral panel decision could offer support for the current conflicts principles and rules, and at least for some of the principles and rules proposed by the projects. Conflicts rules should support collaboration among courts in their enforcement of each other’s national laws, including IP laws, and thus contribute to countries meeting their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. For example, justiciability of foreign IP rights violations can frustrate the ability of foreign courts to adjudicate violations in their jurisdictions, but in some cases, the justiciability rule can pave the way for the only available avenue for effective enforcement of the rights, such as when a rights holder can afford to litigate only once, and a concentration of proceedings, facilitated by the rules of justiciability, of parallel violations of IP rights under multiple countries’ laws provides the only realistic possibility for a rights holder to enforce his rights. Certainly, any rules that aim to maximize the recognizability and enforceability of foreign judgments in IP cases should be consistent with a requirement that a foreign country’s ability to “give effect to the provisions of [the TRIPS] Agreement” not be frustrated.

Not all conflicts rules, and not the rules in all circumstances, will live up to the corollary obligation that the arbitral panel identified in Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Detailed analyses should study the compliance of different conflicts rules with the obligation, and also contemplate the role that the rules might play in achieving the overall goals of the TRIPS Agreement when a foreign country’s IP laws and/or judgments do not comply with the Agreement. Rules such as the public policy exception and internationally mandatory rules might pose interesting questions in this regard.

The durability of the arbitral panel’s interpretation is unclear; because it is a product of the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, the arbitral panel’s decision is binding only on the parties and is not precedential for all WTO members, and future decisions within the WTO dispute settlement could produce other interpretations. For now, the interpretation by the arbitral panel suggests that courts should be looking closely at the TRIPS Agreement when addressing conflict-of-laws issues in cross-border IP cases.

Registration is open for the book launch celebrating the publication of The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Commentary, to be held in hybrid format in The Hague on 11 December 2025 from 1.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. (CET). The book launch will coincide with the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention.

The book launch will consist of two session. In the first session, the authors and discussants will explore selected chapters of the book. Brooke Marshall (University of Oxford) and Stefanie Francq (Catholic University of Louvain) will discuss the manifest injustice and public policy exception in Article 6 of the Convention; Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University) and Fausto Pocar (University of Milan) will discuss declarations under Articles 21 and 22 and accommodating multiple legal systems; and Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg, EAPIL) and Adrian Briggs KC (University of Oxford) will discuss the law applicable to the issue of consent to choice of court agreements. The second session of the event will discuss the practical operation of the Convention and the practical application of the text, with the participation of Delphia Lim (Ministry of Law of Singapore), Colin Seouw (Colin Seouw Chambers LLC), and Anselmo Reyes (Singapore International Commercial Court). Dr Christophe Bernasconi (HCCH) will provide opening remarks, and Melissa Ford (HCCH) will moderate the discussions.

For more information, and to register, please visit: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/choice-of-court/hcch-book-launch

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).

The fourth issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025 has recently been published.  It contains the following articles, cases notes and book review.

Michael Howard, “The True History of the Origin of the Mareva Injunction or Freezing Order”

Fifty years ago, in 1975, a revolutionary innovation occurred in English procedural law, the introduction of what is officially named the freezing injunction, formerly and to some extent even now known as the Mareva injunction. It was the consequence of two decisions of the Commercial Court, the Karageorgis and Mareva cases. The thesis of this article, lightly camouflaged, is that these cases and this change were brought about by a combination of four factors which are present in most such developments of the common law: the personal, the institutional, the technical legal and the accidental. It is an attempt to present all of them and to show that the first and particularly the last were disproportionately large contributors.

Masood Ahmed, “State Immunity and the New York Convention”

 

Adrian Briggs, “Book Review of Hong Kong Private International Law” (by Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes)

 

My views

I  read the interesting—but in my view unconvincing—critical review by Emeritus Professor Adrian Briggs of “Private International Law in Hong Kong” (by Wilson Lui and Anselmo Reyes). My reading of the review is that Briggs laments the authors’ limited engagement with English sources, suggesting that because Hong Kong’s private international law is not as fully developed as Singapore’s, English texts and cases should operate as gap-fillers.

I take a different view. I am pleased to see Asian private international law scholars asserting a more autonomous and context-sensitive approach to developing their conflict-of-laws rules. That intellectual independence is healthy for the discipline, and it is precisely the direction I believe African private international law should pursue.

 

 

On Friday, December 5, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST). Dr. Béligh Elbalti (Osaka University) will speak, in English, about the topic

“The Double Face of Private International Law: Reconsidering Its Colonial Entanglements”

In its general discourse, private international law (conflict of laws) is often presented as a discipline grounded in principles such as sovereignty, the equality of states, and comity. Its defining traits are said to flow from this premise of equality between legal orders, including its claim to neutrality, its pursuit of international harmony in cross-border cases, and its role in coordinating diverse legal systems. However, it is striking that private international law developed in an international context marked by domination, inequality, and subordination, a context that challenged the very premises on which the discipline claimed to rest.

Within this broader context, private international law appears to have played a dual role. On the one hand, it served as an instrument of colonial domination, particularly by denying its foundational premises to legal systems not regarded as “civilized”. In these contexts, instead of applying the ordinary methods of private international law, alternative mechanisms were employed to manage foreignness, most notably through systems of extraterritoriality – whether in the form of consular jurisdiction, mixed courts, or foreign courts operating in colonized or semi-colonized territories. On the other hand, private international law also functioned as an instrument for restoring sovereignty and achieving independence. The abolition and dismantling of extraterritorial regimes required colonized and semi-colonized states to meet the substantive and institutional conditions considered necessary for recognition as a “civilized nation”. This included, among other reforms, the establishment of a functioning system of private international law, alongside the adoption of substantive and procedural legal frameworks that guaranteed equal rights and protection for foreigners.

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

by Dr Georgia Antonopoulou (University of Birmingham) and Dr Ekaterina Pannebakker (Leiden University)

On 14 May 2026, the roundtable Bridging Jurisdictions: Rethinking Commercial Conflicts of Laws 10 Years After Brexit will take place at the University of Birmingham, in the UK. This roundtable will focus on highlighting cooperation opportunities in commercial conflicts of laws between the United Kingdom and the EU in light of current developments including jurisdictional competition, digitisation, sustainability, and international sanctions. The roundtable will feature policymakers and internationally renowned scholars.

We invite submissions of draft articles from researchers and academics, especially at their early stages of their careers, on private international law in the aftermath of the Brexit. The applications should be in English. Kindly email your application to Dr E. Pannebakker (e.s.pannebakker@law.leidenuniv.nl) and Dr G. Antonopoulou (g.antonopoulou@bham.ac.uk). The submissions should include:

• an abstract (max. 200 words);
• a draft or a detailed outline of the contribution (max. 5,000 words);
• a bio/curriculum vitae of the author (max. 2 pages long).

The deadline for submission is 1 February 2026. The selected participants will be notified by the end of February 2026.

During the roundtable, the selected participants will give a presentation of their articles and then receive feedback. Accepted papers will be considered for publication in an edited special journal issue in an international review. The roundtable will cover reasonable costs of travel, accommodation, and meals for the selected participants.

Possible topics include:

• Jurisdictional competition including arbitration and international commercial courts;
• PIL in the United Kingdom post-Brexit;
• The impact of digitisation on private international law (applicable law and/or jurisdiction);
• Sustainability and private international law;
• The impact of trade sanctions on private international law.

We particularly welcome applications from underrepresented groups. Special consideration will be given to female participants vested with childcare and/or other domestic responsibilities.

This project has received funding from the Birmingham – Leiden universities Strategic Collaboration Fund.

We are looking forward to receiving your application!

         

The next session of the conference series European Dialogue on Civil Procedural Law will take place (online) on Thursday, 4 December 2025, from 13:00 to 17:00 (CET), under the theme “Recent Developments on Brussels Ibis”.

The event is organised by Dr. habil. Balázs Arató, PhD, Prof. Dr. Thomas Garber, Prof. Dr. Katharina Lugani and Prof. Dr. Matthias Neumayr.

The Brussels I bis Regulation, together with its parallel instrument, the Lugano Convention, forms the core of European civil procedure law. Events in this series serve to promote dialogue among Member States and with third countries, thereby strengthening and improving the integration and efficiency of European legal instruments. The interim online conference on 4 December 2025 will feature country reports from four legal systems and two presentations on current topics relating to the Brussels Ia Regulation. The event is aimed at academics and practitioners alike. We look forward to a lively exchange.

The speakers are :

• Dr. habil. Balázs Arató, PhD, Budapest, Hungary
• Dr. Caterina Benini, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy
• Assoc.-Prof. Dr. Eva Dobrovolná, Ph.D., LL.M., Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
• Prof. Dr. Étienne Farnoux, University of Strasbourg, France, seconded to the Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Lebanon
• Prof. Dr. Thomas Garber, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
• Prof. Dr. Katharina Lugani, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany
• Prof. Dr. Robert Magnus, University of Bayreuth, Germany
• Assoc.-Prof. Dr. Martina Melcher, M.Jur, University of Graz, Austria
• Prof. Dr. Matthias Neumayr, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
• Prof. Dr. Anna Nylund, University of Bergen, Norway

The flyer for the event can be found here.

Please register here.

Participation is free of charge.

HCCH Monthly Update: November 2025

 

Conventions & Instruments

On 5 November 2025, Algeria deposited its instrument of accession to the 1961 Apostille Convention. With the ratification of Argentina, the Convention now has 58 Contracting Parties. With the accession of Algeria, the 1961 Apostille Convention now has 128 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Algeria on 9 July 2026. More information is available here.

On 27 November 2025, Monaco deposited its instrument of accession to the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. With the accession of Monaco, 38 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. The Convention will enter into force for Monaco on 1 March 2026. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

From 10 to 14 November 2025, the Working Group (WG) on Parentage / Surrogacy met for the fifth time. Pursuant to its mandate, the WG continued its consideration of draft provisions for one new instrument on legal parentage generally, including legal parentage following an international surrogacy arrangement, and finalised its report for the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the HCCH. More information is available here.

From 11 to 14 November 2025, the Permanent Bureau (PB) of the HCCH organised a series of events at COP30 in Brazil, partnering with the Latin American Climate Lawyers Initiative for Mobilizing Action and the Ministério Público Federal of Brazil. More information is available here.

From 18 to 20 November 2025, the Experts’ Group (EG) on Digital Tokens met for the second time. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG made further progress on the study of the private international law issues raised by digital tokens. More information is available here.

On 20 November 2025, the PB of the HCCH hosted HCCH a|Bridged – Edition 2025, dedicated to the 2019 Judgments Convention. International experts convened to discuss the Convention’s potential impact and champion its wider adoption. More information is available here.

On 25 November 2025, the third meeting of the WG established to finalise the Model Forms pertaining to Chapter II of the 1970 Evidence Convention was held online, hosted by the PB of the HCCH. More information is available here.

On 26 November 2025, the Working Party on Cross-Border Family Mediation in the Context of the Malta Process met online. More information is available here.

 

Other Developments

The PB of the HCCH has launched a public consultation on the Draft Text of a possible new convention on parallel proceedings and related actions, to be held from 18 November 2025 to 26 January 2026. Experts, practitioners and judges from diverse legal traditions with experience in cross-border litigation and private international law more broadly are encouraged to participate in the consultation. More information is available here.

 

Upcoming Events

Registration is open for the book launch celebrating the publication of The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: A Commentary, to be held in hybrid format on 11 December 2025 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. (CET). More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

Bilkent University Faculty of Law and Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the EU and in Türkiye cordially invite you to submit abstracts for the International Conference on Legal Aspects of Migration Management to be held at Bilkent University on 6-7 March 2026.

The Conference aims to give the opportunity to researchers who would like to present their theoretical or empirical research on the development of policy, legislative and administrative responses to key migration issues.

We particularly encourage submissions on the questions of evolution of the international legal regime relating to migration; the right of asylum and asylum procedures; border management; sustainability and migration; circular migration; protection of unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups; effects of digitalisation on migration; externalization of migration policies, recognition of personal status; migrants’ access to fundamental rights and durable solutions. Proposals involving comparative perspectives of international, European and national approaches are most welcome.

Abstracts (max. 500 words) (in English or in Turkish) should be sent to migration@bilkent.edu.tr by 5 January 2026.

Detailed information shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr

 

Written by Dr. Zihao Fan (Peking University Law School)

On 14 November 2025, the annual survey Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2024 (“the 2024 Survey”) was published in the Chinese Journal of International Law (Oxford University Press, Vol. 24(4)). This survey continues the long-running series of yearly reports, now in its twelfth year since 2013, and it remains an indispensable resource documenting China’s development in private international law for an international audience. The Survey is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/24/4/jmaf031/8321298?login=true

1. Content and Focus of the 2024 Survey

The 2024 Survey covers six areas: an overview, civil subjects, jurisdiction, choice of law, international judicial assistance, and international arbitration and judicial review. Its characteristics are as follows:

First, the Survey follows the structure of previous years, summarising original materials without providing commentary.

Second, it further streamlines case facts and extracts core viewpoints. It covers two revised laws, one treaty approved by the Chinese government, three new and three revised administrative regulations, three judicial interpretations, seven batches of Supreme People’s Court (SPC) case reports, forty-three directly relevant typical cases, one SPC Work Report, and other official information and media sources.

Third, it focuses on several key issues:

• Ascertainment of extraterritorial law. In recent years, China has not only established multiple ascertainment centres, but the SPC has also issued specialised judicial interpretations and typical cases. Local courts have introduced rules relating to the ascertainment of foreign law, and many local courts and foreign-law ascertainment centres have published dedicated reports. These achievements have placed China’s judicial practice in foreign-law ascertainment genuinely “at the forefront” internationally.
• Jurisdiction in anti-monopoly cases and the application of the appropriate-connection principle became focal points of Chinese private international law practice during the year.
• Choice of law in contracts. SPC Reply Regarding the Validity of an Agreement Entered into by a Hong Kong or Macao-Funded Enterprise Registered in the Mainland Part of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to Choose the Law of Hong Kong or Macao as the Applicable Law for Contracts or to Designate Hong Kong or Macao as the Place of Arbitration represents a significant breakthrough: two Mainland parties may choose Hong Kong or Macau law and may designate Hong Kong or Macau as the place of arbitration.
• Judicial review of arbitration. The SPC selected fifteen typical cases concerning judicial review of arbitration, including cases supporting the further development of Hong Kong arbitration, which is of positive significance.

Fourth, the 2024 Survey also covers other matters, including representative offices of foreign enterprises and foreign law firms in China. Notably, provisions allowing for the extraterritorial application of Chinese law are becoming increasingly common, and the securities-law field witnessed the first case in which a court exercised jurisdiction based on such a provision.

1. Abstract of the 2024 Survey

The Survey provides the following abstract:

The 2024 survey of the Chinese practices in private international law highlights five aspects: First, in terms of legislative developments, two revised laws, three new and three revised administrative regulations, three judicial interpretations, were adopted. The Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) also issued seven groups of 43 typical cases. Additionally, China ratified the Agreement on Judicial Assistance and Cooperation in Civil or Commercial Matters with Saudi Arabia. Second, Chinese courts concluded substantial numbers of international cases: 26,000 foreign-related civil and commercial cases, 34,000 maritime cases and 18,000 commercial arbitration judicial review cases. Third, regarding jurisdiction, Chinese courts for the first time applied the appropriate connection approach under Article 276(2) of the Civil Procedure Law. In civil monopoly cases, both the SPC’s new judicial interpretation and selected cases confirmed that jurisdiction follows tort and contract rules. Fourth, regarding choice of law, foreign law ascertainment remains prominent, with Chinese courts demonstrating increased efforts to research and apply foreign laws through numerous reports, cases and rules. Finally, regarding arbitration, the SPC released six typical cases supporting the arbitration in Hong Kong and a Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration. In the Report, the SPC identified three cases involving public policy to illustrate the application scope while maintaining strict application standards.

III. Core Rationale of the Survey Series

Since 2013, the English-language annual Survey of Chinese private international law practice has centred on developments in Chinese private international law, reviewing both institutional developments and judicial practice. It covers conflict of laws, uniform substantive law, international civil procedure, international commercial arbitration, and international commercial mediation. This structure is common to all editions, though specific emphases vary each year.

Between 2013 and 2024, the series has addressed twelve SPC Work Reports, twenty-nine laws, thirteen administrative regulations, seventy-six judicial-interpretation-type documents, and 307 cases.

It is noteworthy that Chinese courts adjudicate more than 45,000 foreign-related civil, commercial and maritime cases each year. Most cases included in the Survey are selected by the team after extensive review of large numbers of judgments available on China Judgments Online and Peking University’s legal database, with the intention of identifying representative examples.

By providing original materials—including legislative and regulatory developments and case law—the series traces the evolution of China’s foreign-related civil and commercial legal system and judicial practice. The author aims to “tell the story of China’s foreign-related rule of law in an international language”, using a documentary style that enables domestic and international readers to appreciate China’s progress in this field.

Originally posted here Current Research in Private International Law at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

• Date: Dec 5, 2025
• Time: 11:00 AM (Local Time Germany)
• Location: online

About the speaker
Béligh Elbalti is a Professor at the Graduate School of Law and Politics, Osaka University. He is the author of numerous academic publications, primarily in the field of private international law, including blog posts on conflictoflaws.net. His research focuses on the development of private international law at both the national and international levels, with particular emphasis on Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

About the Topic
In its general discourse, private international law (conflict of laws) is often presented as a discipline grounded in principles such as sovereignty, the equality of states, and comity. Its defining traits are said to flow from this premise of equality between legal orders, including its claim to neutrality, its pursuit of international harmony in cross-border cases, and its role in coordinating diverse legal systems. However, it is striking that private international law developed in an international context marked by domination, inequality, and subordination, a context that challenged the very premises on which the discipline claimed to rest.

Within this broader context, private international law appears to have played a dual role. On the one hand, it served as an instrument of colonial domination, particularly by denying its foundational premises to legal systems not regarded as “civilized”. In these contexts, instead of applying the ordinary methods of private international law, alternative mechanisms were employed to manage foreignness, most notably through systems of extraterritoriality – whether in the form of consular jurisdiction, mixed courts, or foreign courts operating in colonized or semi-colonized territories. On the other hand, private international law also functioned as an instrument for restoring sovereignty and achieving independence. The abolition and dismantling of extraterritorial regimes required colonized and semi-colonized states to meet the substantive and institutional conditions considered necessary for recognition as a “civilized nation”. This included, among other reforms, the establishment of a functioning system of private international law, alongside the adoption of substantive and procedural legal frameworks that guaranteed equal rights and protection for foreigners.

About the Virtual Workshop Series
The virtual workshop series “Current Research in Private International Law” is organised by Ralf Michaels and Philomena Hindermann. The series features guest speakers and Institute staff members who present and discuss their work on current developments and research topics in private international law. The workshops are geared to scholars who are researching in the field of private international law, but attendance is open to all individuals having an academic interest (including doctoral candidates and students).

The virtual lecture will be held as a video conference via Zoom. Please register no later than Thursday, 4 December 2025 using this LINK.

You will receive the login details on Thursday afternoon. If you do not receive an email containing the login data, please check your spam folder as well.

This Thursday, the University of Augsburg will be hosting a talk

by Yuko Nishitani (University of Kyoto)

on Colonialism and (International) Family Law from a Japanese Perspektive
(Kolonialismus und Familienrecht aus japanischer Sicht)

27 November 2025, 12pm noon GMT
(= 1pm in Germany / 9pm in Japan)

The talk will be given in German, followed by a discussion.
Everyone interested is warmly invited to join via this Zoom link.

An international conference focusing on the EU Succession Regulation (“EU Succession Regulation: A Decade in Application”) will take place in Warsaw on December 9, 2025. Hosted by the Institute of Justice in Warsaw, the event will comprehensively assess the first decade of the Regulation’s application, highlighting its impact and future challenges.

Organised by Professor Piotr Rylski and Professor Bartosz Wolodkiewicz, the conference will bring together representative of legal professions and scholars from various parts of European Union, to discuss key aspects of the Regulation.

The morning session will feature a roundtable addressing the achievements and future challenges in the application of the EU Succession Regulation. Participants in the roundtable include, among others, Professor Andrea Bonomi (University of Lausanne), Professor Maciej Zachariasiewicz (Kozminski University, Poland), and Dr. iur. Marcin Margonski (Notary in Krapkowice, Poland).

The subsequent panels will feature Professor Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) and Professor Louis Perreau Saussine (Paris Dauphine University – PSL), who will discuss the scope and interplay of the EU Succession Regulation with other instruments and international conventions.

The application of jurisdiction rules will be discussed by, inter alia, Professor Jacopo Re and Professor Lenka Válková from the University of Milan.

The panel dedicated to applicable law will feature a presentation delivered by Professor Jens Kleinschmidt (Trier University), followed by a commentary by Dr. Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University in Kraków).

The conference will conclude with a panel on recognition, enforcement, and the European Certificate of Succession, featuring inter alia Alice Perscha (Civil Law Notary in Leoben, Austria) and Professor Bartosz Wolodkiewicz (University of Warsaw).

More information, including the conference program, can be found here.

Live broadcast of the event (without registration) will be available at the main page of the Institute.

Participation in person (free-of-charge) for a limited number of interested guests is also possible. Please register by contacting the Institute at: konferencje@iws.gov.pl

A new book Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initative: Private International Law Considerations edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dr Sai Ramani Garimella has now been released by Routledge.

This book is a sequel to the book China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law which was published by Routledge in 2018.

Here is the publisher’s blurb:

“This book covers new legal developments of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and assesses how litigation may be organised to enforce and compensate for defaults for its related initiatives.

This book is structured into five themes, consisting of essays which assess the decade of BRI’s existence in the context of international economic engagement and the rule of law, private international law, dispute resolution mechanisms – including mediation and judgment mobility. The chapters in the book strike new ground and cover recent developments such as the establishment of China’s International Commercial Court, engagements in multiple Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) construction and investment projects.

The book will be of interest to researchers, academics, policymakers and students interested in private international law issues pertaining to the OBOR routes as well as private international law in general, Asian studies and the politics of international trade”.

The table of contents and contributors include:

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Current Developments of the One Belt One Road Project and the Emerging Private International Law Issues

Dilini Pathirana: Sri Lanka’s Loan Agreements with China under the BRI: A Reflection of Selected Infrastructure Project-Related Loans

Atul Alexander: China and Foreign State Immunity Law: Legal Implications on State-Owned Entities

Mark McLaughlin: Global Standards, Local Realities: An Analysis of Singapore Convention on Mediation in the Context of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises

Zhengxin Huo: China’s International Commercial Court and Their Operation

Beligh Elbalti: Choice of Law in Contracts and Foreign Law before MENA Arab Courts from the Perspective of Belt and Road Initiative

Anna Wysocka-Bar: Circulation of Judgments Between EU Member States and China: A Path Through Complicated Framework Examined on the Example of Poland

Nobumichi Teramura: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese judgments in Cambodia: Uncertain Foundations of the Rigid Reciprocity Standard in Cambodian Law

Jie (Jeanne) Huang: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese Judicially Confirmed Mediation Decisions Abroad: The Challenges of Finality

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit: Private International Law Dimensions of Blockchain-Based Bills of Lading

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Conclusion and Reflection

The book can be ordered directly from Routledge: https://www.routledge.com/Legal-Challenges-of-Chinas-One-Belt-One-Road-Initiative-Private-International-Law-Considerations/Sooksripaisarnkit-Garimella/p/book/9781032805733

Anyone can use the below discount code to obtain 20% discount (available until 31st March 2026:

The editors are in the process of planning a book launch event (online). Currently, it is scheduled on 26th January 2026 between 8:00 -9:00 p.m (Australian Eastern Daylight Time). Further details will be announced once the full programme of event is available.

 

 

This week, the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL) is co-hosting a free online seminar on ‘Jurisdiction Agreements in International Family Litigation’, to be presented by Professor Mary Keyes of Griffith University.

The seminar will be held online and in-person at UniSQ, Toowoomba, Queensland.  The details are:

Online (Zoom): Wednesday 26 November 2025, 12.30 to 1.30pm AEST.* 

In-person: Wednesday 26 November 2025, 12.30 to 1.30pm AEST, Wonderley & Hall Moot Court, Room Q420, Toowoomba Campus, University of Southern Queensland.

Please register by the details in the attached flyer:

Flyer_UniSQ and AAPrIL Seminar 2025-4

*Note the times given are in Australian Eastern Standard Time (UTC+10).

This note was kindly prepared by Dr. Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit.

 

A new book Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initative: Private International Law Considerations edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dr Sai Ramani Garimella has now been released by Routledge.

This book is a sequel to the book China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law which was published by Routledge in 2018.

Here is the publisher’s blurb:

“This book covers new legal developments of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and assesses how litigation may be organised to enforce and compensate for defaults for its related initiatives.

This book is structured into five themes, consisting of essays which assess the decade of BRI’s existence in the context of international economic engagement and the rule of law, private international law, dispute resolution mechanisms – including mediation and judgment mobility. The chapters in the book strike new ground and cover recent developments such as the establishment of China’s International Commercial Court, engagements in multiple Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) construction and investment projects.

The book will be of interest to researchers, academics, policymakers and students interested in private international law issues pertaining to the OBOR routes as well as private international law in general, Asian studies and the politics of international trade”.

 

The table of contents and contributors include:

 

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Current Developments of the One Belt One Road Project and the Emerging Private International Law Issues

Dilini Pathirana: Sri Lanka’s Loan Agreements with China under the BRI: A Reflection of Selected Infrastructure Project-Related Loans

Atul Alexander: China and Foreign State Immunity Law: Legal Implications on State-Owned Entities

Mark McLaughlin: Global Standards, Local Realities: An Analysis of Singapore Convention on Mediation in the Context of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises

Zhengxin Huo: China’s International Commercial Court and Their Operation

Beligh Elbalti: Choice of Law in Contracts and Foreign Law before MENA Arab Courts from the Perspective of Belt and Road Initiative

Anna Wysocka-Bar: Circulation of Judgments Between EU Member States and China: A Path Through Complicated Framework Examined on the Example of Poland

Nobumichi Teramura: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese judgments in Cambodia: Uncertain Foundations of the Rigid Reciprocity Standard in Cambodian Law

Jie (Jeanne) Huang: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese Judicially Confirmed Mediation Decisions Abroad: The Challenges of Finality

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit: Private International Law Dimensions of Blockchain-Based Bills of Lading

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Conclusion and Reflection

 

The book can be ordered directly from Routledge: https://www.routledge.com/Legal-Challenges-of-Chinas-One-Belt-One-Road-Initiative-Private-International-Law-Considerations/Sooksripaisarnkit-Garimella/p/book/9781032805733

 

Anyone can use the below discount code to obtain 20% discount (available until 31st March 2026:

The editors are in the process of planning a book launch event (online). Currently, it is scheduled on 26th January 2026 between 8:00 -9:00 p.m (Australian Eastern Daylight Time). Further details will be announced once the full programme of event is available.